Brooks and Capehart on Blanche's stalled nomination and Trump's 'anti-weaponization fund'

Geoff Bennett:

Now, to discuss Todd Blanche's stalled confirmation to be attorney general, turmoil inside the Democratic National Committee and more, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's "The Atlantic"'s David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW.

Good evening, gentlemen.

Jonathan Capehart:

Geoff.

David Brooks:

Good evening.

Geoff Bennett:

So we have been tracking the nomination of Todd Blanche to serve as attorney general. President Trump now says he might just simply withdraw Blanche's nomination and bring him back after Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis are gone.

And that's because those Republicans are demanding assurances that this $1.8 billion fund to compensate Trump allies who believe they were wrongfully prosecuted, they want that fund to be no more.

David, what does it say that the president is apparently willing to sacrifice his attorney general's confirmation, rather than make concessions on this settlement fund?

David Brooks:

All hail the king. The government is there to serve the president, not to serve the government.

And so he wants that $1.8 million slush fund. He also...

Geoff Bennett:

Billion. Billion-dollar.

David Brooks:

Billion. Sorry. Sorry. I was only counting my share.

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

But he also wants immunity from prosecution from the IRS, and that's the key, because he's made boatloads of money, even in the millions, and to quote whatever the -- never mind.

But -- so he wants that. And he's got this story in his head, which is like the core of his identity these days. He was robbed of the 2020 election, the January 6 people were perfectly nice people, and the prosecutions that he endured in his years out of power were the deep state going after him. And that's central to his identity, and that's going to always be the priority.

Geoff Bennett:

Is this an institutional line being drawn by these Republican senators, or is this just two lame-duck senators now with enough leverage to gum up the works over this issue that they feel deeply about?

Jonathan Capehart:

I think both things can be true at the same time. Maybe their spine was stiffened by the fact that they are lame ducks, but I am glad that they now have spines.

Before I went on vacation, and the hearings had happened, and I just thought, by the time I get back, Todd Blanche will have been confirmed because the YOLO caucus will fold again, and Tillis and Cornyn and all these folks won't follow through on their very strong convictions.

And yet here we are. They're standing true and they're standing strong, and I applaud them for it. I just hope that more folks join them in other spheres of what the administration is trying to do. And I do think it's either Cornyn -- Senator Cornyn or Tillis who is saying, it's not just us when it comes to the -- and let's be clear, the $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund, because they're real cute with the numbers in a 250th year.

That there are other people, other Republican senators who are not down with this and are basically using Tillis and Cornyn as their, like, human shields.

Geoff Bennett:

Let's talk about the Democrats, because the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, is moving forward with this plan to put South Carolina first in the party's 2028 presidential primary calendar, followed by Nevada and New Hampshire. This still requires full DNC approval.

And it comes as the DNC faces broader questions about its direction under DNC Chair Ken Martin. You have got internal management issues, weak fund-raising. And, David, Democrats have bet spent the better part of two years saying they want something different from the party.

Is there this disconnect between the Democratic base demanding change and a Democratic establishment that still seems most comfortable with the structures and constituencies of the Biden era?

David Brooks:

I like the fact that all of Washington went into a tizzy because Ken Martin, the DNC chair, threw a phone at somebody. And I was thinking back to my early editors when I was a Chicago journalist.

Like, if somebody had thrown a phone, that would have been the nicest thing anybody said to me that week.

(Laughter)

Geoff Bennett:

It was just another day.

David Brooks:

But there are a couple things going on here.

One, since I was a baby, the DNC has been trying to build an infrastructure at the state party level. And for some reason it just never seems to happen. And Ken Martin invested a lot of money in trying to do that, and now they're in debt. And so that's a big problem.

I think the two bigger problems, one, which you alluded to in the question., there's just no imagination coming out of the D.C. Democrats. At least the DSA people are saying something new. And, second, they're overvaluing money. Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Money is not the be-all and end-all of politics. Once you hit a threshold, the money barely does anything. And so, as usual, they're overfixating on the money and they're underfixating on having a new message.

Geoff Bennett:

How do you see it, Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:

The DNC has not been sort of the face of the Democratic Party for a few cycles now.

And for folks to think that the problems at the DNC and with Ken Martin are emblematic of the party as a whole haven't really been paying attention. The money woes of the DNC have nothing to do with the tons of cash that's being raised by Minority Leader Jeffries, by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, by all these various PACs that are around the country, Democratic-leaning PACs, simply because the DNC has proven, has shown itself to not be very effective.

And to David's point, both Hillary Clinton and, more importantly, Kamala Harris raised tons of money, billions of dollars Senator -- I'm sorry -- Vice President Harris raised. That was not the DNC. That was her campaign and a bunch of other folks.

So I think let's Ken Martin figure out what he's going to do there in the party, get that settled, and, to David's point, and I think to a lot of Democrats' point, come up with a viable message that resonates with the American people.

And I think I think Democrats writ large have done that if you go all the way back to last summer, when the conversation was affordability and health care, and folks were like, what are you doing? And that became the conversation this time last year, and affordability is still the conversation.

Geoff Bennett:

Well, you mentioned, you both mentioned former Vice President Kamala Harris, and to your point about Democrats finding a message, it appears she is testing a message.

She was at the National Urban League conference today in Nashville and spoke in support of expanding the Supreme Court and statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. Take a look.

Kamala Harris, Former Vice President of the United States: We need to revisit the Electoral College.

(Applause)

Kamala Harris:

We need to revisit the point of expanding the court to 13 justices, like we have 13 district courts. We need to revisit, if they so want, statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C.

Geoff Bennett:

So that's the thing. Democrats are saying they want a candidate who will fight for the things that Democrats say they care about. What do you make of that message?

David Brooks:

Statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico, the two most Democratic areas in our whole country? It's not exactly controversial.

I think the Democratic Party became great by fighting a two-front war. They fight the Republicans, obviously, but they also fight the left. Hubert Humphrey, for example, in Minnesota in the 1940s fought off the Republicans. He also fought off the communists in the Democratic Labor Party.

The Democratic mainstream now has the opportunity to do that. And when you do that, first, you show how tough you are, because it's easy to fight the Republicans. To fight the left is a lot harder. And, two, you figure out what you believe. You say, I'm further left than those guys, but I'm not as far left as those guys. This is what I believe.

What Hubert Humphrey did, what Walter Mondale did, that hardened a generation of Democratic politicians. To me, that's the crucial issue, because if you let the DSA define the Democratic Party, which is in danger of happening, that's problems.

Geoff Bennett:

Is the disconnect -- or, rather, is the divide, the perceived divide within the party, is it about ideology, or is it about Democrats wanting a candidate who is less managed, less cautious, less institutional?

Jonathan Capehart:

It's that.

I mean, you take a look at what Senator Ossoff, is doing in Georgia, running for reelection. He is pulling no punches. He is speaking in language that I never thought I would hear a senator from Georgia running for reelection in at the time of a very close -- seemingly a very close race.

I think, with Vice President Harris, one, I would love to see the context of what those comments were, and then to hear the entire conversation, because we -- what I don't know is maybe she did talk about a whole bunch of other things that gets to David's point.

But, to David's point, D.C. statehood, that's not controversial. Expanding the court, she's a former attorney general of California. That's not controversial. The Electoral College, she has been about -- she's supported that for a very long time.

What I would like to hear from her and other folks who we talk about running for the Democratic nomination is, what are they going to -- what are their ideas for the economy? What are their ideas for fixing democracy? What are their ideas for holding people accountable who wrecked everything?

Geoff Bennett:

I want to get in some breaking news before we wrap up here, because, as we have been on the air, the Justice Department this evening moved to dismiss a criminal case charging a former Olympian, an Olympian canoer, with deliberately damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

And the government lawyer said in this 20-page court filing that information provided since the indictment of David Hearn shows that the damage was the result of -- quote -- "flawed installation by the contractor, as well as the rush to complete the project prior to the events associated with the America 250 celebration."

(Laughter)

Jonathan Capehart:

I'm sorry. I don't I don't mean to giggle. This is very serious.

But anyone paying attention knew that that would be the case. And the thing that is most fascinating about this is that the administration will always end up telling the truth in court documents, usually. I don't want to give a blanket, because I know there's some instances.

But here they have told -- the administration has told the truth. And so, yes, good. Good that this has been withdrawn, or whatever it is.

Geoff Bennett:

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thanks to you both.

David Brooks:

Thank you.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks.