Brooks and Capehart on Fox’s false claims of fraud after the last presidential election

Read the Full Transcript

• Geoff Bennett:

  As bids for the Republican presidential nomination ramp up and new details emerge about the false claims of fraud from the last presidential election it's time for the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

  With a welcome to you both, let's start with this revelation late last night in this court filing in Dominion Voting Systems' lawsuit against FOX News, showing that FOX executives and hosts didn't believe the election lies that they were peddling on television.

  David, what do you make of this notion that FOX determined that telling the truth and being straight with its vote — with its viewers was not good for its bottom line?

• David Brooks:

  Yes, I don't know whether to feel relieved or not that Tucker didn't really believe what he's saying. Like, maybe has some core in there that's actually honest.

  All of us — I mean, here in sainted PBS, we don't go after profits. But, at The New York Times and most other news organizations, we have two missions. We want to tell the truth, we want to live up to the ethics of our profession. We also want to attract readers and serve our viewers and make money for our company.

  And dealing with that tension is not unique. Doctors do it. Lawyers do it. And — but — and so you find a balance, and you try to hew to the code of your profession, and do it the best you can, and hope that readers will appreciate that.

  At FOX, that's apparently not how it works, and that the ethos of following the code of honesty or reporting, of telling the truth, which is our only job — our only job is just to tell the truth, and not be partisan. That's our job.

  And if you can't do the basics of the job, then, pretty soon, you lose all moral bearing. And I think not everybody at that agency — a lot of people really left. But a lot of people who used to be friends of mine, they lost all their moral bearing, and it shows.

• Geoff Bennett:

  And, Jonathan, this, in many ways, reaffirms what critics of FOX News have believed all along, that, even though it has news in the title, that that is a thin veneer, at best.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Yes, very thin. It's more like carpaccio, if you want to give a culinary analogy.

  Look, what this Dominion paper — the filing shows is that the big lie is indeed a big lie, and that the people who were perpetuating it knew it was a lie, and yet they still went on air night after night after night perpetuating it, to the detriment of our country.

  And, yes, they lost their balance. They lost their moral core, if any of them had any. And the idea that Tucker Carlson says one thing on air and believe something else off-camera is deeply, deeply disturbing, because of what we have seen, that kind of talk, that kind of rhetoric led to, January 6.

  And we're still dealing with people who believe the nonsense that was being spouted on FOX News. And one other thing that I don't think David said that it should also be pointed out, the reason why there's so much attention on FOX News isn't just because they were purveyors of the big lie, but because it is the number one cable channel by multiples.

  So, a majority of people watching cable television are watching FOX News. And that's what makes what's come out in these Dominion papers so incredibly disturbing.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Well, staying on the topic of false claims of fraud, let's talk about the developments out of that special grand jury in Georgia probing former President Donald Trump's election-stealing efforts in that state.

  There was an excerpt released this past week of the special grand jury's report, as you both know, that recommended indictments of one or more people based on perjury. And that was it. That's all we got, David.

  What's your assessment of it?

• David Brooks:

  Yes, it was — excerpt is generous.

  (LAUGHTER)

• David Brooks:

  There really wasn't much to it.

  I do think there are the three investigations we have been following for years Southern District of New York, maybe the Justice Department, and then Georgia. Georgia strikes me as the most real of them, because we really — Trump really did say: Find me those votes.

  You're not allowed to do that. And — but I don't think we learned how far along. I think we should be worrying, is indicting a sitting president just on perjury, without the underlying crime, is that really enough? I have to think more about that. But I would have a few doubts about that.

  But it's suggests not much to me right now.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Jonathan, to David's point, Georgia is where Donald Trump faces some of the most legal exposure.

  What did you make of what we learned or what we didn't learn this past week?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Well, one — one big thing — well, there are two big things.

  The first big thing is, you had not politicians, not Democrats or partisans, not folks like us saying that there was no election fraud, or even experts saying that there is no election fraud. What you had here is a grand jury of everyday people who were presented the evidence, and they made a point of saying in that document that we saw no evidence of election fraud, that the election was 100 percent by the board, which is — to the big lie, it just blows that up.

  The other thing is, yes, saying that there are people who perjured themselves before them and not knowing who they are is a big deal. What I want to know, is what were the redactions? What — perjury seems to me like a low bar. I want to know, are there bigger charges that were recommended and how many other shoes are going to drop down the road when, say, Fulton County DA Fani Willis decides to indict people?

  We don't know what's coming. And I think we should have sort of a healthy wait and see. The wheels of — the wheels — the legal wheels grind slowly, but they grind. And I'm looking forward to what comes next.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Well, the legal wheels might grind slowly, but the political wheels are moving pretty quickly in terms of the 2024 race.

  It looks like, on the Republican side, we have a race on our hands. What was your assessment of Nikki Haley's rollout this past week? We heard Amy Walter make the point about how she's making — how Haley is making the two cases, the generational case and the electability case, for her candidacy.

• David Brooks:

  Yes, and the personality case. She's the nice one.

  I guess the South Carolinians — Tim Scott is also very nice. And so I think people are undercounting her. I think she's a good candidate. I think that story she tells — the Trump story and, in some ways, the DeSantis story is a downward slope story. America used to be great. We're not great anymore.

  Her story and Tim Scott's story are an upward slope story, that, look where we come from, look where we're going. That's who we are as a country.

  And I think that story has implications. She's much more aggressive and muscular in foreign policy than Trump or — maybe we don't really know about DeSantis. In an era where Putin is attacking Ukraine, as he is, and on the march in China, that may be worth it.

  I also think there's a — there's a lane — there's a Trumpy lane, for sure. And I would put both DeSantis and Trump in it. But there's a lane of pre-Trump Republican — or, let's say, Trump-affected Republicans, but who are still sort of normal Republicans, like corporations, want a muscular foreign policy.

  And that lane in 2022 did pretty well. And you might almost say that there are more people who like Mike DeWine as a Republican than like Donald Trump. And so I maintain the belief that there's another version of that kind of normie Republican. And I think she fits pretty well into that lane, along with a bunch of others.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Jonathan, looking ahead a little bit, or, I guess, actually a lot, how do Democrats contend with a, to use the phrase, normie Republican, if that Republican gets the nomination?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Well, that Republican has to get the nomination.

  And I think a lot of Democrats are not holding their breath that a normie Republican is actually going to — is actually going to win. I think that Governor Nikki Haley, Ambassador Haley, the problem she has his her flip-flop-flip situation when it comes to supporting and criticizing Donald Trump.

  She went to work for him. Also, I think she's going to have a problem explaining to the MAGA base of the party why she took down the Confederate Flag and her views on race, as she talked about them then. I think we — you played earlier this — I thought I heard in my ear earlier Senator Tim Scott talking very forthrightly about issues of race and his place in the party.

  And I think he will stand — will do much, much better talking about and must talk about issues of race in the Republican Party, and he will be able to do so with a whole lot more credibility than, say, Nikki Haley can, simply because, in her kickoff speech, she didn't talk about any of that.

  She talked about her origin story and her immigrant story, but she didn't get into any of the discrimination that her family faced, or the horrific story about her father and his the encounter that he had, discrimination that he had. How is she going to talk about that on the campaign trail?

  That's what I'm looking forward to. And if those two warriors can beat out the angry Trump and DeSantis wing, more power to them, but they still have to face a Democratic — Democratic nominee, who I still think is going to be the sitting president, and it's not going to be a cakewalk for them.

• Geoff Bennett:

  In the minutes that we have left, I'd like to have you both reflect on the news this past week of Senator John Fetterman checking himself into Walter Reed to receive inpatient treatment for clinical depression.

  David, you wrote a piece for The Times earlier this month about a friend of yours who struggled with mental illness. The headline was: "How Do You Serve a Friend in Despair?"

  And there was a line in this op-ed you wrote that just hit me in the chest. And it's this: "I'm told that one of the brutalities of the illness is the impossibility of articulating exactly what that pain consists of."

  Tell me more about that.

• David Brooks:

  Yes, I walked with my friend for three years, until he lost his life to depression.

  And I learned to — I started a low knowledge of how to deal with it. And so I was like, you have a great life. You have a great family. You love your wife.

  And that's the wrong thing to say. And then I would give him advice on what to do. You — he was a surgeon. He used to do surgery in Vietnam. That was so rewarding. Do that.

  And that's just saying, I don't understand what you're going through. And so what I eventually learned and what I hope friends of John Fetterman learn is, you're not going to talk them out of it. You're just going to walk with them through it. You're just going to be there. You're going to be witness. You show you haven't walked away and that you will be where — there on the other side.

  And that's all you can do for a friend. But it's a great service you can do for a friend.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Yes.

  Jonathan?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Well, one, David — I sent David an e-mail the moment I finished reading his beautiful and raw piece about his friend Pete. And I encourage everyone to read it. It is vital.

  I think Senator Fetterman should be lauded for not only going to proactively seek help, but then making sure that the American people and the people of Pennsylvania know about what he's done. I think, down the road, we're going to see that what John Fetterman — what Senator Fetterman has done has impacted millions of people in a positive way.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, have a great weekend, gentlemen.

  It's good to see you both.