Brooks and Capehart on the political impact of the latest charges against Hunter Biden

Geoff Bennett:

For more on the political implications of the new charges filed against the president's son and this week's other major news, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Good to see you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Hey, Geoff.

David Brooks:

Good to see you.

Geoff Bennett:

So, let's start with the latest legal trouble facing Hunter Biden, with the important context that Hunter Biden is a private citizen. He is not seeking, nor has he ever held, public office. He does not work in the White House for his father in the way that Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump did. And the indictment does not in any way implicate President Joe Biden.

And yet this will certainly add to the problems, the political problems, facing this White House, as House Republicans, Jonathan, zero in on Hunter Biden's business dealings as part of their own investigations.

Jonathan Capehart:

As part of their own investigations that have been going on for years now, and they have been using the president's son, the president's troubled son, to try to sully the president.

And, so far, they have come up with nothing, even though, next week, apparently, they're going to be voting on to authorize an impeachment inquiry, trying to make connections that aren't there.

Look, when you read the indictment, when you hear about the indictment, it's bad. I mean, it's not good. It's not good at all. But we're talking about someone, as you — I'm glad you put that proper context there. He's an adult. He has not held office. He's not sought office. He's not worked for his father.

The only thing is that he — his father is president of the United States. He's being held accountable. And I take — I agree with Abbe Lowell that, if his name — last name weren't Biden, he probably wouldn't even have these charges. They would have worked it out.

But he's facing the consequences, and he's going through the legal avenues that are afforded to him. And for Republicans to try to make a connection between Hunter Biden and trying to say that, well, if you're going to go after Trump, well, why shouldn't we go after Biden, these are two completely different cases.

Geoff Bennett:

And, David, the flip side of Abbe Lowell's statement that if Hunter Biden's last name wasn't Biden, there would be no charges, the flip side of that, one could argue, is that if his last name wasn't Biden, he would not have made $11 million in five years with these overseas board appointments and the whole thing.

How do you see that?

David Brooks:

I was just about to say that.

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

I agree.

Republicans — politics is now a game of narratives. And Republicans got two of their narratives totally supported this week. The first is that progressive elites have gone a little bonkers, and the testimony of those other three college university presidents underlined that story. And then the Hunter Biden story, I agree, there's nothing so far connecting him to Biden.

But one of those stories Republicans tell is that Washington is filled with people selling influence, making zillions of dollars, and who are fundamentally corrupt, and wandering around like mini Jeffrey Epsteins.

And that Hunter Biden story looks bad from that context. He made money because his name is Biden. And then he lived a lifestyle that is offensive. Let's put it that way. I mean, we were talking earlier, like, somehow he withdrew $1.6 million from ATMs, according to the indictment. How do you do that?

But, basically, it underlines the story that Washington is fundamentally corrupt. And that's a story Republicans like to tell.

Geoff Bennett:

Well, let's shift our focus to President Biden's push to pass tens of billions of dollars in new aid for Ukraine, which stalled in the Senate this past week, largely because Senate Republicans want tougher immigration restrictions.

And, Jonathan, it was President Biden who decided to link money to — money for Israel with money for Ukraine and money for Taiwan, and to link all of that to money for the Southern border, in large part to address the crisis, but also to entice Republicans to support it. Was that a mistake? Is he now boxed in?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, I mean, sure, he's boxed in, but was it a mistake? Was it a mistake to go before the American people and say to the Republicans, let's make a deal? I'm willing to talk. I'm willing to — let's come up with something so that we can address the border, but also get vitally needed funding to Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan, two that are in active wars, and one that could be.

I mean, it was the right thing for the president to do. What I don't understand is why Republicans won't take yes for an answer, especially when they are trying to jam through a policy change, and a policy change that Democratic administrations and Republican administrations have talked about and fought over for at least two decades and have gotten nowhere.

So, if they're not going to take the president up on his offer to negotiate, whose fault is that? Is that the president for saying, hey, I'm willing to make a deal? Or is it the Republicans who are saying, well, we'd like to play a little more politics with this while democracy is on the brink in Ukraine?

Geoff Bennett:

Well, David, the White House makes the point that it was the right thing to link all of those issues, because, in their view, they all constitute emergencies. How do you see this playing out?

David Brooks:

I thought it was the right deal at the time, because the normal thing is, you have got a bunch of issues, they're somewhat related and on security, and so you give every — you put it all in one package and everybody gets a piece.

The downside is, if it doesn't go through, everybody loses. And so we're now facing the real possibility of that. First, if we don't support Ukraine, it's a disaster for American reputation. It's going to be a disaster for America's budget, because, if Vladimir Putin takes Ukraine, you think defense spending is high now?

The defense spending is going to be a lot higher then. And it's a disaster for our relations to our allies that we can't be trusted. It's a disaster for Xi Jinping, who sees the U.S. can't defend its allies. And so, to me, it's just a disaster.

Nonetheless, I differ with Jonathan a bit, in that I do think the Republicans have thrown a bunch of different ideas on the table for what they want on the Southern border, adjusting the asylum rules, E-Verify, all sorts of proposals. And I think the Democrats should hop on as much as they possibly can, because the border is a genuine national crisis.

It's also their biggest, the Democrats' biggest political liability. And so if there's any possibility for a deal, I think that the Democrats will be very smart to say, we and the Republicans take co-ownership of the border right now, because, otherwise, it's very perilous for Joe Biden's reelection chances.

Geoff Bennett:

Well, let's talk more about 2024 and the president's reelection chances.

The Republicans had another debate this past week. And the knives were out, Jonathan, for Nikki Haley. It's a clear sign of her rise in the race. How do you think she fared this past week?

Jonathan Capehart:

I think she fared fine.

I mean, when you are the focus of everyone's attention a debate stage, that means that you are at the top of the pack, although the person who was really at the top of the pack wasn't even there, and they're all fighting over second place.

But I think, was it last week or maybe the week before, David, you were talking about Nikki Haley's slow and steady rise through this race, and we saw it again this week. I mean, nice for Governor Christie to come and defend her honor after being ripped to pieces by the Vivek Ramaswamy.

But as we have seen through all the debates up until this week, she is more than capable of defending and standing up for herself.

Geoff Bennett:

Well, David, as Jonathan mentioned, Donald Trump was not there. In fact, he appeared the night before in a televised town hall with Sean Hannity, and Hannity gave him the chance to reassure the American people that, if reelected, he would not abuse power, he would not use his time in office focused on retribution.

And here's how Donald Trump answered that question.

Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: He says, you're not going to be a dictator are you? I said, no, no, no, other than day one. We are closing the border, and we are drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator.

Geoff Bennett:

Your response to that?

David Brooks:

I guess I take him literally, but not seriously on this one. I think it was a joke. I think he was just playing to the crowd. I mean, he was telling a joke.

On the other hand, it is still true that he's likely to be a dictator. So I think he was telling a joke, but it is still true that there are policies that he and people around him have been embracing for six years now which are clearly authoritarian, and that he's likely to be more and more authoritarian now than he was even in 2016.

Geoff Bennett:

Our audience could not see. But, as you gave that answer, Jonathan's mouth was agape.

David Brooks:

I noticed that.

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

I have enough peripheral vision.

(Laughter)

Jonathan Capehart:

He's not joking. And if he is joking, the joke's not funny.

We have seen over the past few weeks story after story after story about things that Donald Trump has said or things that are happening behind the scenes about what he wants to do if he gets the second term that should make every American's blood run cold.

The front page of The New York Times two or three weeks ago just detailing the immigration policy that they want to institute on day one, the Project 2025, which basically wants to set up a turnkey operation for any conservative president to come along and do all sorts of things to remake not just American government, but American democracy.

Donald Trump has been telling us exactly what he will do if he gets another opportunity to be president pretty much every day for the last two or three months in detail. And anyone who does not take him seriously is not taking the danger that this country faces seriously enough, because he can joke all he wants about, ha, ha, ha, I'm going to be dictator, but for one day.

It's not for one day. He told us he's going to be a dictator. And it's not just one day. It will be his presidency, if we can call it that.

Geoff Bennett:

David, is it too late to stop Donald Trump?

For those Republicans who detest and disdain him, for the Republicans who are concerned about his impulses toward authoritarianism, and for the Republicans who are afraid he's going to lose another election for the party, he is 50 points ahead of the rest of the pack. Is it too late to stop him?

David Brooks:

Yes, I give Nikki Haley maybe a 10 percent chance. I mean, something could happen. Chris Christie, A, could get out of the race. Ron DeSantis could get out of the race. You can get the whole Republican Party supporting her, but, even so, maybe 10 percent chance. I think it's probably too late.

Geoff Bennett:

David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, thanks, as always.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks, Geoff.