Brooks and Capehart on Trump commuting George Santos’ prison sentence

Amna Nawaz:

For more on the week's political headlines, we turn now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MSNBC.

Great to see you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Hey, Amna.

Amna Nawaz:

Can I get you quickly to weigh in on this news we just got that the president late today commuted the sentence of former New York Republican Congressman George Santos, who reported to prison this summer after pleading guilty to a laundry list of federal charges, including wire fraud, identity theft, and money laundering?

The president said: "At least he always had the courage and conviction to Vought Republican."

Jonathan, what do you make of that decision by the president?

Jonathan Capehart:

It's Friday. So it's the theater of the absurd in the extreme. This guy stole from people. He did all sorts of horrible things. He was held — he was being held accountable for it.

And the president, as we have seen many, many times, just used this as an opportunity to just stick his finger in the eye of justice, of accountability, of everything that we used to think was normal and sane.

Amna Nawaz:

David, what do you make of it?

David Brooks:

Yes, I picked up on the sentence you read that Trump said he voted Republican.

Jonathan Capehart:

Right.

David Brooks:

And that was — that's the operative thing here, sin, crime, but he voted Republican.

It made me think, is there any Republican that Trump would not commute or not pardon? And he's turned it into a partisan game the granting of pardons, and Santos is going to claim he broke out of prison like "Shawshank Redemption" or something, I don't know what story he will tell.

(Laughter)

Amna Nawaz:

Well, look, let's turn now to what we saw this week, which was big news for the president overseas, able to muscle through a major peace deal in the Middle East, and we saw still working to broker some kind of peace deal, hosting Zelenskyy at the White House and calling Putin this week as well.

But, meanwhile, it is day 17 of the government shutdown back here at home. The rhetoric has not changed from either side, Jonathan. And the president hasn't really engaged in the kind of brokering we traditionally see presidents do. Can he be a dealmaker back here too?

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes, we have seen it.We have seen it. So if the president were to turn his attention to the government shutdown and figure out what both sides wants and then just say, this is what I want to do, of course, we have seen time and again Republicans will do whatever the president tells them to do, even if they have held an opposing position.

So — but he hasn't seemed like he wants to get involved, which makes me think he likes what's happening. Maybe he likes what's happening. Maybe given what we — the package on Russell Vought, maybe this shutdown does give him the opportunity, him and Russell Vought, the opportunity to slash at the federal government in ways they couldn't do under regular order.

And I don't know. It's a terrible game. It's a terrible game for the president to play, because real people, Americans are getting hurt.

Amna Nawaz:

David, Jonathan raises a good point. Is there incentive for the president to want to end the shutdown?

David Brooks:

Not particularly. The Republicans are not the party of government. They're the party of shrinking government. And under the shutdown right now, he's been blocked from really getting rid of what he calls Democratic programs, but he is able to fund the things he likes.

And so they have managed to wrangle some funds for the servicemen. They have for TSA, for ICE, those sorts of people. And so they get to fund the things they like and don't — and everybody else gets nothing.

It's — two things that are astonishing to me, one, how everybody's blase about it. The whole — not in the DMV, in our area, but everywhere else in the country, it's like, what do you do? And the capacity to be shocked by our politics is clearly going away. And so that's the first thing.

The second thing is I'm curious to know what happens over the next three weeks, because the notifications for the health care costs, those letters are going out.

Amna Nawaz:

Right.

David Brooks:

November 1, they really begin to kick in. And so maybe then we will see something. But I would not assume that this is going to end any time in October. I think when that November number comes out, we will see how the public reacts, if at all.

Amna Nawaz:

You think this could break the last record for the shutdown then? That was 35 days.

David Brooks:

Oh, yes, quite easily, yes.

Amna Nawaz:

Jonathan, you agree with that?

Jonathan Capehart:

Oh, I agree with that. And November 1 is also my internal deadline that I think, for Democrats, November 1 is the date.

To David's point, that's when the things that they have been warning about kick in. And so if that doesn't bring people to the table, if that doesn't get the president to say, all right, jokers, let's get into a room and hammer this out, I don't know what will.

Amna Nawaz:

That's when the enrollment will open, right? And we know the subsidies expire at the end of the year. So time, to your point, is ticking.

The other thing the Republican Party is wrestling with, as I'm sure you have seen, the contents and the coverage of that leaked group chat among leaders from the Young Republican groups that was first reported, of course, by Politico.

You have seen Vice President Vance's response to that. He was dismissive of it and said this is what kids do. He also pointed towards the violent text messages that were from Democrat Jay Jones, who's running for attorney general in Virginia, who apologized last night, but is still running.

And today we should note that the New York chapter of the Young Republicans was suspended after some of its members were revealed to be a part of that group.

David, how did you look at this story and what the chat reveals to us?

David Brooks:

Well, it's sort of logical extension of either the alt-right or MAGA, which is the whole idea of MAGA is to be transgressive, to shock the middle class, shock the Protestant, the — not the Protestant elite, the progressive elite.

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

I like the Protestant elite.

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

And when you do that and be transgressive, well, then the young people online are going to say things like "I like Hitler" because the norms have been taken away.

And, in France, the Bohemians used to call it epater la bourgeoisie, like shock the bourgeoisie. And so you get this rolling nihilism that all norms are gone, and the most offensive thing you can say suddenly becomes cool. And that's what's happened when you erode norms.

And you can't just do what Elise Stefanik did, which is, this is appalling. Like, it is the simplest thing to say. This is appalling.

Amna Nawaz:

Right.

David Brooks:

J.D. Vance could have said that, but he's been so long in these circles that he doesn't want to burn his friend.

Amna Nawaz:

Jonathan, what do you make of it?

Jonathan Capehart:

The whole situation is deplorable. The people making those comments are deplorable. The vice president of the United States and what he had to say about, well, these are just kids, I'm sorry, there's a 34-year-old kid, a 24-year-old kid?

No, these are not children. These are adults. And the idea that the vice president of the United States couldn't set a moral example and say, this is unacceptable, this is not who we are as a party — you know why he can't say it? Because this is who they are right now as a party.

And you know what? We shouldn't even be talking about the vice president. We should be talking about the president. We have a president who dabbles in this language, who campaigned not in this exact language, but in that atmosphere, in that milieu, if we're going to use French words.

(Laughter)

Jonathan Capehart:

And so if the president of the United States is doing it and can do it, well, why should we be surprised that you have got 20-somethings, 30-somethings, people — there's — one of them was an elected official, people who are young leaders in the Republican Party.

Why are we surprised that they're engaging in this kind of conversation, even when they acknowledge like, hey, if these leak, we will be in trouble, ha, ha, ha. Twenty — what is it, 2,900 pages' worth of these text messages?

Amna Nawaz:

Of text messages, yes.

Jonathan Capehart:

Come on. This is terrible. It's deplorable.

Amna Nawaz:

We will say excellent French pronunciation by you both on that. I really do appreciate that.

(Laughter)

Amna Nawaz:

Before we go, I do want to ask you about another remarkable moment this week, which I'm sure you saw this video, scores of Pentagon reporters who refused to sign the new rules that were introduced by Secretary Hegseth turned in their badges, packed up their offices, and they walked out en masse.

Just watching those scenes, David, what did you think?

David Brooks:

Well, I thought of the First Amendment. I mean, there's a reason there is a First Amendment, because — and for 200-some-odd years of our history, people acknowledged that the press actually plays a role and that it's a useful and necessary role, and the politicians don't like it, but they appreciate the role.

And this administration clearly does not appreciate the role. Their M.O. is to get — go after anything that might restrain them. And the press is a restraint and the Constitution is a restraint. They're a bunch of restraints.

And so when I saw those pictures, I just saw Trump being Trump, but the reporters, including all our new organizations really, they had no choice, because this criminalized journalism. The rules they were imposing, if you were digging for a story that they didn't want you to have, they could in theory prosecute you.

And so of course they had to say no. It was the easiest call in the history of journalism. But I just thought about restraint and the lack thereof.

Amna Nawaz:

Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:

It was the free press literally on parade out of the building. And it was a wonderful thing to see.

And also this is the 21st century. They don't need to be in that building. And actually maybe it will make their jobs a little easier because, oh, you're not in the Pentagon. I'm going to meet with sources. The sources will come to you outside without having the eyes of other people looking at them.

I just think journal — our jobs as journalists aren't — isn't meant to be easy. We get big stories and we break big stories by busting our butts and working our sources and making it possible for people to come to us and tell the stories that change history.

And so what those folks did at the Pentagon, I applaud them. And, quite honestly, there others in our profession who should look at them as an example.

Amna Nawaz:

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, always great to end the week with you both. Thank you so much.

Jonathan Capehart:

Adieu.

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

Adieu. Au revoir.

(Laughter)