- [Narrator] Funding for this edition of One-On-One with Steve Adubato has been provided by The Turrell Fund, a foundation serving children.

Bergen New Bridge Medical Center.

The New Jersey Economic Development Authority.

NJM Insurance Group.

Serving New Jersey’s drivers, homeowners and business owners for more than 100 years.

Citizens Philanthropic Foundation.

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey.

New Jersey Sharing Network.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Working for a more a healthier, more equitable New Jersey.

And by PSEG Foundation.

Promotional support provided by New Jersey Globe.

And by New Jersey Monthly.

The magazine of the Garden State, available at newsstands.

- This is One-On-One.

- I'm an equal American just like you are.

- The way we change Presidents in this country is by voting.

- A quartet is already a jawn, it’s just The New Jawn.

- January 6th was not some sort of violent, crazy outlier.

- I don't care how good you are or how good you think you are, there is always something to learn.

- I mean what other country sends comedians over to embedded military to make them feel better.

- People call me 'cause they feel nobody's paying attention.

_ It’s not all about memorizing and getting information, it’s what you do with that information.

- (slowly) Start talking right now.

- That's a good question, high five.

(upbeat music) - Hi everyone, Steve Adubato.

Next half hour, presidential history.

Where does President Trump, our 47th president, fit into the larger picture of who our presidents have been as leadership style, as presidential style, and who best to have other than Tim Naftali, CNN presidential historian, senior research scholar at Columbia University.

Good to have you back, my friend.

- My pleasure, Steve.

I'm happy to be here.

- Let's try this.

More than half the people who voted, voted for President Trump.

A lot of people say, "President Trump is doing exactly what I want him to do."

He told us what he would do.

But in several articles, I've seen you and other historians who understand presidential history, I said, there's somewhat of an autocratic style to President Trump.

What do you mean by that?

A, and B, do you think that's what people voted for?

- Well, first of all, no one person could explain, or could know the intentions that a voter brings to the ballot box when she or he makes that decision.

I think it's fair to say, look, having looked at quite a few elections, historically, that the coalition that makes it possible for a candidate to win comprises people who voted for that candidate for different reasons, or for a basket of reasons, and the weights upon individual issues might change depending on that person's set of concerns and desires.

- Hold on, when President Trump says, I'll be specific, Tim, when President Trump says, I'm looking at "The New York Times," and by the way, I have "New York Post" here.

So for those of you who have different points of view.

So he's looking at the IRS as a tool, according to "The New York Times," for retribution, political enforcement, get rid of certain folks there, but also go after certain people, certain institutions.

Is that what we mean by autocratic because the IRS is supposed to be independent?

Is that what we mean?

- Well, absolutely.

That's autocratic.

The question is whether most of his supporters supported him in order to achieve revenge.

Donald Trump, on the campaign trail, made it clear to those who were listening that one of the key reasons he was running again was to seek revenge, revenge against institutions and people who had stood in his way.

Now, he described this in terms of his supporters too.

He said, I represent you, they were standing in my way, therefore, they were standing in your way.

To the extent that people voted for Donald Trump in order to seek revenge, his promise to politicize the IRS, to dismantle programs where there were nonpartisan civil servants who were not gonna do his bidding, to that extent, people voted for him, for revenge, will be happy.

- Okay.

- But most people, I would argue, who voted for Donald Trump, did not vote for him to be the agent of retribution.

They wanted a solid economy, and they were concerned about inflation, and they felt that having a person who appeared to be feeble, I'm talking about Joe Biden, that having someone like that as president meant the country was more insecure.

I think that those are issues that motivated many, perhaps half of those who voted for Donald Trump.

Those people wouldn't necessarily, or at all, be happy that the man they selected is now on a vengeance tour.

- But hold on one second, Tim.

Let me play a little devil's advocate here.

So, by the way, we're taping on the 22nd of April.

This will be seen later.

This is about history, context, but things are changing every day in the news.

We're not trying to keep up with the news.

However, if President Trump says, if I want a third term, a third term issue comes up, and he says, "There are ways around the United States Constitution," I believe it's the 22nd Amendment that says President cannot serve three terms.

When he says, "There are ways around that," what does that communicate to you about how he views the presidency?

I'll just leave it at that.

Go ahead, Tim.

That's the constitution.

- When President Trump floats the idea that somehow he could serve a third term, he is posing a direct existential threat to the United States Constitution, and by inference, to the United States itself.

There is no constitutional way for Donald Trump to run for a third term.

It's prohibited by the 22nd Amendment, and the little game that some people have said he could play by running as J.D.

Vance's running mate, and then having J.D.

Vance resign, and thus becoming president, that game is actually prohibited, if you read it carefully, by the 12th Amendment, He can't do it constitutionally.

Now, the fact that he's saying it- - Go ahead.

What does that say?

- What it means is it echoes 2020 when he decided to try to stay in office despite having lost an election, which is to find a way to force his will.

And that's a danger.

We've been through this once before.

We've seen how this ends.

We saw it in 2021, on January 6th.

What is absolutely clear is that Donald Trump learns nothing from January 6th, other than he didn't try hard enough to retain power, and by the fact that the American people reelected him for, I think, a complex series of reasons, he believes that he's been vindicated and that he will try to find a way to stay in office.

I am convinced of that.

- So what would you say to people watching right now, on public broadcasting, other platforms ago, what's the beef that Tim Naftali, as a presidential historian, has with Donald Trump?

Trump was elected, as we speak, his ratings are no better or worse.

They're better than Joe Biden's were.

Most people don't see, and if they didn't vote for all those reasons, whether it's the IRS, whether it's challenging the federal funding of public broadcasting, whether it's challenging the federal funding to colleges and universities, whether it's doing away with the Department of Education, Title 10 dollars to local school districts for children with special needs, whatever it is, there's not a U.N. cry, respectfully, Tim Naftali.

The president has to abide by the Constitution.

He has to be doing what the court's tell him to do.

If he's saying, "Eh, I don't know, I'll pick and choose what I want to go along with."

Where's the U.N. cry, Tim?

- Well, I like hockey, and other people might like football or baseball.

I also like baseball.

And I enjoy a great game, and I enjoy a hard fought game, and I also appreciate when players play by the rules.

I don't have a beef with Donald Trump as Donald Trump.

I have a beef with a president who is telling us that he doesn't plan to play by the rules, because that person, the president, is the most powerful person in the world.

That person is also setting the tone of our political culture.

That person is also setting the norms by which I think future young people will run for office.

So when that person is saying, "Hey, I'm not gonna necessarily play by the rules," that sets a dangerous precedent for the country.

So my beef isn't with Donald Trump, or the fact that the American people voted for him.

My beef is with Donald Trump's actions when he holds the most powerful position in the world.

- Let's talk about higher education.

How do Donald Trump's actions regarding institutions of higher learning, and the threatening of federal funding, and the pulling of federal funding where that's possible, the courts will be involved and we don't know how things are gonna play out.

Is there any historical precedent for that, Tim?

- Well, as I like to say, below the hood, in a put, in the time of Richard Nixon, Richard Nixon really, really wanted to pull federal funding from elite institutions, as he saw them, that didn't crack down on anti-war protestors.

He had a study made, and he asked his team to find a way to pull federal research funds from MIT, for example.

The difference between then, the 1970s and now, is that his people said, "Wait a moment, Mr. President, we share your concerns about the atmosphere on those campuses, but it's illegal for the federal government to even try this.

And so they pushed back, the president, and how do we know this, by the way?

Because from the tapes, the President- - The Nixon tapes.

What about now- - The Nixon tapes.

- Who's saying, "No, Mr.

President?"

- Apparently no one.

- What about Congress?

- Well, wait, I'm talking about within the administration itself.

Listen, this is the key difference between Trump 1.0 and today's Trump administration.

In 1.0, in the first term, there were good government Republicans around him who said, "Mr. President, we can't do this.

Mr. President, it's not in our interest to pull out of NATO.

Mr. President, it's not in our interest to destroy the North American Free Trade Zone, that a series of presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have created.

Mr. President, we are not gonna use the IRS against your adversaries."

Those people are gone.

And Donald Trump, by the way, told us this would happened.

He warned us.

He said to the American people, "I'm not going to hire the same kind of people again who are gonna say, no.

I'm gonna hire people who are gonna let me do what I wanna do."

Well, Richard Nixon hired good government Republicans.

He often didn't like the conclusions that they reached, but he recognized that they understood, and they were serious and professional.

Donald Trump has hired people who will say yes to him, regardless of whether it is illegal or unethical.

- Does that include his vice president, J.D.

Vance, who is different from Mike Pence, the vice president before, who clearly, we know what happened on January 6th.

We know the "Hang Mike Pence" chant, the danger that he was in, and we also know what President Trump then said about him, is part of this equation in terms of presidential style and the culture within the Trump presidency right now that the vice president will not push back either, Tim Naftali?

- Well, in the Nixon case, Spiro Agnew was more corrupt than Richard Nixon.

- Well, he was also indicted.

- Yeah, but he wasn't that significant a player.

- Okay, but what about J.D.

Vance?

Does he matter here?

- Steve, this is a great point.

We know about Mike Pence's role on January 6th, a noble role, a great constitutional role.

It's yet to be really fully documented what role he played through the bulk of the administration in trying to keep the first Trump administration on the rails.

- But we know what he did on January 6th.

- We know what he did on January 6th.

I'm not sure that the Vice President matters that much.

- Okay.

- I mean, as a position, there's no doubt that he mattered on January 6th, and maybe he also played a salutary role throughout most of the first term.

I just can't say that about Mike Pence.

I don't know.

J.D.

Vance, we know one thing about J.D.

Vance, because he's told it to us.

J.D.

Vance sees his goal, his job, as reinforcing President Trump's impulses.

So it's highly unlikely that he has been preventing Donald Trump from doing what he wants to do.

Now, we do have some contrary evidence that came through that signaled conversation where the editor of "The Atlantic" found himself a party to a discussion about an attack to be launched against the Houthis in Yemen, and there, J.D.

Vance did show that he disagreed with the president, but I'm not certain that that was an indication that he was gonna do anything about it.

- Tim, hold on one second.

Since you mentioned the editor of The Atlantic who was in that call mistakenly, people can decide for themselves about confidentiality and security, etcetera, etcetera.

But that being said, it also, because the Trump White House, including the Press Secretary as we speak for the president right now, they criticize the journalist.

Larger question here.

The relationship that President Trump has with the media, writ large, other than the media that he likes and he believes is supportive of him, are we, so-called mainstream media, whether public broadcasting, whatever, am I, are we to him, in your opinion, the enemy of the American people?

A and B, is that consistent with any other president in history?

- Well, - To this degree.

- I think to this point in our discussion, I'm certain that some of our viewers are thinking that this, this is a little one-sided, it wasn't.

- And also I have you, so I must be part of the problem.

So go ahead.

I take responsibility.

- But I wanna show how unusual President Trump is.

Here's where he's not unusual.

Most presidents have a tense relationship with the press.

- They don't like them.

They don't like us.

- You know what?

There's two reasons for it.

First reason is when you get to be president, whether you've done it by selecting these people or not, you are surrounded by people who generally make you feel as if all your decisions are right.

And they certainly give you the impression that you have earned this enormous power and prestige that you hold.

So when people criticize you, it's a little bit unusual.

And so it makes, I think, believe it or not, regardless of the president, each and every person who holds that office, a little thin-skinned about... - Okay, but that's, I'm gonna go beyond that Tim.

Locking the AP, throwing the AP out the way.

- No, no, no, no, no, wait, wait.

- Go, go ahead, Tim.

- I wanna make and draw a distinction.

'Cause it's all about distinctions.

This is a key to understanding this problem.

So previous presidents have moaned and groaned.

Some of them have wire-tapped members of the press, generally speaking, not because of their opinions, but because of leaks.

But the way they've done it indicates that they're, that they've got a low tolerance for disagreement.

- How is this different, Tim?

How is this different?

- And now we're talking about now.

What they did not do, I'm talking about JFK and FDR and LBJ.

- And Nixon.

- And Nixon, they did not call these people the enemies of the public.

They did not turn the negative energy against the press that this president did in the first term and is doubling down on the second.

- Did they sue media organizations, Tim?

- They didn't sue.

Well, Richard, Richard Nixon, again, behind the scenes, Richard Nixon did deploy his people to try to undermine media opponents and did put pressure on CBS, for example, during the Watergate period, not to.

- By the way, sorry for interrupting Tim.

Hold on one second.

As we do this literally today on the 22nd of April story that the lead producer at 60 Minutes has quit.

Why?

He is arguing that he, that 60 minutes and as the executive producer, he can no longer be independent, because of the fear on the part of the executives at CBS that the program would peeve the president.

And there's currently a lawsuit, president Trump and CBS, and there are corporate leaders, owners who are pressing 60 minutes according to this EP, this executive producer, not to do any programming that would get the president angry.

That's different, Tim?

- That's very different.

But lemme tell you, the parallel, we've gotta step outside of presidential history for a minute to get the real parallel.

- Please.

- What Donald Trump is doing is he is trying to create a climate of fear and intimidation, which echoes the McCarthy period.

- Joseph McCarthy, Senator McCarthy from Wisconsin?

- Senator McCarthy, which is, in other order words, to make people worry about the consequences to their bottom line and to their prestige of being crosswise with him in a way that that Joseph McCarthy did during the early 1950s.

And so, for a period, it didn't last very long in the early fifties, thank goodness.

- It was so-called "Red Scare," accusing people in Hollywood, media being communist.

Go ahead.

- That is why George Clooney is on Broadway celebrating - Edward R, the great Edward R Murrow.

- Edward R. Murrow, who was one of the few who used his platform to say, Mr. McCarthy, Senator McCarthy, you're wrong.

So, in our history, we have seen instances where powerful people have used their platform to instill fear and intimidation in order to get their way.

Donald Trump is taking a leaf out of Senator McCarthy's playbook and going after media organizations, and institutions of higher learning is part of the playbook.

- How about law firms?

Same thing?

- Well, McCarthy did not go after law firms.

That is something entirely new that Donald Trump has introduced.

And that is actually a major threat to our judicial system, because after all, our judicial system requires good representation.

You've gotta be represented by someone to take advantage of our court system.

And if Donald Trump, I mean, Donald Trump is not gonna succeed completely because a number of law firms have said no.

But if Donald Trump is able to undermine the work that could be done by top law firms to defend our civil liberties, that will give his, his approach to the court system a lot more power.

- But hold on, Tim, the Supreme Court, other court, the appeals court and goes all the way, a certain court of appeals and then it goes to the Supreme Court.

They say, no, Mr. President, you cannot do this.

You must bring a certain person who was part of it, was deported without due process.

That person has to come back.

Mr. President, you cannot unilaterally cut these funds to this program or that program, whether it's a college or a university or whatever it is.

You have to go to Congress.

He says, I wanna do it by executive order.

Court says, no.

Many of the members of the Supreme Court President Trump appointed.

They say no.

He says, nah, I don't know.

I think I'm gonna go my own way.

At what point, Tim Naftali, I couldn't care less whether you voted for Donald Trump, the vice president, Vice President Harris or not.

It doesn't matter.

Tim doesn't care either.

Here's the question, what the heck is a constitutional crisis or what is the crisis and how is it resolved?

Because how can the courts force, even the Supreme Court, to force the President to do anything?

- Well, that's a nightmare scenario, in 1970.

- Is that unrealistic that it could happen?

- Wait, it's, sorry.

It's not unrealistic.

In 1974, we faced, we Americans, historically, or those who are old enough to remember or being alive then, we faced a similar crisis in the sense that, John, that if Richard Nixon had said no to the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court said you had to turn these tapes over to the general special prosecutor, there's no way, there was no way to implement that Supreme Court decision there.

- Okay?

- But, there was at the time, an impeachment process going on.

And Richard Nixon did not wanna be impeached and thrown out of office.

So that "Sword of Damocles" was over his head.

- How about now, Tim?

How about now?

- We do not.

Well, now there is no functioning Congress.

In terms of restraining presidential power, the Congress has kicked the can.

We've seen a little bit of resistance from the Senate where senators show displeasure with the president's approach to Canada in this trade debacle.

But even though senators did, could not corral support in the House and without support in the house, there's nothing really you can do to restrain the President's use of trade power.

And then the trade power should be congressional power.

But the Congress has given it to the President.

So effectively, Congress at the moment is paralyzed with regard to restraining the other branch of government.

Now, under our system of constitutional system, the three branches should work together to check unusual and abusive uses of power.

But we have one branch of Congress, one branch of the government, the Article I branch, which at the moment seems incapable of restraining the President.

- How close are we to having a king?

How close are we to having a king?

- Kings are for life, so as long as we have elections... - Okay, an autocrat.

No, no, no, no, this is the key.

As long as we have the option of voting out the administration, in four years, we don't have a king.

- Do we have an autocrat?

- What we have is an autocrat.

And we have one right now who is running the country by executive decree.

And we have the institutions necessary to reign in his power.

But so far they've been ineffective.

The Supreme Court can say no, and we can see it moving in that direction.

But the question is, if the Supreme Court says no, the president still has to abide by the Supreme Court.

- Tim, before I let you go, 30 seconds.

Everyone who voted for Donald Trump right now who says BS, I don't buy any of this.

I'm fine with what he's doing.

Talk to them right now, 30 seconds.

- I just wanna know if your egg prices are higher or lower?

I wanna know if you'd be happy if a liberal president were doing this.

I wanna know if playing by the rules is what you tell your children is the right way to approach any important contest in their lives.

That's what I would ask.

- Tim, tell us how you really feel.

Tim Naftali, who is a CNN presidential historian, senior research scholar at Columbia University.

Thanks for an important, compelling conversation, my friend.

Wish you all the best.

- Thanks for the time, Steve.

All the best to you.

- You got it.

I'm Steve Adubaro.

That's a very smart presidential historian, Tim Naftali, we'll see you next time.

- [Narrator] One-On-One with Steve Adubato is a production of the Caucus Educational Corporation.

Funding has been provided by The Turrell Fund, a foundation serving children.

Bergen New Bridge Medical Center.

The New Jersey Economic Development Authority.

NJM Insurance Group.

Citizens Philanthropic Foundation.

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey.

New Jersey Sharing Network.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

And by PSEG Foundation.

Promotional support provided by New Jersey Globe.

And by New Jersey Monthly.

- NJM Insurance Group has been serving New Jersey businesses for over a century.

As part of the Garden State, we help companies keep their vehicles on the road, employees on the job and projects on track, working to protect employees from illness and injury, to keep goods and services moving across the state.

We're proud to be part of New Jersey.

NJM, we've got New Jersey covered.