Biden’s Personal Attorney on the President’s Historic Decision

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, SENIOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, now, for many, Joe Biden’s historic decision became a foregone conclusion following his disastrous debate performance last month. What was meant to be an opportunity to allay age related fears instead became a wakeup call for top Democrats to urge the president to step aside. Central to the preparation for that debate was a member of Biden’s inner circle, his personal lawyer, Bob Bauer, who took on the role of Trump in practice sessions. He joins Walter Isaacson to discuss his new political memoir, “The Unraveling,” Biden’s legacy, and what he’s learned from decades as the Democrats go-to legal mastermind.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Bob Bauer, welcome to the show.

BOB BAUER, PERSONAL ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT BIDEN AND AUTHOR, “THE UNRAVELING”: Thank you for having me.

ISAACSON: You are very close over the years to President Biden. You’ve been his personal lawyer. Your wife, Anita Dunn, has been a senior adviser. You know how he makes decisions. You know what he stands for and what he’s pushing for. Tell me how his sense — your sense of his legacy, his political drive, how that all played into the decision he made this weekend.

BAUER: I certainly recognize that Joe Biden, that I think many people have seen over the years, who is an institutionalist deeply committed to constitutional values. And he came to a conclusion that it was in the best interest of the country that at this time he focused on governing and set aside from the campaign. I’ve seen press commentary since then about the kind of self-restraint that he exhibited, the valuing of the country’s interests over what his strongest supporters may have wished. But I think that that is characteristic of his decision-making style and very much reflects his values.

ISAACSON: Tell me the type of things you think he would have been wrestling with, not just this weekend, but for the past two or three weeks as the party slowly, slowly urged him to get out of the race.

BAUER: I can only tell you what, you know, I would observe and what I would conclude from my observation, the political scene and from him. And that is, he’s a candidate, but he’s also president of the United States, and he has a higher responsibility, of course, than worrying about, say, for example, his personal political fortunes. And I think his letter yesterday made it very clear that he viewed the current political moment as one that he needed to step out of so that he could focus on governing. And I think that has to be kept in mind. He made this decision as president of the United States. And that is, I think, again, very defining very much how you would expect Joe Biden to make a decision like this.

ISAACSON: You know, you’ve just written a book called “The Unraveling,” and you talk a bit about the authoritarian movements that have happened around the world, people clinging to power, and how this is a moment where we have to assert democracy. Do you think that that has been a theme, too, of Biden’s decision?

BAUER: Joe Biden, throughout his entire administration, frankly, the very rationale of his candidacy in 2019, 2020 was to recapture the democratic soul of the nation or to protect it against what he thought the threat was from the politics of Donald Trump. And so, I think historians may later link this decision in the moment as Donald Trump looks to have another term in office may link this decision to those sets of concerns with protecting the democracy, ensuring that we’re in the strongest position to prevent Donald Trump from gaining the office, from regaining the office. So, I do see the Democratic concerns that Joe Biden has as weighing very much on his decision-making in the moment.

ISAACSON: We see so much of people clinging to power around the world, at home, whatever, and it seemed for a while that that was something Biden was doing, he was clinging to power, and suddenly, it changed. Do you sense that there’s a historic legacy part of that change?

BAUER: I don’t know that I would have ever characterized the president from my standpoint, as you put it, clinging to power. I think like any leader, he is — especially one who’s been as successful as he is, he’s skilled at reading the moment, judging it as much as anybody can in the moment, in historic context. And he concluded the time was now for him to focus on governing and allow someone else to carry the case against Donald Trump. But I don’t think it was a clinging. I think there was an ongoing assessment on his part of what this moment required of him, what leadership he had to exercise. And that decision yesterday, a decision to step out of the campaign and to focus on governing is a leadership decision. It needs to be understood that way in my view.

ISAACSON: Those who’ve known Joe Biden for the — over the decades, including yourself, myself, the Democrats and Republicans, there was a sense, I think, when the announcement came down of a bit of a sadness. I mean, in some ways, a long career like that, it hits you that suddenly he’s now has a step off stage. Tell me about your own personal emotions.

BAUER: My emotions on this are very strong. Joe Biden has played an extraordinary role in the public life of this country for a very long time. In the United States Senate, in an extraordinary period as vice president of the United States, Senator Barack Obama, and as President of the United States. There are very few careers in American political history like that. And I also look at this presidency as one that was full of promise, much of which he fulfilled. It was an extraordinary presidency in many ways, and I think it’s been viewed that way. And in many of the retrospectives that have begun to be written, including by critics who did not want him to run for re-election and did not want him to stay in the race, there is a recognition of what a successful president he has been at a particularly troubled time. It’s not as if he took office in 2020 in circumstances that would have voted well for success across the board for what he had said he would do. And yet, he had extraordinary success. And he met with challenges both here domestically and abroad with verve, imaginations, said (ph) fastness. And what I think he is particularly skilled at doing, and that is building support for good policy. And always keeping in mind the values that I think people have detected at the core of his career and his presidency.

ISAACSON: The book he wrote, “The Unraveling,” talks about how polarized we’ve become. Joe Biden seemed like he could have been an antidote to that. He was somebody always worked across the aisle, and to some extent, during his presidency, he got bipartisan bills, especially the infrastructure one. Do you think that part of his legacy will be that he tried to tamp down the partisanship or was that impossible?

BAUER: It’s obviously very challenging and it’s a period of extreme polarization. As you know, the recently selected vice-presidential running mate of Donald Trump views himself as a so-called post liberal. There’s a whole lot to be unpacked in the way he describes himself and the ideology he articulates. It’s fair to say it’s nothing like what Joe Biden holds dear and has articulated over the course of his presidency. What I think it is fair to say, however, is it’s difficult as this has been, and you pointed to some of those accomplishments. Joe Biden accomplished an enormous amount, and it’s hard to imagine any other political figure in this period of time who could have done what he did, and I think there’s a general recognition, as I said, even among critics that that is the case. So, I think in that sense, as hazardous as it is for us in the moment to protect what a legacy will be, I do think that would be very much part of his legacy. I think it will be the defining part of his legacy.

ISAACSON: You were involved with the debate preparation, as you’ve been in the past. To — explain that night to me and whether it was a total aberration or whether it reflected something that Biden began to see in himself.

BAUER: I certainly thought it was — and he said it himself, a very difficult night. But I thought it was aberrational. It’s nothing that I would have forecast or predicted or that he would have forecast or predicted, and I don’t think it represents in any way what another debate would have been like. He debated in 2019 and 2020, he’s obviously been in the public eye ever since then. But what happened and it set off the train of events that have led us to this moment.

ISAACSON: Do you think there can be an open convention for the Democrats, whether — do you think it’s a good idea or do you think it’s better for Vice President Harris to pretty much sail toward the nomination?

BAUER: Well, I’m speaking outside of my remit on that. I mean, I’m not a professional pundit and I’m not a political operative. I can only say President Biden has endorsed the vice president. He selected her because of her record and her distinction and his belief that she could be president of the United States. It appears that the party is strongly moving in her direction. I understand there are voices for open convention. And I cannot tell you how they think that will unfold and what they would expect that to produce. But I —

ISAACSON: Well, you’re a lawyer though. Do you see legal problems with an open convention where it’s unclear who the nominee is going to be for a while or are those things that the party shouldn’t worry about, they should figure out the best process for choosing a nominee?

BAUER: In the current circumstances, there are going to be perfectly reasonable disagreements about the best process, but I would point out that there are some significant issues with carrying on too late with this kind of debate, however strong the debate it becomes, however extensive the debate it becomes. There are ballot access deadlines that loom toward the end of August. And so, one of the rationales, the leading — the key rationale behind the virtual roll call vote, that is, you know, the DNC has been working on, has been to ensure that there is a ticket in place to avoid any conflict with valid access deadlines. And then, the other point to be made is this, if the party is coalescing around — and again, especially just my personal view, if the party is coalescing around to Kamala Harris over this very short period of time that we have, relatively speaking until the election, then it is better that we have a ticket that we could have confidence in now as early as possible so that the general election campaign can begin. Having an ongoing and potentially divisive debate within the party, I don’t know that it will be divisive, but any ongoing debate with party delays the moment when the party can prepare to take on Donald Trump and J. D. Vance. And so, I think that is a significant consideration here.

ISAACSON: The Republican speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has said that they’re going to use, the Republicans, a lot of legal methods to challenge the ballots in various states where the ballots of now would have Kamala Harris and a running mate. To what extent are there some legal issues involved with that? And do you think that it’s — the Republicans should be testing that in court rather than just contesting it at the voting booths?

BAUER: I think the way you put the question, I think, suggests the right answer. They should allow this political party to make a decision about a nominee and then join issue with that nominee on the issue so that voters can make an informed decision. Let me be very clear. I mean, my day job as a law professor, if Mike Johnson were my student, he would have a failing grade. What he’s spouting here as a potential counterattack on the party pivoting from the President Biden upon his withdrawal to another candidate is utter and total nonsense. He knows it — I hope he knows it. There must be people in his circle knows it — who know it, even if he doesn’t. And so, that’s all the distraction. And I — it is so evidently preposterous that the Republican Party can decide what the Democratic Party ticket looks like in November, then I can’t imagine anybody taking seriously. And it certainly will not be taken seriously in any court of law.

ISAACSON: You were involved in President Biden’s decision-making from way back and I think that you were involved with his selection of Kamala Harris to be his running mate, right? Did you advocate for that? And what do you see her strengths and perhaps weaknesses are?

BAUER: My role was in the process by which these candidacies for vice president were, if you will, vetted and sort of prepared for the president’s decision. So, it was not an advocacy role. But I think everybody recognized from the very beginning that she was an extraordinary candidate for vice president. She had significant experience at both the state and the federal level, highly regarded. And I don’t think there was any doubt, of course, that the candidacy was, in other respects, an historic one. And he picked her with full confidence that she could be president. And I don’t think there’s anything to suggest that that assessment was incorrect.

ISAACSON: What do you think the case she should make now on the campaign trail is?

BAUER: I would — now, again, speaking just for myself and not purporting to advise Vice President Harris on her political strategy, let me go to some of the issues that I think are most important. And that is what the Trump-Vance ticket represents in the nation’s politics at this moment in history. However, you characterize it, whether it’s a test of our democracy in whatever way you look at the make America great agenda that Donald Trump and J. D. Vance in their own ways have articulated, this is, I think, a very defining moment. Now, of course, in every election cycle, we hear the line, it is the most important election in our history. Most important election in our lifetime. I do think this is an extraordinarily important election. And I do think that she needs to — and she will and has done so on the campaign trail point out the way in which this is a divisive and reactionary politics. And all of the rhetoric of grievance that Donald Trump and J. D. Vance wrapped their politics up in cannot hide the fact that it is a divisive politics, a divisive reactionary politics that is going to mean a step back from many things, from reproductive rights on, that I believe many Republicans, as well as, of course, independents and Democrats, think we have to protect.

ISAACSON: You’ve been working with some Republicans, even to try to change the system. I know you worked with Ben Ginsberg and Jack Goldsmith on some structural changes you thought could happen. What changes do you think we need to make? And do you think that there can be sort of a coalition of some Republicans and Democrats who work together to save what you feel is problematic with our democratic process now?

BAUER: Yes, absolutely. I’m working hard on nonpartisan reform initiatives with Republicans. And I travel around the country. I meet, for example, with election officials who are trying to put on an election the public can and should have confidence in. And I think that that work is ongoing, and I’m heartened by what I find when I leave Washington. When you go out of D.C. and you talk to even committed Republicans who are likely to pull the lever for Donald Trump because they can’t bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, you do find a willingness to stand up, for example, for our voting systems, for professional, nonpartisan election administration that treats voters the way voters should be treated. You find that. And it is really important that we defend that. Local communities have to defend their election officials. Those election officials should be honored for the work that they do. That doesn’t mean we can’t have disagreements about voting rules. Some people don’t like early voting. Some people don’t like automatic voter registration. We can have policy disputes. But the attempt to portray the American election system as corrupt, the product of systematic cheating with results that can’t be relied on, is a direct attack on the democracy. It is a falsehood and it has to be thoroughly rebutted.

ISAACSON: What do you think Joe Biden’s legacy will be?

BAUER: From my vantage point, and I don’t think I’m alone in doing it, I think he will have been viewed as an extraordinary president who articulated democratic values when they most needed to be honored, who set about to try to protect institutions, to show respect for the rule of law, and to rally both political parties behind policies that could be said not in one party’s interest, but in the national interest. I think it’s an extraordinary achievement, in my view, and I hope that’s precisely how it will be recorded and how it will — how his legacy will be defined.

ISAACSON: Bob Bauer, thank you so much for joining us.

BAUER: Well, thank you very much for having me. I really enjoyed it.