Trump gets done for fraud as GOP candidates vie for attention
2023-09-29 00:26:39
Every Friday, Guardian columnist and former Washington correspondent, Jonathan Freedland, invites experts to help analyse the latest in American politics. From politicians to journalists covering the White House and beyond, Jonathan and his guests give listeners behind the scenes access to how the American political machine works.
This is The Guardian.
It was debate night for almost all the Republican candidates for the White House when news came that the frontrunner was in legal trouble again.
Here in New York City, a judge ruling that the former president committed widespread fraud, the judge determining. Trump lied for years about his net worth by inflating the value of his real estate portfolio.
He could end up losing control of iconic properties like Trump Tower.
A massive blow for someone who sold himself as the successful businessman. America needs to keep the economy thriving. So did his Republican opponents exploit this opening handed to them by fate during the second presidential debate? Well, not exactly.
Excuse me, excuse me.
Thank you for speaking while I'm interrupting.
While Trump came under fire for some things. The seven candidates who showed up at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California were mainly focused on trying to be louder than one another. So who came out on top? This week, I speak to the top Conservative commentator, Bill Kristol, to get his take. I'm Jonathan Friedland, columnist at The Guardian, and this is Politics Weekly America.
These other candidates think, I think, incorrectly, but they are being shaped by the experience of the last several years. Of course, that going after him directly, frontally, is hopeless. It's a suicide mission.
Bill Kristol was the chief of staff to the Republican vice president Dan Quayle. Back in the 80s and 90s and the founder of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard. He's now editor at large at The Bulwark.
I think it's foolish, I think it's really a kind of evasion. But unfortunately, they've learned this over the last several years. That going directly at Trump results in the fate of Liz Cheney or many others who have lost primaries and are no longer in politics.
So just game out for us. The strategy as they see it, because they can read the polls just like you and I can. Which show that all of them, put together, still are out-polled by Donald Trump. So what's the strategy that they think works here? They knock out all the others and then they're the last ones down. Just talk me through it.
Yeah, I think their strategy is sort of a wish and a prayer, basically, it's that they knock out the others. Everyone comes to his or her senses in December, January, February and realizes, Oh my God, maybe we just can't quite go with Trump the third time. And they default back to Nikki, Haley or DeSantis, or whoever the last surviving one is. But they seem to think that this will happen without them, calling attention to the fact that Trump is radically unqualified to be president.
That's what they won't say, except for Chris Christie, to some degree. Maybe I can just mention one instance to bring this home. Over the weekend, Donald Trump tweeted. Or whatever. His version of Twitter is that General Milley, who's stepping down as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 43 years of military service, who obviously stood up to Trump at some key moments, of course, especially after November 3rd and the run-up to January 6th. Trump tweeted that in the old days, General Milley would have been tried for treason, that would have been a good thing.
The former president suggested last Friday that the nation's highest-ranking military officer deserves to be executed for communications the general had with China during the final months of the Trump administration.
He also attacked NBC News, one of our major networks, for, I don't know, telecasting something that he didn't like and said it should be closed down. That's something he would want to do as president. Here, you have a presidential candidate seeming to invoke treason, endorsing a charge of treason against a distinguished general who acted properly, in accord with the Constitution and the rule of law. And none of the candidates thought to bring it up. You'd think if I were running, one might have said, Hey, look at these things Trump has said, and you cannot nominate someone. Do we really want us, the Republican Party? is that our position?
Treason trials for a general who stood up for the rule of law shutting down news organizations. That's not America. But none of them said that, and that would have been too harsh, I suppose, and there would have been a backlash against them.
No, I was going to mention Mark Milley, and, as you say, on his own, Trump's own Truth social network, he posted. Not just that it was an act of treason, he went even a step further and said, This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been death. And in fact, Mark Milley was asked, You know, do you have protection in place? and he had to say, You know, yes. I've taken steps to ensure the safety of myself and of my family.
And yet, as you say, they didn't even mention it, instead, there are these couple of things that they obviously feel are sort of safe to mention. One is a sort of process issue, which is that Donald Trump ducks the debates.
And let me tell you what's going to happen.
You keep doing that.
No one up here is going to call you Donald Trump anymore, we're going to call you Donald Duck.
And the other is that he racked up spending in a major way and inflated the deficit. I mean, you've already explained why you think it's crazy for them. Not to mention the big things, the terrible things that Donald Trump has done. But why are those two things sort of as it were safe for them to mention?
Well, they have to somehow distinguish themselves from Trump, otherwise people will just nominate Trump. I mean, the deficit is a traditional Republican issue.
But so is not executing soldiers. I mean, that was also a traditional Republican issue.
Well, no, I know, but this deficit is sort of safer. It's a policy thing. The ones who weren't in Washington could turn it into a bit of an anti-Washington thing, you know? If Governor Santa's balanced the budget in Florida, every state governor has to do that.
And they ran up the debt in Washington. So I suppose that's. It's a safe way of slight distancing oneself from Trump. But it is a little astonishing, honestly, the sort of hold Trump has on them. But look, they've gone along with Trump for a long time, and they've gone along with a lot of really terrible things Trump has done. Including six of them raising their hands at the last debate, the previous debate, and saying they would ultimately vote for Trump again.
They're unwilling to really cross that bridge and say he could not be president. The tribalism is so deep in the country now, in the U..S. The notion that you would be a traitor if you deserted the Republican Party, all their futures, such as they are, would disappear. But again, it sort of goes back to your question. Though. It's not as if most of them have much in the way of a future. They're out of office.
They've been in office, this is kind of their chance to make a difference. But the self-intimidation, as it were for going after Trump is pretty striking.
So let's, in that case, go through the sort of individuals who've all sort of signed up for this approach. Starting with the man who for a while was seen as the frontrunner, at least, to be in second place, which was the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis. I mean, he did make it take a pop at Donald Trump. It was no more than that, but it was about in the territory of spending. Donald Trump is missing in action.
He should be on this stage tonight.
He owes it to you to defend his record, where they added 7.
8 trillion to the debt that set the stage for the inflation that we have.
And he made a few sort of awkward faces, I mean, how do you think he did?
A little better than in the previous debate, but not well enough, I think, to save his campaign. I mean, he had his moment and he had a chance. I think you never know, you can't re-run history. Maybe he was ultimately going to fail anyway.
Trump is just so strong in the Republican Party now. But DeSantis in February and March had won re-election as governor of Florida by 19 points. Very impressive. The obvious thing if you win by a big margin in what's a pretty representative state or area, you say, Hey, look at me, I'm a winner, you know? And Trump lost in 2020, that was his message.
But he sort of didn't stick with that message, that's a more traditional political message, and he felt he also had to go as far as Trump, maybe further than Trump in certain ways, in fighting various culture war issues or fake issues and demagoguing to try to appeal to the Trump base again, it would have been an outside chance to defeat Trump, but he missed what would be the obvious card that he could have played, I think.
What about Nikki Haley? On the first debate? People were, she got some good notices there and there was a bit of an uptick. We read in Donations, donors, big donors, big money donors who have been looking for someone to be a standard bearer against Donald Trump were interested in her. Former governor of South Carolina, former U...N. ambassador under Donald Trump.
How did Nikki Haley do?
I thought she did well, she surprised more in the first debate. This was more consistent with her performance there, but I think it was a good performance. She fought with some of the OR tangled with some of the other candidates in a pretty aggressive way.
Honestly, every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber for what you say because I can't believe.
One effect I wouldn't overstate. I think Trump is a prohibited favorite at this point to be the nominee. But I do think there could be some consolidation behind Haley as the alternative. I wouldn't be that surprised if, two or three months from now, a couple of the other candidates are gone and Haley becomes the alternative to Trump. She's probably an alternative who falls short, you know, but maybe they've been so feckless, they haven't really done much yet, and they're scared of Trump. Actually, it remains very much the case, I mean, that it would take such an act of courage to get 10 people together. Who can each write checks for a million dollars, $2 million, $5 million and say, you know what? We need to try to save the country from Trump.
We're Republicans, we're not really happy about voting for the Democrat in 2024. So let's make one big shot here, take one big shot here. With Nikki Haley, a totally, you know, respectable governor of South Carolina. Then you had ambassador. Maybe they'll do that, but I'm so struck that they're how reluctant they have been to do that.
And you sound like a man who's made the effort to get them to do that. I mean, you see these people, you speak to them. I'm guessing you've tried to persuade them that they need to do that with their money and trying to stop Donald Trump.
Yeah, a little bit. I'm not speaking to that many Republicans these days now that I've become more of an ex-Republican. But now what I have very early in this year, so this is nine months ago. Now. I remember talking to a couple of Republican donors or people who work closely with them. And saying, Look, you could do a lot in 2023 by spending a lot of money to knock Trump's numbers down. And you don't have to even have one message, you can have 10 different messages, 10 different ads directed towards, you know, 10 different constituencies. Of ways in which Trump has failed them, or ways things Trump. His daughter said. That might offend them really.
Hammer that stuff home and don't even say necessarily who you're for. Just have these ads show up. These digital ads show up on people's phones and computers. You know, over the next six, nine months, will that destroy Donald Trump? No.
Could that have prevented him from getting a prohibitive lead in the primary, though? could that have kept him at 30 35 to his hardcore support instead of 50 55? I think it might have, and I said this to people and others did too, and that's such a great insight of mine. And oh yeah, maybe, but I don't know.
I think we'll wait and see who emerges. You know, many excuses not to rise to the occasion.
So we're left with the field that's there on that stage. Some notices this time were good for Nikki Haley's fellow citizen of South Carolina, namely Tim Scott, the senator there, the only African-American in the race.
America has suffered because of slavery, but we've overcome that. We are the greatest nation on Earth. Because we faced our demons in the mirror and made a decision.
He went after Ron DESantis on his education policy, He went after lots of people in the room except Donald Trump. Has he done himself some good?
A little bit, but I think again, he had a moment before the first debate where I think he could have emerged. I think he seems so weak. So it's just not compelling. As a candidate in that first debate, I'm not sure he really fixed that in this debate. And again, the more they each think they did OK, and they'll just stay in, the more they split the field. That's already competing for only 35, 40, 45 of the electorate.
And if there are four or five of them competing for it, it really gets kind of pathetic what percentage each of them has.
Yeah, and it suits obviously Donald Trump massively to have all of them just being in the single digits. Vivek Ramaswamy We talked about him on this podcast when he again got a lot of attention after that first debate. Not all of it positive. A lot of people said he came off pretty annoying, there was more noise and sort of mudslinging between him and the other candidates.
A key moment came when Nikki Haley said that she felt herself get dumber. Every time he spoke, to the extent that he was building a little following, particularly among Trump supporters, did he do himself some harm this time?
Yeah, maybe I don't think he did himself as much good as some people thought last time. Because for the reason you just suggested, he sort of became the second choice of Trump supporters. But since they have Trump, they don't really need to go vote for Ramaswamy. Maybe he's positioning himself that in case something happens to Trump, he could be there for the future.
But he's also decided that being really belligerent and rude and interrupting all the time. The same people that funded Hunter Biden millions of dollars was a partner of yours.
As well.
It's not nonsense.
These are good people who are tainted by a broken system.
God knows, after Trump's success, maybe to some degree it is, but Trump is a very in his own way. And sophisticated is not quite the right word. A very able demagogue, and he can bully, God knows, and interrupt, especially when he's fighting Democrats. But he also has a certain ability, sometimes to be, he has a little sense of humor. I mean, that's quite the right word.
But he's a good con man, you know, and like good con men, he knows how to make himself somewhat attractive to audiences. At least ones that want to be on his side. Whereas Ramaswamy just comes across as the really annoying, you know, kid in your class who was a know-it-all and interrupted everyone else. And, you know, didn't respect other people's comments. And so I'm pretty dubious about his prospects.
The last one of these, I mean, we could talk about Chris Christie and his attempt to brand Donald Trump as Donald Duck for ducking the debate. I think I can't see that name sticking, but there was perhaps the most uncomfortable moment. Was Mike Pence trying to sort of engage in a bit of kind of almost laddish banter with Chris Christie about who he sleeps with?
My wife isn't a member of the teachers union, but I've got to admit I've been sleeping with a teacher for 38 years and referring.
In this case, to his wife. But it did feel a little bit cringey. What do you make of Mike Pence?
Yeah, I think his attempts to be kind of folksy, or, as you say, Laddish banter, is not his strong suit. Again. I mean, if he were serious. I mean, they all have been told by their consultants. You've got to be personable, you've got to be relatable, blah, blah, blah, which I think is all a little silly at this point. I mean, they are who they are.
Years, obviously. If I were Pence, I mean, he is a genuine Christian conservative, very conservative on social issues. The issue of just every answer. Just hammered the others for being unwilling to support a national ban on abortion, from being unwilling to really speak up for religious liberty. And the kinds of things that Pence does actually care about and is identified with. Again, I don't think that wins you the nomination, but it gives you a distinctive lane. As they say in politics sometimes, I don't think a Republican electorate in the year 2023 in the U..S.
Is very interested in any policy issues, to be honest. It's become so driven by Trump as a person, his cult of personality. What happens when you have a demagogue take over a political party for what? Seven years? But to the degree that at least Pence could have tried to bring up the social issues much more directly than he did.
It was striking how few and how little policy surfaced in the debate. I mean, there was some cultural stuff. Tim Scott attacking Ron DeSantis for reportedly wanting the school curriculum to suggest that. You know, slavery wasn't all bad, there were some skills that enslaved people learned. There was some stuff about trans issues and particularly young people, but otherwise there was a lot of noise.
And one thing that just came through to me a question was just the over-talking, the shouting, the way how hard it was to really even follow. Listen to anybody. I'm sure a lot of viewers will have just tuned it out. It made me wonder whether there will even be, and I know that there are other things at play here. But whether there will even be a Trump-Biden debate in 2024, or whether the format itself has been almost killed off by this debate season?
Yeah, I think it's a good question. Will there be other subsequent debates here in the primary season on the Republican side? I mean, that, I think, is supposed to be a couple more, I believe, one in November, one in December. And then maybe. As we go through the primaries, the tradition has been to have one pretty much before each week or every two weeks. At least when there are big primaries coming. Since we have them staggered out over a couple of months here in the U.S. do the debates even continue as a thing?
I think that's a fair question, either. Both Trump and Biden might have an incentive to avoid a presidential debate. Biden is, you know, is not as quick as he once was. And I wonder if he'll just say, Look, I've been president for four years, Trump was president for four years.
Voters know enough to decide between us, we don't have to have some debate. I can't fact check him anyway for 90 minutes and just lie and look, which is, I think, a reasonable position. Incidentally, you know, he'll just lie constantly.
What am I supposed to do? Say no, that's not right, and here's the fact on that. So I do wonder if that American tradition, which has now been going what since 1976 really of presidential debates, dies out. So yet another thing that Trump has done to change our politics, I suppose.
We mentioned the fraud story that emerged this week. Again, when politics was normal, that would have been terminal for anyone seeking to be president. The finding of the New York Court that Donald Trump falsely inflated the value of his assets, his businesses, to the extent that it counted as fraud.
This civil trial is scheduled to begin next week. But at this point, David, all that's really left to determine is how much Trump is going to have to pay in penalties. The state Attorney General's office has asked for at least $250 million. And the ruling tonight is already severely limiting Trump's ability to do business in New York. Possibly even forcing him to sell some of the buildings that bear his name. But David just a moment ago late word from his attorneys.
They plan an immediate appeal.
We've had guests on the podcast after egregious charges and findings against Donald Trump. All say, yeah, they won't make any difference at all. What do you think, will there be repercussions from this, and how does it fit with his persona of the successful man of business?
On this latter point, I'm part of. His persona is successful, with a slightly rakish, you know, way of conducting his business and a slight disregard for the law. I remember in 2015 2016 when I was involved in Republican anti-Trump efforts, thinking, Look, he is, he is fake Trump. University, which people paid a fair amount of money, especially people, you know, weren't wealthy, to get a degree that would enable it to succeed in business. It was an utter 100 percent fraud.
Students say Trump University didn't deliver today, walking away with a $25 million settlement approved by a federal judge ending the seven year legal fight that claimed the university used high pressure sales tactics and never taught real estate success.
But it didn't hurt, and I remember thinking, that's that's the kind of thing that hurt you, right? You're taking hardworking people's money. Kind of credulous people who don't know, you know, think, Oh my God, maybe I could really make it if I take this course from Donald Trump. But I do think the degree to which people just relish his success, even in avoiding legal consequences. And so that's why I suspect these things seem not to hurt him.
It's still not impossible, I would say that for indictments, this judgment in a civil case in New York, we will have a trial in Georgia of one of his top lawyers. From the January 6th period, where it become clear how just what Trump tried to do to overturn the election, I don't know. Could all that have an effect? People, people keep thinking, maybe maybe this time, maybe this is a straw that breaks the camel's back. That's the metaphor that's been overused the most, probably in the last year.
I don't know does straw ever break camel's back out of a camel's backs? I'm a little dubious about that, you know, camels are very sturdy, they just chug along with all that straw.
And I kind of think that's what Trump has been doing and it is, but it is gets back to our earlier discussion. It allows a lot of people to avoid confronting Trump. So if you're a Republican senator, if you're a governor, you don't have to get together with 20 other senators and say this man should not be president.
We always like to ask our guests on the podcast a what else? question? Something completely different, and in this case, it's not that different. It's just the other side of the aisle. About the Democrats, and I know you speak as a Republican, and you said before an ex-Republican, and not really about the Democrats.
But I've heard you recently talking about the question of whether Joe Biden should indeed continue to seek re-election and be the Democratic nominee? Or whether he should, purely on grounds of his age, decide not to run? And you even offered a couple of names of who might be a viable alternative. Just on that question of whether or not he is for certain a nominee, do you think there's any chance he doesn't run and put it a different way? Do you think he shouldn't?
I think he shouldn't, I mean fairly or unfairly, and I think the age question is a legitimate one. Two thirds of Americans, really 60 plus percent of Democratic voters, think he shouldn't run again, and I think he's been a good president.
If he were to stop it, if he were to say I'm not running again, he could well be a very successful, very important and consequential one term president. The person who defeated Trump kept the economy do pretty well after the pandemic, helped lead the assistance to Ukraine. I mean, there's a lot he would have to say. I think the risk of him running is greater than what is also admittedly a risk. Which is a messy primary among four or six or eight Democrats, but I think the Democrats have a good bench.
They have several governors who have been impressive, who have won pretty good victories in swing states Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania. They have others who are impressive people. I would prefer, just as a matter of defeating Trump, I would prefer to take my bets on a next generation Democrat. Even after the sort of messy primary, well, messy, just the primary process that would occur over the next six months. I'd prefer that than sort of pretending there's no problem with Biden's age and just.
Trying to sort of muscle through, and that's the should, and what about the would, do you think?
He will, I think there's an outside chance, I think. I mean, I'd say, three months ago, kind of. When I and a few other people, James Carville started saying this, it was like, Oh, come on, he wants to run, he's going to run.
He's the incumbent Democratic president. I'd say. Now it's a little different. It's sort of a sense of this is what Democratic voters think, and so you can pretend they don't think that.
You can say they'll overcome their doubts and and they might and vote, I hope they do. Actually, if Biden's in on me and vote for Biden, when it's really a Biden-trump choice, they'll just say, OK, we just have to go with Biden. But I'd worry that enthusiasm, especially among younger voters, would be way down. But he doesn't seem inclined to step aside.
Challenging him is difficult, challenging an incumbent president. I think one or two people might try that still, but that's just hard. And so here we are. But I personally have come. When I started saying this, I said it in a tentative voice because I wasn't sure and I'm not sure now. But I've got to say I'm much more convinced now than I was two or three months.
Ago, final question to you, you and the other people who are never Trumpers, are you in effect?
Now, essentially a Democrat, yes, I mean, with a two-party system, at least for now. I think it's irresponsible to actually say, well, Trump is a real threat to the country, which I believe. But I'm going to indulge the fact that I have some differences with the Democrats and vote, write in Ronald Reagan, or go for some fanciful third-party effort, yes.
And incidentally, so, I am a Democrat, partly because of the danger of Trump, but also because I've got to say. The Democratic Party, I think, has been more moderate than one might have expected it to be five years ago and has governed pretty well, pretty well. There are a few mistakes, I think, and there are aspects of it that I don't care for that much. But really, this has been a sober old-fashioned, I would say, Hubert Humphrey, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Democratic Party, and I think has done a pretty good job.
Biden's done a pretty good job over the last four years, so for me, the ideal circumstance is most of Biden's policy is continuing, but with a next generation leader.
Bill Kristol, thanks so much for joining me and speaking so frankly on Politics Weekly America.
My pleasure.
And that is all from me for this week. Do listen out for next week's episode when I'll be speaking to the man known as the nation's doctor, the United States Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Morthy. Back in May, he published an advisory against what he called the epidemic of loneliness. So he and I discussed the crisis he believes America now faces from isolation. And why some political actors are manipulating this crisis and what both politicians and individuals can do to stave off the danger.
But for now, it's goodbye. The producer is Danielle Stevens, the executive producer this week. Nicole Jackson. I'm Jonathan Friedland. Thanks as always for listening.
This is The Guardian.
v1.0.0.260408-1-a910ba6_os