[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. No matter what you think of Donald Trump, I think it's fair to say it's hard not to be at least somewhat moved by a presidential nominee who was shot in the head, surviving an assassination attempt by a fraction of an inch two days ago, appearing at his nominating convention, and appropriately enough, people had tears in their eyes.

Even if you think Trump is bad for democracy, not having this election decided by a bullet is good for it. As you've heard, Trump also had his classified documents, criminal case dismissed yesterday, at least for now, and he named Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate. Vance was on this show in June of 2016 when he released his book, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and a Culture in Crisis. The culture in crisis part of that is why Vance said at the time that he couldn't support Trump for president.

J.D. Vance: The good side of Trump is that I think he recognizes that there are a lot of folks in the Republican electorate and the Republican base who are struggling economically, who are struggling socially. I think that for too long, the Republican establishment has ignored those folks. In some ways, Trump's election or Trump's nomination is just the result of people finally having enough and saying, "Look, we're going to vote for somebody who represents our interests."

The flip side of that is that I think Trump in many ways represents a very, very simple solution or an attempt to find a simple solution to very complex problems. If you look at my life, what characterized my life was a very broken, very unstable family, drug abuse all around me, and extraordinary sense of cultural resentment. I was able to overcome those things because I had a really loving family, because my grandmother and grandfather were frankly saints.

I think that the message of Trump in some ways makes that resentment worse. I don't think that he's going to do anything to make the drug addiction or some of the economic problems better. He doesn't really have policies that would address those problems. What we're left with is, in some ways, someone who tries to speak the language of the working class but ultimately is going to, I think, fail to make their lives any better. That's why I can't support him.

Brian Lehrer: J.D. Vance here in 2016 and, obviously, J.D. Vance has changed his tune. Also, in the last day, President Biden did an NBC News interview with Lester Holt to continue to try to show everyone that his communication meltdown at the debate was just a bad day. Elon Musk, if you haven't heard this one yet, pledged $45 million a month to the Trump campaign. Another dizzyingly eventful day.

With us now, Jonathan Lemire, White House bureau chief for Politico, host of Way Too Early on MSNBC in the 5:00 AM hour weekdays, a political analyst for MSNBC and NBC News, and author of the book, The Big Lie: Election Chaos, Political Opportunism, and the State of American Politics After 2020. Jonathan, always good of you to extend your day and join us. Welcome back to WNYC.

Jonathan Lemire: It's my pleasure. Always happy to be here.

Brian Lehrer: For people listening who have missed the transition since 2016, how did J.D. Vance become so MAGA?

Jonathan Lemire: Yes, it's a long way from suggesting that Trump was cultural heroin and even America's Hitler. Some of the strongest criticism, frankly, we've heard from anyone about Donald Trump. J.D. Vance, well, he decided he wanted to run for office, is the shortest answer here, from Ohio, a state that used to be the very definition of a battleground state, the very definition of a bellwether state.

The definitive swing of the state has gone very red, very Republican in recent cycles, and Vance decided he resign for the Senate. Now, if you take him at his word, he also said he-- I think he was even asked about this last night after becoming Trump's running mate. He said that he was wrong. He made an evolution. He was skeptical of Trump, the candidate, but impressed by Trump, the president.

He also blamed the media for misshaping his initial impressions of Trump. He notably ignores much of Trump's record while he was in office, when he now makes his case, but it worked for him. He became an intellectual stalwart of the MAGA movement, if you will. He was elected to the Senate in Ohio. He's in his first term just now. He became one of Trump's fiercest defenders on the Senate floor.

He, you'll recall, made the trip to the Manhattan courtroom earlier this year to stand with Trump. He's one of the first to do that during his hush money criminal trial. He became the voice of the populist in the MAGA movement. Let's be clear. We'll get into it, I'm sure. This was not a safe choice by Trump in many ways. This was going full-on MAGA and shows the real confidence Trump and his team have about this election at the moment.

Brian Lehrer: Why do you think Trump picked Vance among the various possibilities?

Jonathan Lemire: Well, let's first go through the short list. Among them, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott. In some ways, these were all safer, more mainstream choices than Vance. This is Trump doubling down on his messaging. In 2016, it feels like ages ago. Back then, there were not just a lot of Republicans, mainstream Republicans skeptical of Trump, but a lot of evangelicals, a lot of of conservative Christians in the Republican Party were skeptical of Trump.

Trump wanted Mike Pence to reassure them. He needed them. He doesn't need that now obviously, nor did he felt like he needed to make a move to the center to suggest to moderate any of his views. In fact, Vance is to the right of Trump in many ways. I'm told Trump feels like Vance is a bit of a star. He's a bit of a celebrity. We know that that's always held appeal to Trump.

Certainly, this is about the electoral college map, not about Ohio, which is just discussed, is going to be safely Republican, but about the states that surround Ohio. Wisconsin, Michigan, and most of all, Pennsylvania. Ohio is right there, borders Western PA. Many in Trump world think that if Trump can put up big-enough numbers in Western Pennsylvania like he did in 2016, that could be enough to win that state and, therefore, win the election.

It says President Biden really doesn't have a path to victory that does not include Pennsylvania. I'm told the two men, Vance and Trump, really bonded last year in the aftermath of the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, where Vance was a forceful critic of the Biden administration response. Trump at the time, a low watermark in his standing with Republicans.

It was on the heels of the pretty disastrous 2022 midterms for which he received a lot of blame. He went out there. That event where he rallied with the people and even went into a fast food establishment there reinvigorated his nascent campaign and reaffirmed to his advisors that he still has this connection to voters like that. He and Vance have had it been a mutual admiration society ever since.

Brian Lehrer: If Vance is essentially a younger Trump, I gather he'll turn 40 next month, how does that help him in Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania as you were describing, Trump hopes he will, presumably the same voters who would already have been attracted to Trump enough so to actually turn out and vote would be those turned on by J.D. Vance? I'm not sure I get it from a turnout or a strategic point of view.

Jonathan Lemire: The theory of the Trump case is, and this is the hardest thing to do in politics, it's to turnout new voters, but they think that there are some out there who respond to Vance, who now will see both men on the ticket preaching more or less from the same gospel, and that they think that could really motivate more and more people to turn out, people who are unhappy with the system. Maybe they don't like Trump, but they like these alternatives that he and Vance would present.

You make a good point because I heard from some Democrats last night, including some in President Biden's campaign team, who really breathed a sigh of relief and viewed this choice as an opportunity, that they think that Trump, if electorally speaking, could have made a safer and savvier pick elsewhere, but instead pick someone who says he completely opposed any sort of abortion, except to protect the life of a mother, meaning incest and rape, he doesn't think that abortion should be legal even for that. In fact, he is quoted as saying, "Two wrongs would not make a right."

He is very isolationist in his foreign policy, opposes any American aid to Ukraine. There are some in the Biden world that think that they can paint Vance as an even more extreme version of Donald Trump. That could turn off undecided independent voters that's been sliced that we keep talking about that might decide this election, but also repel some suburban women who maybe even been leaning Republican in some ways and because they have their doubts about the Biden candidacy but now couldn't bring themselves to cast a ballot for J.D. Vance and the positions he holds.

Brian Lehrer: My prediction, wrong as usual, was Marco Rubio because he could have brought more Latino credit to the ticket, an extremely important demographic, a battleground demographic right now where a few points more among them might make the difference. I guess they decided that didn't outweigh whatever advantage Vance hypothetically brings.

Jonathan Lemire: Yes, and I think the other complication with Rubio, and he and Trump, there's obviously a long history there. The two men have not always gotten along. The other complication for Rubio is simply residency. Both men are from Florida and that doesn't work in terms of electoral college. One of them would've had to move. Now, you could argue that, "Well, okay, Trump could just claim, say, New Jersey as his residence because he can say Bedminster or even back to New York." There's a sense that Rubio was the one who was going to be told to move and he didn't want to.

Brian Lehrer: [laughs]

Jonathan Lemire: Yes, that would've been a play for Latino voters because Rubio also would've had to give up his Senate seat, of course, win or lose, if he were to move. Also, some suggestions. Well, that's a reason for Tim Scott. The Trump campaign has had at least a little success per poll. We'll see if it turns out its way in November, but at least polls suggest it had some success with Black voters. Maybe Tim Scott could have helped them there. At the end of the day, Trump took a younger version of himself. Now, there's two white men at the top of the ticket.

Brian Lehrer: On both candidates, and a lot of people don't know that rule, you can't have the presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate be from the same state. The Republicans got away with it in the year 2000 when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were both living in Texas. Cheney was originally from Wyoming but had long been a Texas resident and running an oil company there, but they managed to weasel their way out of whatever that rule was. Another thing about--

Jonathan Lemire: I believe Cheney had a hunting cabin in Wyoming that he was able to claim as his residence.

Brian Lehrer: There you go. I think he accidentally shot someone there, didn't he? That's old news.

Jonathan Lemire: Yes, I heard that. I heard that story.

Brian Lehrer: Is Vance also considered the least likely to pull a Mike Pence, if I can call it that? That is, if Trump is trying to do something outrageous like get the vice president not to certify an election that Trump lost, Pence stuck to the Constitution, and Vance might be the most likely to not?

Jonathan Lemire: Vance in interviews has said that if he had been in Mike Pence's shoes on January 6th, he would've gone along with what Trump wanted. I think that there is very little chance that Vance will defy Trump. He would be his loyal vice president were Trump to be elected again. That raises questions about what Trump might ask him to do. What I've been told that some Republicans who are a little nervous about Vance point to some of his extreme stances that we already went through.

Also, just knowing Trump, they point out Vance is a bit of a star himself. There had been a thought that Trump would not want someone who could ever upstage him. Vance at least has the possibility that he could do that from time to time in a way that some of the others wouldn't. Watching the two men last night sitting side by side there in the RNC, Trump put the bandage on his ear in the wake of Saturday's shooting. No question who was in charge that Trump is certainly the dominant figure.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, anyone from a J.D. Vance-type background feel like you understand him or that he understands you, which is, of course, the argument to many kinds of voters or anyone else on any of the developments in the last day? 212-433-WNYC, call or text, including, we can continue to talk about what turning down the volume and political rhetoric might mean.

Biden was talking about it last night again on NBC with Lester Holt. Is there anything you would volunteer, listeners, from, let's say, your side of the aisle in that respect or do you think the whole idea is a false equivalency? Also, any lawyers want to weigh in on the classified documents case or anything else you want to say or ask today with Jonathan Lemire from Politico and NBC News, 212-433 WNYC, 212-433-9692.

We already have a text with a relevant question to the selection of J.D. Vance and here it is. Let's see. I'm pulling this up. The listener wants comments on J.D. Vance versus Kamala Harris matchup. The way the listener frames it is, "Can Harris stand up to Vance's pit-bull rhetoric?" I imagine, Jonathan, you've already been imagining and your colleagues have already been imagining the upcoming presumed Kamala Harris, J.D. Vance televised vice presidential debate.

Jonathan Lemire: Yes, we have every reason to believe it will still happen. There have been speculation after the first presidential debate that that might be the last time we see Biden and Trump on stage together, although we should note both men have suggested they will debate again. Vice President Harris and her team, they signaled yesterday. They welcome the chance to have that competition, that debate. Vice President Harris did try to call J.D. Vance yesterday to congratulate him. Apparently there's been some reporting that was an unknown number, so Vance didn't answer it. He got that voicemail later.

The two have not connected yet but will in the days ahead, we are told. It should be Harris, of course, a former prosecutor, former attorney general, had some very memorable moments when she was in the Senate grilling witnesses there, grilling people who were testifying. I think she has proven to be pretty formidable herself. Now, back in 2020 in the primaries, her debate performances were inconsistent. She was very good some nights, less present and visible others. She was perceived to have done pretty well against then-Vice President Pence in that debate. I think it would certainly be an intriguing matchup.

Brian Lehrer: Here is Monique in Tarrytown, who has called in before as an undecided voter between Biden and Trump. Monique, you're on WNYC. Hi.

Monique: Hi. I just wanted to add a couple of things to the profile of J.D. Vance, which might be missed. One of them is that he is a convert to Catholicism and many Hispanics are devout Christians. He is informed by Catholic social theory. Being pro-life means also pro-family, pro-working class, pro-helping children, pro-education. That's an important part of him, I think. The other thing too is that his wife, Usha, is Hindi. He's got a son by the name of Vivek. I think he's much broader. There might have been other motivations to why Trump chose his thinking. His earlier writing, The Wall Street Journal talked about it. He's not about big government and he's not about MAGA heroin. He's about how we have to help each other.

Brian Lehrer: Monique, thank you very much. Jonathan, anything on any of that?

Jonathan Lemire: Yes, certainly. His personal life, it's, I think, been underreported, his family dynamics and such. I think that in the days ahead, America will get to know J.D. Vance. Certainly, Hillbilly Elegy was a significant cultural moment, that book, though parts of it feel like they can be cast aside and his conversion to Trumpism. Certainly, other parts still very much resonate.

He speaks to a part of America that often gets ignored. We will see how this plays out. America does not know Vance very well. Not yet. That will change. I think there'll be a lot of eyes tomorrow night when he gives his speech. The vice presidential speaking spot is always at the end of the third day of the convention. There's reporting today that Elon Musk was actually one of the most loud advocates for Vance, Peter Thiel another.

These are tech billionaires who have suggested that he be an influential, important voice. We will see how it plays out when we hear from him. One assumes that even though he hadn't been picked yet, he and his staff were already working on a possible acceptance speech. Otherwise, that's quite a heavy lift in just the two days between what he was named yesterday and the speech tomorrow.

Brian Lehrer: As an aside, the caller mentioned education as being important to somebody with J.D. Vance's profile. I noticed in the Republican platform, it includes eliminating the Department of Education. Did you see that?

Jonathan Lemire: Yes, that's in the pro-- I believe--

Brian Lehrer: It's in Project 2025.

Jonathan Lemire: Correct me if I'm wrong. Right, it's in Project 2025, which is they have not officially adopted the RNC platform that they've watered it down. Trump has tried to distance himself from it. Let's be clear on this. First of all, once he's in office, he can do what he wants. He doesn't have to stick to the RNC agenda. He could use pieces of Project 2025.

Brian Lehrer: Right. I thought there was a version of that in the Republican platform too. Maybe I'm wrong, but go ahead.

Jonathan Lemire: You could be. I don't have it in front of me. The Department of Education, though, was being eliminated in the Project 2025 rhetoric. J.D. Vance has, on a number of occasions, said he supports much of what is in 2025. That is another thing the Biden team, as I should have mentioned earlier, is eager about because they feel like their warnings about Project 2025 in the last couple of weeks has been the only issue that they've been able to push forward, that has broken through the chatter about Biden's bad debate performance, that they've found that really resonated with voters. They plan to keep Project 2025 at the center going forward as well.

Brian Lehrer: We talked yesterday on the show about how these big events that feel like they're going to be the watershed moments of the campaign, then get subsumed into the fact that there are so many new cycles and so many things happening. A few weeks ago, it was like, "Oh, the debate is the defining moment of the campaign." Then Saturday, so recently, just three days ago, it was, "Oh, the assassination attempt is the defining moment of the campaign."

Now, we have J.D. Vance. We have classified documents, but people are still talking about turning down the temperature in politics after Saturday night shooting. I saw you, Jonathan, and others on MSNBC this morning interviewing two of our local members of Congress in the New York area, Democrat Ritchie Torres and Republican Mike Lawler. They appeared together to endorse turning down the temperature in politics. In the part I saw, they didn't get specific about what that means from either side. Did they at all to your ear?

Jonathan Lemire: No, they did not. They were on with us on Morning Joe to talk about a bipartisan bill they had put forward to increase Secret Service and funding and protection in the wake of what happened on Saturday. Yes, we asked them about the need to turn down the political temperature. We have heard that after the shooting from both sides of the aisle. President Biden said it repeatedly.

We heard that from House Speaker Johnson the other day. Even Donald Trump himself has suggested the moment for unity. I think every time in the past, it passed this prologue. Every time Trump has suggested there will be a new tone that he will not be as divisive as he's been, that never seems to last. Even yesterday, there were plenty of Truth Social posts from the former president that suggests that the new tone indeed would not be a permanent one.

I do think in the wake of the shooting, there is a real hope. It's almost like a desperate plea in DC to turn down the temperature. Whether that happens or not, I don't know. Let's be clear about this. Does it come from both sides of the aisle? Yes, but it is far more from the Republican side. Donald Trump and his acolytes use incendiary rhetoric and often call for violence in a way that simply no mainstream Democratic character or figure does.

Can you handpick examples? Of course. Even President Biden says he regretted some of the phrasing he's used in recent weeks. Yes, it is a bipartisan issue, but it's far more on one side of the aisle. That aisle takes its cues from Donald Trump. If there's going to be a change, Trump would have to be the one to really make it. At least to this point in his political career, he has not shown a willingness to do so.

Brian Lehrer: Well, you anticipated the next call I was going to take and I'm going to take it anyway to let a listener make the point from her point of view, but we've been getting this a lot, obviously, from Democrats. Dawn in Harlem, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Dawn: Hi. How are you? Thanks for having me. Huge fan.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you.

Dawn: I'm just going to completely agree with what you just said. I actually drafted this on Facebook, sent it to my mom, and was like, "Let me wait and see if I still feel like I want to say this out loud tomorrow," and I still do. Political violence should be condemned and stopped, period, of course, but I am tired of false equivalences around hateful rhetoric being made between the right and the left. J.D. Vance, the man that Trump just named, literally called Trump a Nazi in 2016. You can google it on Reuters for anybody that doesn't-- You don't have to take my word for it. Yet, the right conveniently blames the left for all escalation. It's just factually incorrect and there's no such thing as alternative facts. Sorry, I'm a little shaky.

Brian Lehrer: No, I hear you, Dawn. You're reinforcing the idea of a false equivalency, right?

Dawn: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you.

Dawn: It's just a bit tiresome at this point.

Brian Lehrer: Please call us again. I'm glad you got in. Then, Jonathan, this challenges us as journalists to report things that are objectively true even if they don't say, "Oh, well, this side does this and that side does this," if one side is actually doing it more. A lot of listeners have been contacting me about this. Another one sent in an article from The Hill, that Washington news organization, after the attack on Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's husband, when that attacker was really looking for Nancy in their California home.

A little snippet from the article that the listener sent says, "Former President Trump's eldest child, the executive vice president of The Trump Organization," Donald Trump, Jr., I guess that is, "retweeted a photo on Sunday of a piece of underwear and a hammer that was captioned, 'Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready.'" I don't know. Are people holding Trump accountable for the more than 50% share of violent rhetoric in politics today that his movement is responsible for as opposed to the Democrats?

Jonathan Lemire: They certainly should. We heard President Biden last night in his interview with Lester Holt do just that. Again, he said he regretted a couple of word choices that he'd made, but he said, "These are not equivalent things." Trump mocks Paul Pelosi after he was attacked. Trump inspired the violence at the Capitol on January 6th. They were followers of Donald Trump who tried to orchestrate a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. These two things are not the same.

Obviously, any American is grateful that former President Trump survived the shooting on Saturday. That does complicate, at least in the short-term, some of the messaging in this campaign. The President and his team have made clear they're not going to listen to Republicans who are, first of all, trying to blame Democrats for creating an environment that led to the shooting, and we should know, who don't have a motive yet from the shooter, though he's a registered Republican, that they're not to blame him. They are not the ones who pulled--

Brian Lehrer: In fairness, he donated to a Democratic political action committee, right?

Jonathan Lemire: A $15 donation in 2021 when he was 17 years old. We don't know the meaning of that. There's been some local reporting from a Pittsburgh TV station that the family house used to have some Trump signs out front. Let's be clear. We don't know the motive for the shooting. It may not be political at all. Law enforcement has really struggled to this point to ascertain what was going on and have found little to no clues in his phone and his laptop.

The gunman apparently had little to no social media presence. We will see what that comes with that. Some law enforcement experts we had on the show this morning have warned us that we may never really know what was behind the shooting. The Republicans have also tried to suggest, returning to the point a moment ago, that any future criticism of Donald Trump would be akin to calling for his assassination again, to stirring up a possibility of violence.

That's just a bad-faith argument. The Biden campaign has made clear, they're not going to adhere to it. The President has said that he will continue to draw sharp contrast. He'll do it in a way that is not escalatory in terms of rhetoric but draw sharp contrast between the two men and their issues, debate, that's what democracy is all about, the President has said, and make clear that he views that Donald Trump is still a real danger to democracy at home and abroad.

Brian Lehrer: We'll get to the classified documents case. We'll get to the state of the Biden campaign. Do recent events change anything about the pressure on him to get out of the race from within his own party? More of your calls and texts with Jonathan Lemire. Stay with us.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we continue with Jonathan Lemire from MSNBC. He's the Politico White House bureau chief. At a galvanizing moment in the presidential race, three days after an assassination attempt on one candidate, and almost three weeks into what Bernie Sanders calls a circular firing squad in the political sense, of course, surrounding the other. Jonathan, let's go next to the state of the Biden campaign. What does your reporting indicate about whether the move by some Democrats to get Biden to step aside from the race has been ended or changed in any way by the assassination attempt and any way that changed the political environment or the calculation of who's best to try to defeat Trump?

Jonathan Lemire: The push to depose President Biden from the top of the ticket, I would say, is frozen, potentially not over. I think what happened on Saturday after the assassination attempt, and now this week with the Republicans in the spotlight, the J.D. Vance pick, and then the convention, Democrats recognize this is not the moment to do it, that they want, frankly.

This is a race where, as many people on both sides of the aisle have said to me, whichever candidate is in the news is losing, in part because neither of them are very popular among Americans. They want to see what happens with the Republicans this week. Obviously, this is complicated by the shooting, but there have been a thought that Trump might actually damage his candidacy this week by being so public with some of his views. In terms of the Biden team, they have been clear. The President is not quitting the race. They say it over and over and over again.

They are tired of the Democratic criticism, but there are plenty of lawmakers who have come forward publicly who want President Biden to leave the top of the ticket. There are far more so who say the same privately. There are even some members of the Biden campaign, not the inner circle, but some members of the Biden campaign in somewhat waiting positions who privately think that Vice President Harris would have a better chance to win than the President and believe that Biden himself may come to the same conclusion if he sees wave after wave after wave of bad polling.

The issue is he really hasn't yet. The race hasn't changed that much. Now, to be clear, Trump's lead in the battleground states has increased slightly. The national polling is pretty static. In both categories, these are consistent but still pretty small leads for Trump, many within the margin of error. Those who are closest to the President tell me, they still believe with nearly four months ago in this race that things can change. They still believe that Biden is the Democrat who has the best chance to win. That is not a view shared by many in the party. There is a growing sense that if a change does not happen soon, it's not going to happen at all.

Brian Lehrer: To that point, there's a report today, I think it's New York Times, maybe you can confirm that, that leaders of the Democratic National Committee might try to fast-track the formal nomination of Biden to this month, July, weeks before the start of the convention, which isn't until August 19th, to end the discussion. Do you have your own reporting on that yet and who would the individuals be in charge of doing that if it's true?

Jonathan Lemire: It has been confirmed by many analysts, including ours, that that is the plan. Now, let's back up a step. This was originally necessitated pre-debate because Ohio had a rule on the books where they needed to have the nominee authorized for the ballots by a date that came before the Democratic National Convention. The DNC was already up to this plan and announced it publicly that they were going to have this virtual roll-call to nominate President Biden ahead of the Chicago convention a month from now.

However, the change here is that the governor of Ohio said, "We're not going to force that. It's to do away with that." Therefore, it wasn't needed any longer. It does seem the DNC is still going to push forward. That has stirred a lot of backlash from some in the party, particularly those who think that President Biden shouldn't be at the top of the ticket. Even some of those who think he should just think it looks shady and underhanded and they should let the process play out normally.

Brian Lehrer: Listener on identifying or not with J.D. Vance, given his own background. Jack in Queens, you're on WNYC. Hi, Jack.

Jack: Hi. Thank you for taking the call. Back in the day, I thought that J.D. Vance would be a Democrat and the next Democratic president. I thought he has a great story. I identify with his story. I thought his politics were great. He was working class. He was what every Democrat should be. Unfortunately, his politics have become abhorred as we know since he used to call Trump a Hitler. Now, he's his vice president. It's very disturbing for me personally, the change that has become. It reminds me of--

Brian Lehrer: Just by way of background on yourself, you told our screener that you consider yourself working class. Like J.D. Vance, you were raised largely by your grandparents?

Jack: Yes, I'm an immigrant. My parents were immigrants. My mother was 18 when she had me. I was raised by my grandparents who were terrific. God bless them. I wouldn't be a doctor today if not for them. His story is great. I'm very appreciative of America for the opportunity it gave me. I do believe in the American Dream. Obviously, there's problems. J.D. Vance represents that too. I think that's great. I also happen to think that his VP as a choice could cost Trump the election. I think that Nikki or Tim Scott would have been a much better choice.

Brian Lehrer: Jack, thank you very much for your story and your political analysis. Getting back to Biden for a minute, Jonathan. Any reactions within the party, Democratic Party specifically, to Biden's Lester Holt NBC interview last night?

Jonathan Lemire: The early reactions this morning were that they thought it was the best of the interviews he's given since the debate. They thought it was better than George Stephanopoulos. The President had a better command performance. They appreciated his feistiness. He even gave it back to Lester Holt at one moment, calling and suggesting that he and the media writ large wasn't doing enough coverage of Donald Trump and his lies.

I also think, though, that none of these events are enough to totally dispel the doubts of Democrats who have already decided that Biden is not the best way forward. It would be difficult. For instance, his press conference last week. Yes, he had one or two significant gaffes but largely was pretty good, most Democrats agree. Most of his performances since the debate have been pretty good, but none of them so good that it suddenly made those doubts go away. There's certainly a fear that he had a bad night at the debate. He certainly could again at some other venue down the road.

Brian Lehrer: Jonathan, I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about the classified documents case. I know you're a White House correspondent, not a legal analyst, but what's your short-form understanding of the reason Judge Aileen Cannon threw it out?

Jonathan Lemire: Well, I do sometimes play a legal expert on TV, Brian. Her reasoning was not actually what many had anticipated, which was the new immunity ruling from the Supreme Court. That is not what she grounded her decision in, but rather a more narrow procedural decision about the special counsel itself, whether it was legal and constitutional for to be appointed. I will defer to the experts on this.

There's a long and checkered history of the special counsel or independent counsel office and when it's been authorized and when it hasn't. Broadly speaking, the legal reaction yesterday was one of surprise, feeling like this was an incorrect decision, one that could potentially be overturned on appeal, which Jack Smith, the special counsel, has already said he will bring. In terms of the political realities, this trial was already very unlikely to come to the courtroom before the November election.

This assures that it won't. It continues, to many eyes, a trend of another favorable ruling from this judge, Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, that benefits Trump. I certainly heard and I'm sure some of your callers share this frustration that I've heard from Democrats who note that of the four cases facing Donald Trump, this one most experts believe was, by far, the strongest. A slam dunk case. My nine-year-old, I will say, watching the news last night even turned to us and said, "Weren't there documents found in the bathroom?"

This case was, in some ways, so simple and easy to understand, much more so than the one in Manhattan or either the election-related cases. There was a sense that this is the one that Trump would have the hardest time beating. Now, he's not even going to face it. His lucky streak continues here. He's certainly on a political roll, started with the debate, Supreme Court decision, and the rest. Now, of course, if this trial does come up again after Trump is inaugurated, well, he can just instruct the Department of Justice to make it go away.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, but he could be charged potentially under Florida law and it would be a state case. That's the only alternative to that that I've heard.

Jonathan Lemire: Yes, that could happen. Again, we'll see how that would go, whether he draws another friendly judge or not. At this point, we can safely say that the Manhattan case is the only one that will conclude by election day. There's still the outside chance, the federal January 6th case, but that is virtually non-existent now. Even the outcome of the Manhattan case is up in the air because of the Supreme Court's immunity decision. There's a chance that could be lost on appeal as well.

Brian Lehrer: Of course, if Cannon's argument withstands appeal, and you never know, she was citing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion in the immunity decision as the basis for her decision that the entire role of special counsel, as it exists right now, is unconstitutional. That potentially means, I guess, that the other Jack Smith case, which is really the most important Trump case, I think it's fair to say, the January 6th-related election fraud case, your book was called The Big Lie, referring to that, who determines now if that case becomes disqualified or needs to be brought in another way? Hunter Biden was just recently convicted in a case brought by a special counsel. There are huge implications if Aileen Cannon's judicial theory here actually holds, right?

Jonathan Lemire: Right. I think it is a safe bet that the Trump lawyers will attempt to use this as reasoning to try to make the January 6th case go away. That will be Judge Chutkan. The case is sent to the judge there in DC who will make the initial ruling, but it could be appealed up the ladder eventually, potentially even to the Supreme Court. That remains to be seen. These are legal matters. These are matters of justice, but they're also in this election year matters of politics. What is clear is that Donald Trump's tactics of trying to run out the clock, to push things beyond the election has largely worked. He got a significant assist from this judge, but also from the Supreme Court.

Brian Lehrer: Last thing. Elon Musk has become the first major social media platform owner not to stay out of presidential politics. He has endorsed Trump now and pledged $45 million a month to support Trump's election effort. Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg said on Morning Edition today, something like, "Not to sound like a Marxist, but that's too much influence for one business leader to have, even for him." I'm paraphrasing. I guess that would be $180 million if we assume four months left in the campaign times $45 million. How much of a percentage of what either side has would that be if that's a knowable number?

Jonathan Lemire: Both sides acknowledge the total expenditures in this race will be about $2 billion. This will still be small compared to that, but we should be clear, $145 million, that's real money. It can make a real difference in ad campaign, yes, to the Super PAC. Supporting Trump is where much--

Brian Lehrer: Does it breach any convention that he would endorse a candidate as head of a social media company? They're private businesses. They're allowed to have their political interests.

Jonathan Lemire: I'm not aware of any law or convention. It just goes against another norm that is busted here that some will do this. We know newspapers, editorial boards make endorsements, but they don't donate money. This is a little different. I think that there are certainly some in the aftermath of this announcement. There were some that said, "Well, here you go." This is why all along Musk wanted Twitter perhaps, was to be able to espouse his political views, and now to go on and endorse a candidate and back him financially as well.

Brian Lehrer: Jonathan Lemire, White House bureau chief for Politico, host of Way Too Early on MSNBC in the 05:00 AM hour weekdays, also a presence on Morning Joe there after that, a political analyst for MSNBC and NBC News, and author of the book The Big Lie: Election Chaos, Political Opportunism, and the State of American Politics After 2020. Thanks for talking about the state of American politics with us today.

Jonathan Lemire: My pleasure. We'll be happy to do it again soon. Take care.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.