Preet Bharara:

From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara.

Jonathan Capehart:

That tree, sure, it was intentionally set on fire outside of Fox News last week, but you would think that it was another January 6th insurrection at Fox. By the way, they were covering it.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Jonathan Capehart. He’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist at the Washington Post and the host of the Sunday Show With Jonathan Capehart on MSNBC. He’s also a political correspondent on PBS NewsHour, where he analyzes national political events alongside New York Times columnist, David Brooks. Capehart has been an editorial writer for most of his career. He started at the New York Daily News, where he was part of the editorial board that won the Pulitzer. Now a familiar face on cable news, Capehart has thoughts about the state of his industry. He speaks with me about media polarization, President Biden’s first year and the progress of civil rights. Plus he tells me who his all time favorite guest is, and the answer might surprise you. That’s coming up, stay tuned.

QUESTION & ANSWER:

Preet Bharara:

The holidays are here. Reminder to check out the CAFE merch shop. You’ll find some fan favorites like our signature Stay Tuned hoodie and coffee mug, and also signed copies of my book Stay Tuned at the cafe.com/shop. That’s cafe.com/shop. Now let’s get to your questions. This question comes in a tweet from Twitter user @walt828, who writes, while I know face-to-face interviews can be helpful, as a prosecutor, you put together cases without cooperation from defendants. Can the January 6 committee do the same?

Preet Bharara:

So I guess your question goes to different sorts of things. There’s interviewing witnesses and having them cooperate with the request for interview. And there’s also the special term of art cooperating witness, which means someone who will come and testify in a court of law in a criminal case against people with whom they conspired or committed some crime. It is certainly true that you can prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt to unanimous jury without a cooperation agreement with someone who testifies in exchange for potential leniency at sentencing. It happens all the time. It’s also the case that if you have enough evidence with lay witnesses and documentary evidence and surveillance video, depending on the nature of the crime, it sometimes backfires to also include a cooperating witness who maybe someone who turns the jury off.

Preet Bharara:

That’s happened to me in cases. One case in particular that I tried personally when I was a line prosecutor at the Southern District of New York, where it just turns out at the end of the day, the only person who ended up going to trial in a case where many, many people were charged with immigration fraud at a law firm was a pretty low ranking person on the totem pole. And the person who had been a cooperating witness for us, who testified, seemed to be more culpable and more odious than the trial defendant. And that was among other reasons why I think the jury didn’t like the case and ended up acquitting the defendant. So a cooperating witness in that regard is a double-edged sword. It can help tell the story, it can help explain to people what happened when there were no tape recorders running and no surveillance cameras running. But on the other hand, by definition, depending on the nature of the crimes they have committed, they can also turn the jury off.

Preet Bharara:

Now, the January 6 committee is not bringing a criminal prosecution. There’s not going to be a trial at the end of the day. We expect there to be public hearings of some sort in the new year. But if your question is, can they make a case in the public forum of Congress and explain with some transparency what happened on January 6th, who was responsible, who should be held accountable by the Department of Justice or otherwise? I think they can. It’s worth pointing out that though Joyce and I and others spend a lot of time talking about the intransigent witnesses, the ones who won’t cooperate like Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, hundreds of witnesses have come forward, have not asserted privilege, have given over documents, have answered questions for hours and hours at a time.

Preet Bharara:

It is also the case that even with respect to some of the witnesses who are intransigent and defiant, some of their communications can be obtained by the committee from the people with whom they communicated, right? It takes two people to have a communication, at least. So at the end of the day, I think the January 6 committee will be quite successful in connecting the dots in following the money and painting a picture of what happened that day and who was responsible.

Preet Bharara:

This question comes from Twitter user at handle @yocko, if Bannon and Meadows are ever convicted, what kind of punishment are they facing? You’re of course referring to the issue of criminal contempt of Congress. Steve Bannon has been indicted by a grand jury in a case brought by the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. Meadows has not yet been charged, but if he is charged, I guess, he will also face the same potential consequences as Steve Bannon if convicted. And just as a reminder, they face because it’s a misdemeanor a sentence of no more than one year. But what’s unusual with respect to this statute is that there’s a mandatory minimum sentence of one month. You don’t see that ordinarily in misdemeanor cases. So if they’re convicted on each count of conviction, they face at least one month, not more than 12 months. With Steve Bannon, he’s charged on two counts, one relating to documents, another relating to testimony.

Preet Bharara:

I think that those two terms, if you got convicted on both counts would be served concurrently. So even though there’s two counts, it would be one month to 12 months. And there’s also a fine of not more than a 1000, nor less than $100. Is that a ton of time in prison? No. But prison is prison. And depending on who you are, you might try to avoid it. So will it have the effect of changing minds of people like Steve Bannon? Probably not. Mark Meadows, it looked like it had the effect of changing his mind until he changed it back after turning over thousands of pages of documents. So we’ll see. But a year is not nothing.

Preet Bharara:

This is an unusual and personal question from listener Neil Colley, who asks quite simply, what other careers did you consider? Well, I guess, briefly early in life, I was a super nerd and really, really interested in astronomy, both actual facts about the solar system and our galaxy and our universe, but also science fiction. I read every single word that Isaac Asimov ever wrote. I tried writing science fiction myself without much success. And I often would joke with people that I was such a nerd that when I was a kid, I didn’t dream about becoming an astronaut, I dreamt to becoming an astronomer.

Preet Bharara:

I guess, very briefly, I also considered, and I joke about this a lot, a career in medicine, because there was a lot of pressure in my house from my pediatrician Indian immigrant father that I become a doctor. He thought that was the right path for someone who does well in school. That was the path he chose. It was the path that allowed him to leave India and become an immigrant and come to America and build a life here. So there was a lot of talk about becoming a doctor. I took biology, AP biology in ninth grade and did very well on it. As well as a joke, my dad and I didn’t toss a football around in the backyard, but we did dissect small animals. So I would have extra practice and do well in biology. And then I took chemistry and that was a bit of a disaster. And I never thought about medicine, although I hadn’t thought about it much at all.

Preet Bharara:

If you read my book, you know that from an early age, early high school, maybe even middle school, I wanted to be a lawyer, I wanted to be a litigator, I wanted to be someone in court, I wanted to try cases. I thought there would be nothing as thrilling as making an argument in favor of something or against someone to hold them accountable for something. I read Inherit the Wind in, I think, seventh or eighth grade, and it blew me away. And I thought the thing that these people do for a living, that’s what I want to do for a living. And then, so I didn’t hesitate in going to law school.

Preet Bharara:

And once I in law school, sometimes people ask me the question, well, what kind of career in the law did you contemplate? And by no later than my second or third year of law school, I realized that the place I wanted to be was the place I ultimately had the privilege of going to, the Southern District of New York at a trial practice with a judge at the time, Michael B. Mukasey. You may have heard of him. He became the Attorney General later in life. And another Assistant US Attorney, Dan Nardello, who some of you may know. And I spend more time preparing for trial practice than any other class I took in law school. And I ended up being lucky enough to have my dream job. And then years later, the dream job of leading the office full of people who are pursuing their dreams.

Preet Bharara:

Now, Neil, what the question you did not ask is after I left the US Attorney’s office, when I was fired by the president, I have not persisted in the practice of law. One might ask the question, why didn’t I go back to practicing law? Well, that’s a question for another day.

Preet Bharara:

This question comes from listener, Nick Larson, who asks on Twitter, across all topics, what are you most concerned about going into 2022? Well, for me, it’s not even close. Like many of you, I’m terrified. I’m terrified for our democracy, the state of our democracy. So as we go into 2022, keep that topmost in your mind, keep paying attention, keep organizing, keep fighting, and don’t forget to vote. Stay tuned, there’s more coming up after this.

THE INTERVIEW:

Preet Bharara:

Jonathan Capehart joins the show this week. He’s an opinion columnist at the Washington Post and the host of MSNBC’s the Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart. As we near the end of the year, Capehart joins me to discuss the Biden administration and the state of political journalism. Jonathan Capehart, welcome to the show. Thanks so much for being here.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thank you very much, Preet. Honored to be here.

Preet Bharara:

I’m going to give you an opportunity right off the bat to make some news, okay?

Jonathan Capehart:

Oh, okay.

Preet Bharara:

I’m sure you’ve seen the recent headlines, lots of folks are leaving their networks. Chris Wallace, most famously of Fox News leaving for CNN Plus. And so my question to you is, and you can reveal it first here on the Stay Tuned podcast, will you be leaving MSNBC to join CNN or CNN Plus because that’s where all the cool kids are going?

Jonathan Capehart:

I can tell you breaking news, Jonathan Capehart is and will remain at MSNBC.

Preet Bharara:

What? That’s a mistake. That’s a mistake my friend.

Jonathan Capehart:

And not all of the cool kids are going to CNN Plus.

Preet Bharara:

I know they’re not all going to CNN. No, sorry. And just so it’s clear, Jeff Zucker did not put me up to this on-air recruitment effort. But it is interesting. I wasn’t planning to start with this, but do you have any view of the move by Chris Wallace and what it says about Fox News? And then I want to ask you more generally about cable news, because you’ve been in the business for a while and what the trend line is and how you think things may either stay the same or change. But do you have a view that you want to express about Chris Wallace bailing there?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, it seems to me that when people leave Fox News, there’s no such thing as two weeks notice.

Preet Bharara:

It’s that day.

Jonathan Capehart:

It’s that day. And in that moment is when everyone finds out. It’s just like, and before we go, I quit. And then that’s it. I think Chris Wallace is leaving. It could have to do with the shift in emphasis at Fox News. It could have a lot to do with Tucker and what he’s doing with his hour and the impact that that’s having on the network as a whole, particularly that “documentary” that they ran a little bit ago. Chris Wallace at Fox News was the one person who held people’s feet to the fire. Democrat, Republican, you go on his air, president of the United States, member of the Senate, member of the house representatives, the local mayor, you have to be prepared to be asked tough questions and to be asked tough follow-ups if you don’t answer those questions. And perhaps what happened at Fox is he ran into a buzzsaw. And if you’re leaving Fox and you’ve got someplace else to go, particularly CNN Plus, and that says more about the future of streaming, why wouldn’t you jump?

Preet Bharara:

It’s interesting. I was just recalling, as you were speaking about Chris Wallace, like 16 years ago, when I first became a staffer to Senator Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, as we like to say, the first Sunday show I prepared him for where he was going to be asked about legal issues, particularly about the Supreme Court. Back then, there either was about to be a vacancy when Sandra Day O’Connor retired. And I remember him barking at me before I was doing the prep for him. And he said, this is high praise behind the scenes, “Chris Wallace is a really smart guy and he asks really tough questions. So the memo better be really good.”

Jonathan Capehart:

No pressure.

Preet Bharara:

And he didn’t say that. He didn’t say that about everybody. So no, there was a measure of respect that at least that politician, if not all politicians had for Chris. And what do you think the perception of Fox is going to be with the departure of this one person who on a sort of bipartisan or along the ideological spectrum was considered a bit more fair and balanced than some of the others?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, it depends on who you’re asking for their perspective. For those of us in the reality-based community, the departure of Chris Wallace is the last pillar at Fox that is also in the reality-based community. Now that’s not to take anything away from Bret Baier who is later in the day, but before the lunacy of the point of view television at Fox begins, but he doesn’t have the stature of Chris Wallace. Maybe with the departure of Chris Wallace, this is his opportunity to up his game in that regard to become that person who is in the reality-based community and is not afraid to say that two plus two equals four. But I think for the folks who are not in the reality-based community and by that I mean, for those folks who are clinging to the big lie and clinging to anything that Donald Trump says, the departure of Chris Wallace might be seen as a good thing. And maybe it goes unnoticed because maybe they’re not watching him.

Preet Bharara:

They probably are not. You’ve used this phrase, how a handful of times the reality-based community, how long have you been using that phrase?

Jonathan Capehart:

Ever since I saw it in an interview. What was his name? Was it Ron Suskind? I think so. It was a New York Times interview during the Bush administration. And there was some conversation about the war, the Iraq War. And he had this line of, well, if you’re in the reality-based community, this is the way you see it. It was sort of that decades version of alternative facts.

Preet Bharara:

Right. So it goes back. But what’s interesting about that. It’s a phrase that you have adopted and it was coined long before the Trump era.

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes. Long before. And I think it fits even more perfectly now because we are dealing with people who are, our nation is in two different realities. And one is reality-based. And the other one appears to be based in fear and loathing and menace.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think that cable television has too many opinion shows or shows that have hosts that are more ideological rather than more straight news shows? Do you have any sense of whether that balance is right or skewed at the moment?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, as an opinion anchor, as we call it at MSNBC point of view, as a point of view anchor, far be it for me to say there’s too many programs like that on the air.

Preet Bharara:

But you wouldn’t want 24 hour point of view. Would you if you were the head of the network right?

Jonathan Capehart:

No, no, no. No. And I think having point of view in prime time in the evening is the best place for it. You do have to have news programs that are “straight news”. This is what happened, this is who did it, this is why they did it, this is how they did it, and this is why this is important and why you should care. And here are these people who are coming on to talk about the implications of what that means. That’s very important. With point of view television, I do think it is important to have people, notably anchors, with a sense of authority being able to talk about what’s happening in the news, do those same interviews that have been done during the “straight news” hours. But that anchor then has the privilege and the luxury of being able to tell the audience what they think about the who, what, where, when, why, and how of the day’s news and interview a newsmaker or a journalist who’s behind the story and ask them questions that try to dig deeper, dig deeper than you could by just asking just the facts, ma’am.

Jonathan Capehart:

The problem that we have now though, Preet, is you’ve got a couple of networks at a point of view programs that are reporting the news with a point of view. And then you have a whole other network that is doing point of view, but it is either talking about news that is manufactured, manufactured to whip people into a range of emotions from anger to hysteria, to paranoia, completely ignoring big stories. I mean, that tree, sure, it was intentionally set on fire outside of Fox News last week, but you would think that it was another January 6 insurrection at Fox. By the way, they were covering it as opposed to covering the real January 6 insurrection and talking about what that means for the country, for our government, for our constitution. And that’s what I mean. When you have point of view television that’s focused on things that aren’t serious, that is a problem, and especially when that network on cable is the most watched cable network.

Preet Bharara:

There’s one thing that has caused me to, this might be too strong a phrase, feel sorry for or feel a little bit bad for elected legislators in the Congress, house members or Senate members. Not really, but you’ll take my point in a moment. And that is you can’t really not have an opinion on something. If you’re a voting member of the Senate, you have to have an opinion on oil, on coal, you have to have an opinion on tariffs, because you’re going to be asked about it, you have to be clear to your constituents and you’re going to be voting on all these issues. And I wonder if there’s a parallel aspect to that for point of view people like yourself. Do you feel that you have to come to an opinion on every issue that you cover or that comes to light in the news cycle? Or are there things about which you think you have the luxury of being undecided and figuring it out as you go?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, my entire journalism career has been spent as an opinion writer, as an editorial writer. And when you’re on that side of the wall, you are hit with issues that you hadn’t even dreamed of thinking about.

Preet Bharara:

Right. So how does that work for you?

Jonathan Capehart:

And so you have to take the time to do the reporting, to find out, okay, what is this? Why is this happening? Talk to experts, not be in a rush, because sometimes a snap judgment could be more detrimental than waiting a day or two to see if more information comes to light, to see how the story evolves. I look at myself versus some of my fellow point of view anchors and I marvel at the fact that they are able to just say what they think about whatever is happening.

Jonathan Capehart:

Whereas I am, I would rather, if there’s a big news story happening, I would rather have someone come I’m on who has a point of view on the particular subject and ask them questions, pointed questions that will not only help me understand the issue and come to some kind of perspective, but more importantly, help the audience understand, because in the end, the show is not about, really about out what I think about any particular issue, especially if I have no clue about how I’m supposed to feel about something, but the audience, the audience is tuning in to find out what’s going on, why is it important? Why should I care? And I as an anchor, if I have not come to, if I can’t answer those questions for the audience, but it’s a big news story, then it’s incumbent upon me to invite people on who can talk about it and who can give some perspective and be able to ask them the questions that I think people at home are asking.

Jonathan Capehart:

There are issues where I have from years of reporting and lived experience, sure, I might have some opinions about a lot of stuff. When Bennie, Chairman Thompson of the select committee put out his letter to Mark Meadow’s attorney saying you were cooperating and here’s what you gave us. And being able to read the sentences and going, oh my God. People stop complaining about the January 6 committee not moving fast enough, read the words on the page. He’s telling Meadow’s lawyer, but also us in this 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle, they’ve got about 980 pieces. And that to me is one instance where I do have an opinion on what the January 6 committee is doing.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. So do I. So do I actually, that’s one I have an opinion on too.

Jonathan Capehart:

Right. And telling people, okay, here’s my perspective, here’s why I think this is important, and why I think you should pay attention to this.

Preet Bharara:

What kind of guests get the most response, either positive or negative after they’ve been on? And then related question, how do you think about choosing guests?

Jonathan Capehart:

So the most popular guest I have had and continue to have is my Aunt Gloria.

Preet Bharara:

Your Aunt Gloria. Family always wins.

Jonathan Capehart:

My Aunt Gloria has been a star ever since I wrote about her in a column in 2016, I’m sorry, in 2019 at the family barbecue. And she had this classic line when I asked her, who of the crowded field, who was she thinking of voting for for president in the Democratic primary? And as much as she loved Kamala Harris, she said, “Joe Biden.” And I said, “Well, why?” And she said, “Because the way things are, it’s going to take an old white man to beat an old white man, old school against old school.” And I put this in a column and I talked about it on television. And the piece went nuts. People wanted to know more about this person. And people started tweeting at me after a little while saying, “Hey, what does Aunt Gloria think about this?” I’d call up Aunt Gloria or email her. And she’d tell me what she thought and I’d write a column and it would go. So when I got a show a year ago, actually it’s a year ago today.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Congratulations on your anniversary.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thank you. People are like, “So you’re going to have Aunt Gloria on, right?” So I had her on. It was, if I remember right, the first time she was on the highest rated segment on the show. Give me your assessment of President Biden now that he’s what? Four or five days into his first term as president of the United States.

Aunt Gloria:

He was made for this job. It’s perfect time to have him, he’s experienced. And I love the way he has everyone he has nominated. It looks more like, it looks like America’s finally moved up to his potential.

Jonathan Capehart:

And every time she has been on, she has trended on Twitter. I don’t pay attention to stuff on Twitter with regard to my show. I don’t do anything to try to trend on Twitter. But when the producers come in my ear and say, Aunt Gloria is trending on Twitter, that’s a big deal. And it happens every time. So she is the most popular guest.

Preet Bharara:

So now I have to ask you, how is Aunt Gloria dealing with all the fame and attention?

Jonathan Capehart:

I think she, I haven’t talked to her lately about it, but I think she’s tickled by it.

Preet Bharara:

She’s into it.

Jonathan Capehart:

She’s tickled by it. And I would love for her once knock on wood, we get to a point with COVID where we can start having people fully on set and people feel comfortable traveling and things because I would love to have Aunt Gloria on set.

Preet Bharara:

Well, that sounds terrific. It reminds me a little bit of in the old days David Letterman, different kind of show. And if there was Twitter then, I bet it would’ve been true of his mother. He would have his mother on. Right. And it was delightful because you sometimes don’t think of people like David Letterman having moms who might scold them. So it’s a fine tradition. Do you think that cable tele, and I’ll get off cable television in a moment, why are there so many guests in an hour of cable? And this is true on CNN, it’s true on MSNBC and other shows as well. Do you sometimes think that they could be more podcasts like where you have one or two guests for a long period of time or is there just too much stuff, too much news, you got to have 12 guests?

Jonathan Capehart:

I love that question. And I will answer it by also answering your previous question. So when I started the show, we would have these panels, three people, four people, every block for two hours. And finally I said, I feel like I’m running a marathon at a sprint pace and I don’t have enough time to really talk to anybody when you’ve got three guests on and you’ve got six minutes. That’s nothing. So I said, “Okay, look, I want no more than two guests in the A block. And then every block after that, one guest.” So that way, I can have more time with that person. And I’m the kind of anchor and interviewer who I do not pretend like I have all the answers, like I know everything. That’s why I have the show to invite people on who do have the answers, who can answer the complex questions. And so I ask questions and get out of the way.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Did you get some pushback when you wanted to reduce the number of guests? And what do the executives think about this?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, as far as I know, the executives are fine. It’s been a year and I’m still here and I haven’t been called into the principal’s office. It’s usually more about convincing the EP and the seniors sometimes that this is the way I would like to do it. And there’s been no vigorous pushback. It’s like, are you sure? Sure. And there will be weeks where it’s like, I know I said only two, but we really need to have this voice on.

Preet Bharara:

It’s just interesting to me. Obviously, I’m a senior legal analyst at CNN and I think it’s very important. And when news breaks, I try to still things that the anchor asks me about for the public and a lot of people I think appreciate that. But then what we do here on the podcast where I’m going to sit with you and talk for an hour and I get to ask you a lot of follow up questions and we can go places, including your background and your family and other things, to me, I wouldn’t be happy unless I could do both of those things.

Jonathan Capehart:

Right. And I have a podcast at the Washington Post, which I’ve been doing for five, almost five and a half years. And I love that-

Preet Bharara:

Plug the podcast, Jonathan.

Jonathan Capehart:

It has been renamed. It is now called Capehart. And I’m doing it now in conjunction with Washington Post Live. So the conversations are 30 minutes, but when it was in its other incarnation called Cape Up, the conversations when it first started were 20 minutes. Then they became 30. Then they became 45. Then they became an hour because when you’re having a great conversation with somebody, you lose track of time. And especially when the conversation is going down avenues that were not anticipated. And that’s what I love about this format. It’s two people talking, it’s very intimate. We’re in people’s ears right now. And they’re able to hear this. But you know what, Preet? I want to go back to your question about guests and answer your question about guests the audience doesn’t like. And I remember-

Preet Bharara:

Do you have an uncle? Do you have an uncle to hate?

Jonathan Capehart:

No, no. This is not a family member.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. Okay.

Jonathan Capehart:

Senator Lieberman, former Senator Lieberman wanted to come on and to talk about something that was Senate related, some policy thing. And I thought, oh, it’d be interesting to hear from Joe Lieberman on this issue. And so we had him on. The reaction such as it is, so such as it was from Twitter was not kind. People were not happy to hear from Senator Lieberman. Memories are long about what he did in his final years in the Senate. What I have come to learn and understand is that my audience has no patience for guests who, to use the phrase again, are not in the reality-based community as they see it.

Preet Bharara:

Well, is that, so is that true? Or just to challenge it for a moment, do they have no patience or tolerance for people who disagree with them?

Jonathan Capehart:

I think that is the key thing. And with Senator Lieberman, I understood where they were coming from. And they had valid critiques of what he said. But one area where I have not had an issue simply because they won’t come on is I have had no sitting elected Republicans on my show. And it’s not for a lack of trying. And I need to be clear that the Republicans I’ve been asking for are not Republicans who are going to use my show to spout nonsense, to spout lies and to insult my audience because they’re not.

Preet Bharara:

You can’t get them anyway because they’re not coming on Capehart.

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, they’re not coming on the Sunday Show, and they might not come on Capehart, but I have interviewed Republicans on Washington Post Live. So their venue shopping as much as anything.

Preet Bharara:

Right. Right. And because is it you think in part they figure your audience has their minds made up about certain issues and they’re not going to persuade? It’s the inverse of what people say about people to judge go everywhere. And Mayor Pete, now Secretary Pete goes on Fox. Do you think that the reverse should be true that the folks like that should come on your show?

Jonathan Capehart:

I would love that, but here is the problem. Secretary Pete can go on Fox News and get accolades from the Democratic Party and get accolades from the Democratic base because it shows he’s fearless, it shows that he’s willing to go there and speak truth to power, go on Fox and tell them in his very dry as the dry as Martini way that they’re wrong or their question is not based in fact, or that they need to rethink things. And while also delivering the message that the administration needs delivered to that audience.

Jonathan Capehart:

The problem for Republicans, and I had an elected member, Republican member of the Senate, who I interviewed on for Washington Post Live, and it was a terrific conversation. And he said to me, I thanked him afterwards once we were all done, I thanked him. And he said, “I’ve been following your work and find you to be fair and even-handed and willing to hear both sides and everything.” And I said that I am so glad to hear you say that because I have an MSNBC show and I would love it if one day you would come on. And he said, “Thank you for the invitation. I have to limit the amount of time I spend at that network. Otherwise, I’ll get in trouble.” Paraphrasing.

Preet Bharara:

That’s so funny.

Jonathan Capehart:

He would get in trouble for going on MSNBC, for spending time on MSNBC with his constituents.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll be right back with more of my conversation with Jonathan Capehart after this. Let’s talk a bit more about politics that I know you opine about and talk about and analyze. Is Joe Biden having, put the polls aside for a moment, is Joe Biden having a good successful first year of his presidency?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, it depends on how you look at it from, if you look at things accomplished, I think he is having a good presidency.

Preet Bharara:

Pause in there for a moment. And do you think that, because I know there are people who say that by any measure, and I’ll use your phrase, in the reality-based community, the things that he has passed, the advances in employment and all sorts of other measures, do you believe it is a matter of subjective opinion at the heart of this analysis? Or is it fairly objectively true that he’s had a lot of major successes?

Jonathan Capehart:

I think it’s objectively true that he has had a lot of successes so much so Joe Manchin was pictured last week with a palm card just filled front and back with all the things that have been accomplished by the administration. And keep in mind, the administration is still less than a year old. And between the American Rescue Plan, the bipartisan infrastructure plan, I mean, even if Build Back Better does not get done by the end of this calendar year, you have those two things plus raising the debt ceiling in terms of legislative accomplishments.

Jonathan Capehart:

I think where things then start getting problematic is when you start talking about the economy. And what we have happening to my mind is two things are true at the same time. The economy is good and it’s bad. It’s good at the macro level because the stock market is high, wages are increasing, unemployment is at lows not seen since the ’60s or even the ’50s, jobless claims are down. But then at the micro level, the economy is bad. People go to the grocery store, price of eggs, up, price of milk, up, cheese, up, gas, way up, all of the inflation. The figure came out 6.8%, the largest in like 40 years.

Preet Bharara:

Is that something that the administration should have done more to acknowledge?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, I think they should have done more to acknowledge, they’ve tried. I really do think-

Preet Bharara:

Because it’s a little bit, Jonathan, it’s a little crazy to me. On the one hand, we say, so help me out here. On the one hand we say, I think reasonable people who are supportive of Biden as I am, and I presume you are, they should have maybe acknowledged reality of inflation and the increasing price of milk and gas and other things, while also touting other things that are going well, like lowering unemployment, et cetera, et cetera. But that wasn’t the MO of the Trump administration. They outright gave fantasy talk and bizarre explanations of or omissions about economic data on a regular basis and got away with it. Can you square those two things?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, I think it’s just a matter of, it’s not like the Biden folks have not been doing what you’re saying. It’s just that folks will tend to focus in on the bad stuff or the negative stuff. President says, “Yes, there’s inflation and we’re doing everything to get it under control and it will be ‘transitory’, but let’s keep in mind that this is happening because we did the American Rescue Plan and that got more money into the economy. And it’s having this kind of an effect. We’re doing everything we can to get people back to work and get this economy moving, get beyond…” They do all of that. They talk about it in a holistic fashion and not in a bombastic performance art way, where we had a president of the United States who every time the market went up would go out there and say, “Everything is great, the stock market is through the roof.” And then on the many, many, many, many, many, many days when the market was in the toilet was mute, said nothing.

Preet Bharara:

And it’s a bizarre thing. And it reminds me of years ago, there was some movie with Tom Hanks in it, whose name I’m forgetting. And he worked as an advertising executive. And something I’d never thought of before was characters in a scene make the point that airlines never brag about their safety record, even if they have a perfect safety record going back a period of time. And the reason they never brag about their safety record is at any moment, there can be a plane crash and you look like assholes. And it doesn’t work. And you would think that that sort of moderate and modest and careful promotion of your record would be applicable to politics as well. And yet it’s not.

Jonathan Capehart:

Right. But I think that speaks a lot to just the division within the country now, that you’ve got an overwhelming majority of the Republican Party that still supports Donald Trump. Way too many people within the Republican who identify as a Republican don’t think that Joe Biden is the legitimately elected president of the United States. And they’re fed a steady diet via Fox News and conservative talk radio and everything. And so for them, nothing will ever be right. And then you have the majority of the Democrats who I think, the one thing that I’ve taken from Trump and have applied to President Biden is Donald Trump’s obsessive compulsion of knowing his support among Republicans. He couldn’t care less about his overall job approval rating. What he cared about was whether Republicans were with him. And by and large overwhelmingly, they were. And so whenever a job approval poll comes out with Biden and he’s underwater, no doubt about it. But I go and look to see, where are Democrats? How much support does he have among Democrats?

Preet Bharara:

And how’s he doing on that score?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, now I’m regretting bringing it up because I have not looked lately.

Preet Bharara:

I bet it’s not the same. I bet it’s not the same.

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, it’s not 90%. But it certainly is, the last time I looked, which is at this point maybe a month or so ago, it was certainly above 70.

Preet Bharara:

I’ve asked this question of other guests, because it’s, I’m obsessing about this question. And there are various explanations for it and give you a shot at talking about it as well. Maybe there’s something different going on. And we’re reaching a point in our politics that the popularity of one’s policies don’t necessarily translate into the popularity of the person proposing them or enacting them, that people want something else, and whether it’s tribalism or culture wars or something else that prevent the popularity of somebody who is doing things that are so broadly popular in the country, like lowering drug prices and other things. What do you make of that theory?

Jonathan Capehart:

I can buy that theory. A friend of mine who also studies these things, Justin Gest, a professor at George Mason, he writes about the fact that right now, partisanship is more popular, if you will, than organized religion, that if you were to ask somebody what they think about a particular person or whatever, you can pretty much figure out what party they belong to. And that in the end, it’s not about the person and their qualities or whatever, it’s whether they have a D or an R next to their name. And I think it’s called, I think Rachel Bitecofer calls it negative partisanship, if I remember right. And so that’s where we are, that if you have a D next to your name or an R next to your name, that will determine whether people will support you or not support you. And so I think there’s something to be said for what you’re saying.

Preet Bharara:

So let me ask you the same question I asked you about Biden about another public official. Objectively, has Vice President Kamala Harris had a successful first year?

Jonathan Capehart:

Oh my God. Don’t get me started because nothing has-

Preet Bharara:

Here we are, room, room, room, Jonathan.

Jonathan Capehart:

Nothing has driven me to nail-spitting apoplexy than the incessant, incessant negative stories about the vice president.

Preet Bharara:

Don’t you think she deserves to be vilified because of reviews on AirPods? Don’t you come on?

Jonathan Capehart:

No.

Preet Bharara:

In the reality-based community, Jonathan, don’t you think that that deserves a lot of stories?

Jonathan Capehart:

You know what, Preet? In the reality-based community, that would not be a standalone story. That would be a nugget inside a larger, more serious story.

Preet Bharara:

What about the pot? She bought an expensive pot, Jonathan.

Jonathan Capehart:

The sister girl can’t go shopping when she’s in Paris? Come on.

Preet Bharara:

I’m just putting these questions to you. I’m just being devil’s advocate.

Jonathan Capehart:

And you know what, Preet? I’m glad you brought up the pot, the pot in Paris, because this is what got me to nail-spitting apoplexy.

Preet Bharara:

To be clear, we’re not talking about marijuana.

Jonathan Capehart:

Correct.

Preet Bharara:

It’s the Le Creuset pot. 375 bucks.

Jonathan Capehart:

So she goes to France, America’s oldest ally, longest standing ally for five days. This comes in the wake of the spat between France, United States and Australia over that submarine deal for Australia, where France recalled it’s ambassador to the United States, recalled him home. Macron and President Biden had a conversation in Europe at one of the G meetings. But this with Vice President Harris going over on that particular trip, it was like one of the high holy days on the French national calendar. And there she was vice president of the United States with the president of France on this big, important day for France. They announced agreements on all sorts of things, from things dealing with space, climate change, all sorts of things.

Jonathan Capehart:

And she comes home that Saturday, wakes up on Sunday to this huge story from Politico about how her office is in disarray. And the West Wing is concerned about this and everything. And I was bananas. If she had been white and male and had taken her first trip to France, I guarantee you, I guarantee you, the Sunday story, the Sunday story in some national newspaper or magazine or Politico or wherever would be, let’s assess the impact of that trip with the vice president. And it didn’t happen. And she’s still-

Preet Bharara:

So what is going on? So what is going on here?

Jonathan Capehart:

Oh, well, I think some people discount her and her staff’s contention that sexism and racism are at play because I think they are. She is someone Washington hasn’t seen before, political reporters have not seen before, their editors haven’t seen before. And they don’t quite know how to cover her, even though she is the first vice president of the United States to have a pool with her, meaning she has a pool of reporters who follow her wherever she goes, never happened before. And so-

Preet Bharara:

Is it one way to think about it in a glass is half full way? Given an standing that maybe with respect to high-ranking politicians, once in a while, there’s got to be a bad story, once in a while, there’s got to be a critical story? And if that’s true, if the worst you can write about Kamala Harris recently is about the AirPods and the pot, boy, she’s doing pretty well. Why can’t we say that’s an accomplishment and a victory? Is that not right?

Jonathan Capehart:

But I would agree with you if those were the only stories, if you take a look at the coverage and don’t focus so much on the frivolous like AirPods and fancy pots.

Preet Bharara:

Well, there are stories about her management and what’s going on inside the Office of the Vice President, that’s true.

Jonathan Capehart:

Or even look at the stories claiming she’s doing stuff that she’s not doing, i.e, she is the border czar. No, she’s not. She’s not the border czar. People hectoring her to go to the border, even though her job is the Northern Triangle. You’ve got people, supporters of her who don’t help matters by complaining about the fact that she’s got all the thankless tasks, Northern Triangle, voting rights. And there’s one other where folks are like, “Oh my God, Joe Biden is giving her all the dead-end projects to do.” And I sit back and read these stories and it’s like, she’s vice president of the United States, she does not need to be coddled, one. And two, did it ever occur to you that she asked to do these things? And three, you don’t run to become president first and then join in the ticket as vice president second if what you want is a cushy job.

Jonathan Capehart:

So the one thing that I did do after the latest spate of stories, I started doing my own reporting to find out, okay, what in the hell is going on? And what was most concerning to me were the nuggets coming out of the West Wing, unnamed sources saying all sorts of stuff. And what I have been able to reasonably assure myself of is that whoever those sources are in the West Wing, gossiping, if you will, about Vice President Harris, it is not coming from the upper reaches of the West Wing. Everything that I have been able to find out through my reporting is that the relationship between President Biden and Vice President Harris is a good one that he trusts her. It’s one of the reasons why he is giving her all of these things.

Jonathan Capehart:

And also let’s keep something else in mind. All of these things that she’s doing, as vice president, you’ve got to be ready to go at any minute to be president, whether the president is upper 70s or 45, that you have to be ready and ready in and ready to go on second one if need be. So I’m glad Vice President Harris is jumping in and taking these hard things. It would be great if there were some accomplishments, but in order for there to be accomplishments, you have to have a Republican Party that’s willing to work with you. And at a minimum, when you have a 50/50 Senate, 50 senators all rowing in the same direction so that you can get Build Back Better over the finish line, so you can get voting rights, if not over the finish line in terms of a vote, how about at least allowing for there to be a debate on the bill, Republicans? And then one more thing, and then I’ll stop breathing fire, Preet, on this.

Preet Bharara:

Fire is good.

Jonathan Capehart:

The one thing that everyone has to keep in mind whenever they see a negative story about Vice President Harris, all of these stories, when you pile them up and pile them up together, they have the effect of trying to label her and brand her as in over her head incompetent and therefore, unable to become or be president of the United States. In the end, all of these stories, this relentlessly negative narrative is about preventing Kamala Harris from becoming who they are afraid she will become. And that is president of the United States.

Preet Bharara:

Because that’s the national order of things when you have an elderly president and you have a young and vibrant vice president. So I think all your points are well taken. Here’s, before we run out of time, this maybe a hard or overly broad or difficult question, but then we talk a lot about the path to justice and equality in this country. And you have a particular background yourself, you’re gay black man, and you write about these issues and you focus on them. And I wonder if you think over the last, I don’t know, 10 to 15 years in America, have we made more progress on LGBTQ justice and equality or on racial justice and equality?

Jonathan Capehart:

Oh, well, without question, over the last 10 to 15 years, we’ve made more progress on LGBTQ equality without question.

Preet Bharara:

Why is that?

Jonathan Capehart:

I think it’s because of the energy and passion behind it. That’s not to take anything away from the civil rights community. The Civil Rights Act ’64 and the Voting Rights Act of ’65, huge, huge accomplishments. But those are like 50 something years ago. And I think because of what was learned from the civil rights movement that the LGBTQ rights movement, which happened in parallel because Stonewall was what? Four years after the Voting Rights Act. So what sparked and what became the spark to the LGBT civil rights movement, the modern gay civil rights movement, LGBTQ civil rights movement, the lessons from the civil rights movement for racial equality for African Americans, the lessons learned from that were at work for gay and lesbian Americans. I think it was, I was going to say elevated, but that’s not the right word. It really took off sadly after as a result of the AIDS epidemic, when gay men in particular decided, like we got to come out and we have got to put a human face on this human tragedy that is happening. And then it moved on from there.

Jonathan Capehart:

But I have to tell you, after the four years we had with Donald Trump in the White House and what we’re seeing the court do now, especially when it comes to reproductive health, that all of these rights are in danger. That is as fast, relatively fast, gay men and lesbian, same sex couples got the right to marry. We could be facing a situation where that right could go away even faster because of what’s happened to the court, because of such hyper-partisanship that we’ve got a 50/50 Senate. And that even if Susan Collins wants to codify Roe v. Wade, there’s no guarantee that it’ll happen. And so the moment the Texas abortion ban went into place and the Supreme Court let it go through, I remember Melissa Murray was on MSNBC a lot, but also particularly my show where she said, this is why what happened in Texas should be concerning to every one because of the implications for other rights.

Preet Bharara:

Oh yeah. And then we have, we don’t have time for me to ask you about it, but Gavin Newsom’s gambit on gun rights using. As his template what they did in Texas, you’re going to see more and more of that. Jonathan Capehart, congratulations on your success on the one year anniversary of your show. It was a real treat to talk to you.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thank you so much, Preet. Such an honor.

Preet Bharara:

My conversation with Jonathan Capehart continues for members of the CAFE Insider community. To try out the membership free for two weeks, head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider. I’d like to end the show this week with the story that has received I think far less attention than it deserves amidst the chaotic news cycle that has been 2021. Let’s turn the clock back for a moment to 1944. That’s when President Franklin Roosevelt enacted the landmark G.I. Bill, which is legislation considered to be among the most impactful in the nation’s history, contributing to an unprecedented period of economic prosperity in America. As many of you know, following World War II, the G.I. Bill provided millions of returning military veterans the opportunity to pursue higher education, home ownership, and ultimately a better livelihood for themselves and their descendants.

Preet Bharara:

FDR’s intent was that all Americans who served in the war irrespective of race or background would be entitled to benefit. But not all returning veterans were treated equally. That’s especially so in the Deep south, in states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia. Racism and discrimination drove the decision-making of many local veterans affairs officers whose discretion allowed them to determine who among our military heroes were deserving and who were not. According to an Ebony magazine survey conducted in 1947, of the 3000 home loans granted by local VA officers in Mississippi, only two went to returning black service members.

Preet Bharara:

It’s difficult to fathom, but I was hardened to learn that last month, a group of democratic lawmakers have proposed legislation that would correct this wrong. It would compensate the families of black servicemen who were unfairly denied the economic and social benefits promised to them. Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts introduced the bill on Veterans Day, the GI Restoration Act that would extend the VA loan guarantee program and GI Bill educational assistance to black World War II veterans and their descendants.

Preet Bharara:

Here’s what Congressman Clyburn had to say, “In practice, generations of black veterans of World War II and their descendants were robbed of this promise because of Jim Crow and the wide racial disparity in the GI Bill’s implementation.” Seth Moulton, the bill’s main author who served four tours of duty during the Iraq War said, “There are a lot of black Americans who are feeling the effect of this injustice today, even though it was originally perpetrated 70 years ago. I think that restoring GI Bill benefits is one of the greatest racial justice issues of our time.”

Preet Bharara:

Sgt. Joseph Maddox is one of two World War II veterans the bill is named after. Maddox was denied tuition assistance by his local VA office despite being accepted into a master’s degree program at Harvard University. The bill is also named for Sgt. Isaac Woodard, Jr., a World War II veteran from South Carolina, who was brutally beaten and blinded by a police chief in 1946 after returning home from the war. The acquittal of his attacker by an all-white jury helped spur the integration of the US armed services in 1948, which was put into place by President Truman. In addition to the house bill, there’s a companion bill in the Senate by Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, himself, the son of a World War II veteran.

Preet Bharara:

As I discussed with this week’s guest on Stay Tuned, Jonathan Capehart, the rate of progress on racial equity in the US is far from where it should be. If enacted the GI Restoration Act would represent an important, if still, small step in the right direction. Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Jonathan Capehart.

Preet Bharara:

If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics and justice. Tweet them to me @PreetBharara with the hashtag #askpreet, or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That’s 669-24 Preet, or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com. Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The senior producers are Adam Waller and Matthew Billy. And the CAFE team is David Kurlander, Sam Ozer-Staton, Noa Azulai, Nat Weiner, Jake Kaplan, Chris Boylan, Sean Walsh, and Namita Shah. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host Preet Bharara. Stay Tuned.