Podcast Summary
From Critic to Ally: Senator Graham's Transformation: Senator Graham's relationship with President Trump shifted from criticism to friendship, leading him to embrace Trump's base and adopt a no-compromise stance against Democrats.
Senator Lindsey Graham's relationship with President Trump transformed from fierce criticism to friendship, leading him to embrace Trump's base and their shared resentment towards Trump's opponents. This shift, fueled by the intense polarization in American politics, made Graham popular among Trump's supporters and ensured his allegiance to the president. Graham's message to Republicans became clear: there could be no middle ground between Trump and the Democrats, and any attack on the president was an attack on all conservatives. This change in strategy, while politically savvy, marked a significant shift from Graham's previous bipartisan approach.
Republicans' shift in allegiance to Trump: Initially, some Republicans felt obligated to explain or justify Trump's misconduct, but over time, they developed indifference and viewed Democrats as the greater threat, leading to an increasingly militant devotion. This mentality gave them justification to support unconstitutional actions.
During Trump's presidency, many Republicans in Congress, including Lindsey Graham, underwent a transformation in their allegiance to the president. Initially, they felt obligated to explain or justify his misconduct. However, over time, they developed indifference and began to view Democrats as the greater threat, leading to an increasingly militant devotion to Trump. This mentality gave Republicans the justification they needed to support the president's actions, even when they were unconstitutional. An example of this was Graham's shift in stance on Trump's proposed border wall and the use of emergency powers to bypass Congress. In 2018, Graham opposed such executive overreach, but after Trump's election, he encouraged the president to declare a national emergency and build the wall. This marked a new stage of Graham's collaboration with Trump, moving from protecting him from accountability to helping him usurp power.
Trump's National Emergency and the Interplay of Politics, Law, and Constitution: During Trump's presidency, the national emergency declaration for a border wall sparked intense debate over the constitutional limits of executive power. Graham prioritized political considerations and manipulating the courts, disregarding the potential long-term consequences.
During the presidency of Donald Trump, the constitutional boundaries of executive power came under intense scrutiny. While some presidents had issued emergency declarations before, none had done so to override the will of Congress. However, when Trump declared a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall, he faced significant opposition from Democrats and some Republicans. Senator Lindsey Graham, a prominent Republican, urged his colleagues to support Trump despite concerns about the precedent it set for future presidents. Graham argued that the political usefulness of the declaration for Trump and the potential for a strong issue in the 2019-2020 elections should be the primary considerations. When states filed a lawsuit against Trump's power grab, Graham did not call for the judiciary to protect democracy but instead considered how Trump could manipulate the courts. He urged expediting the confirmation of Trump's judicial nominees and suggested changing the rules to speed up the confirmation process. In the end, Graham argued that the absence of a supermajority in Congress to override Trump's veto meant that Congress was, in effect, giving its consent. This episode underscores the complex interplay of political considerations, legal niceties, and constitutional principles in the exercise of executive power.
President Trump overstepped constitutional boundaries during border wall controversy: Trump ignored checks and balances, Senate supported, and GOP downplayed evidence of potential collusion and obstruction in Mueller report, setting a dangerous precedent for power separation
During the border wall controversy, President Trump, with the support of a third of the Senate and a stacked judiciary, overstepped constitutional boundaries to seize powers reserved for Congress. Meanwhile, the Republican party, led by figures like Lindsey Graham, ignored or outright lied about evidence of Trump's attempts at collusion and obstruction of justice uncovered in the Mueller report. Despite Mueller's findings of several instances of potential collusion and obstruction, Graham publicly claimed there was no evidence of wrongdoing. This authoritarian pact between the executive and Congress, and the party's unwillingness to face the truth, set a dangerous precedent for the separation of powers.
Senator Graham Misrepresented Mueller Report Findings: Senator Graham repeatedly misrepresented Mueller report findings, downplayed significance of Trump's actions, and encouraged Trump to defy subpoenas.
Lindsey Graham, a close ally of former President Trump, repeatedly misrepresented the findings of the Mueller report and defended Trump's actions despite contradictory evidence. Graham falsely claimed that Mueller had exonerated Trump of obstruction and dismissed concerns about Trump's attempts to fire the special counsel. When Mueller spoke up to clarify his report, Graham continued to downplay the significance of Trump's actions and encouraged the president to defy congressional subpoenas. Graham even justified Trump's unrepentant attitude towards the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russia. Despite the clear evidence presented in the Mueller report, Graham invented justifications for Trump's behavior and dismissed the importance of congressional investigations.
Republicans justifying Trump's actions despite morality and legality: During Trump's presidency, many Republicans prioritized serving the man over upholding their principles, leading to a dangerous dynamic where they defended anything he did, regardless of morality or legality.
During Trump's presidency, many Republicans, including Lindsey Graham, rationalized the president's actions, even when they went against previous statements or principles. This included justifying the acceptance of information from foreign sources, despite earlier warnings against it, and overlooking human rights violations. The Republicans saw themselves as serving a man, not an ideology, and thought this was how party politics worked. However, following a man rather than an idea made the party more dangerous as they would defend anything Trump did, regardless of its morality or legality. This dynamic was on display during Trump's attacks on Democratic congresswomen in 2019.
Controversial Rhetoric Towards Democratic Congresswomen: President Trump's divisive comments towards Democratic congresswomen, including those of color, were widely criticized as racist. Graham attempted to defend Trump, but the incident underscores the need to recognize and address harmful language towards marginalized communities.
During the summer of 2019, President Trump and certain Republican politicians, including Senator Lindsey Graham, engaged in controversial rhetoric towards four Democratic congresswomen, three of whom were women of color. The president's tweets and subsequent rally chants, urging these women to "go back" to their countries of origin, were widely criticized as racist. Despite this, Graham attempted to defend Trump by redefining racism and downplaying the significance of the comments. The incident highlights the continued presence and acceptance of divisive rhetoric in American politics. It also underscores the importance of recognizing and addressing the harmful impact of such language on marginalized communities.
Senator Graham's quick reversal of stance on race baiting and self-interest in Syria: Once condemning harmful policies, Senator Graham reversed course, justifying targeting Americans based on ancestry and prioritizing self-interest over ethical considerations in Syria.
The actions and justifications of United States Senator Lindsey Graham illustrate how quickly America can revert to past evils, even from those who have previously condemned such behaviors. Graham, who once denounced Trump's race baiting, found himself rationalizing targeting Americans based on their ancestry in 2019. Furthermore, Graham's cynical lobbying campaign to keep American troops in Syria for oil revenue showcases the prioritization of self-interest over ethical considerations. These events serve as a stark reminder of the potential for regression into harmful policies and actions, even within the halls of power.
Senator Graham's deal to support US presence in Syria's oil fields: Senator Graham justifies US involvement in Syria's oil fields by increasing local revenues and paying for American presence, but the moral and political costs are mounting.
Senator Lindsey Graham's actions in facilitating American involvement in Syria's oil fields have been driven by a deal to support President Trump, despite the moral and potential financial costs. Graham's justification for this deal includes increasing oil revenues for local forces and helping pay for the American presence. However, the long-term implications of this deal, both morally and politically, are becoming increasingly expensive. Meanwhile, Graham has declared war on Trump's domestic enemies and is urging listeners to support the president, signaling a continued commitment to this controversial deal. This report on "The Corruption of Lindsey Graham" was produced by Will Salatin, with contributions from Katie Cooper, Jason Brown, Jonathan v Last, Adam Kuper, and Charlie Sykes.
