Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna joined me today:

Audio:

05-21hhs-khanna

Transcript:

HH: I’m joined by Congressman Ro Khanna, Democrat from California where he represents the 17th Congressional District. Welcome back, Congressman. It’s always good to see you.

RK: Hugh, always great. Always enjoy the intellectual sparring.

HH: All right, so there’s no sparring here, yet. I just want to know your reaction to the revelations in the two books that have come out, Original Sin and Fight? I’ve read Fight. I haven’t read Original Sin, yet. That’s for this weekend. I’ll talk to Jake and Alex next week, but I did interview Jon Allen and Amie about Fight. What’s your reaction to the revelations in these books?

RK: Well, first of all, my thoughts, like so many people in the country, are with President Biden and Jill Biden for a full recovery from a very serious form of prostate cancer. I really hope that he defeats it with grit and grace. I also believe that he should not have run for a second term in light of what has come out. And I said candidly that many of us were mistaken in not saying that earlier. Now in the few interactions I had with him, he was on his good days. But in retrospect, it was clear that he should not have run for a second term, and we should just be honest about that.

HH: I have appreciated your candor about that on air. I want to know, though, do you think he ought to have resigned from the office or been removed pursuant to the 25th Amendment given what we know now?

RK: I’ve seen no reporting that he was not capable of doing the job. That’s a very different question than could he have run for another four years. And you know, my understanding is he was still managing what, or acting on troop movements in Ukraine, and capable of making the big decisions. And so you know, that, I believe he was still capable of governing. That’s a separate question whether he should have run for a second term.

HH: It’s a more important question, actually, in my view, because he could have been defeated if he had run, and he would have been defeated after that debate. But I don’t think, Congressman, he was even close to being at the speed you need to deal with the world that you know, you represent Silicon Valley. You know how fast the world…do you think he had the chops to deal with the world given what we saw, and now what we know?

RK: Well, look, I think he had the judgment to be making the big calls on key issues. And that’s the representations I’ve had from the White House, from the people closest to him, from his cabinet. Of course, you know, as you know, members of Congress interact maybe a couple times a year with the President unless you’re particularly close. I had a few interactions with him on rope lines where he appeared fine. But in retrospect, I shouldn’t have defended his decision to seek a second term. But I, you know, I have no reason to believe that he wasn’t capable of governing. And that, you know, I think has, those questions have to be asked to the administration.

HH: Now Congressman, you’re a very good lawyer. You’re a Yale lawyer. And so there’s evidence that is before us, and evidence that is speculative. But the evidence before us now is that he was substantially impaired, a substantial, at least a substantial part of many days. Can we afford to have a president like that in the future?

RK: Well, I think we need to make sure that people are vigorous, are energetic, and that that will be a criterion the American public uses. I think not just for president, probably for the House and the Senate, which is why I believe that future elections, certainly 2028, you’re going to have a whole new generation of people on the Republican side, on the Democratic side. And the American people are going to demand that. And so absolutely, having vigor, but also understanding of modern technology, I think, is going to be important.

HH: So Congressman, I have a column in the Washington Examiner today that argues the 25th Amendment failed. I want to read it for the benefit of the audience and to remind you of what it says. Section four – whenever the vice-president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide… Now the 25th Amendment failed, because the Vice-President did not summon, nor did the cabinet ever consider the President’s fitness for office. Do you think it is incumbent on you and other members of Congress to take the authority provided by the 25th Amendment or other such body as Congress may by law provide, and establish some other mechanism for judging a president’s capacity to continue in office?

RK: Hugh, here is why I’m reluctant on that, and have concerns. During Trump’s first term, there were numerous Democrats on my side who wanted to invoke the 25th Amendment to try to remove Donald Trump from office, arguing that he did not have the correct mental health, arguing that he had personality disorders. And I just am leery giving the power to a partisan Congress to be able to remove presidents that have been democratically elected. That’s a separate question from whether someone should run and have the judgment of the American people. But you know, I just, I think that that amendment will be abused by both parties.

HH: Well, the amendment doesn’t require Congress to make the decision. It doesn’t have a be a partisan body. It provides that you have the authority to establish, you as being Congress, such other body as Congress may by law provide. You can provide for a team of medical experts, and you can condition that the president submit to a full examination annually. I mean, you can do a lot of things so we don’t have to go through this again. And I would point out, and this isn’t a partisan hit, it’s just the record. Four times in a 105 years – Woodrow Wilson with his stroke, FDR with his terminal illness, John F. Kennedy with his Addison’s disease, and President Biden with his incapacity and infirmity, have been hidden from the people – two Republicans with health issues, Ike with his heart attack, Reagan being shot and then colon cancer, disclosed every detail, including too much detail in President Eisenhower’s opinion. Don’t you think that you can find some way to establish somebody that is non-partisan, but which provides against this happening again?

RK: Well, look, I think there should be transparent disclosures. I mean, two of the presidents you mentioned, FDR and Kennedy, were, in my view, some of the greatest presidents we’ve had for different reasons. And Wilson did win World War I. But look, I’m all for transparency and medical disclosures and health disclosures. I’m just, and my understanding on the 25th Amendment is it ultimately still requires a two-thirds vote of Congress, if I’m remembering it correctly, to actually have a removal. I thought it was half the cabinet, two-thirds of Congress. But correct me if I’m wrong on that. I just, I don’t want a body…right now, if you gave that power to a Democratic Congress, if we won, you’ve have people on my side saying, having, have Donald Trump submit to mental health tests and emotional tests. And I guess I’m just very concerned where if you give experts this power to remove presidents by saying that they were depressed or mentally, didn’t have mental health, I mean, Lincoln, as you know, suffered from bouts of depression. Imagine if there was a modern-day medical panel of experts saying well, he has depression, can he really govern.

HH: Well, you’re correct about the complexity of the Amendment, voting requirements in the second half of the amendment. But the first half of the amendment is about the determination about whether, of Section four of the amendment, about whether or not the president is fit. And I am pointing out that we have a structural failure here, and it sounds to me like you don’t want to say that we had a structural failure here. Is that correct, Congressman?

RK: I’d say that we, I don’t believe that it should have been invoked under Joe Biden from the evidence that I have. But I think more broadly, we should be very careful about empowering experts to pronounced on presidents who have been democratically elected by millions of voters, and trying to put them out of office. I believe, actually, it would be more weaponized by our side even than your side by subjecting Republican presidents we disagree with to mental health tests and tests about their emotional well-being. And I’m not sure we want that. I trust the American people. Now can we have laws about the disclosure? Absolutely. Transparency, yes. Get the information out.

HH: That’s, you have the power to bring that bill forward. I hope you do. Before I let you go, Congressman, have you ruled out running for president yourself in 2028?

RK: No, I haven’t ruled it out. I mean, I believe that we should have a new generation on the Republican side – J.D. Vance, Rubio, Cotton, you know, intellectual debate. And I think we should have a new generation on our side. And as you know, my core platform is economic patriotism. I believe that we’ve had all these towns like Lorraine, Johnstown, Milwaukee deindustrialize, and that there needs to be 21st Century solutions to say look, here’s a real vision of how your family, your community, your kids are going to participate in economic success. Coming from Silicon Valley, having grown up in Pennsylvania, I think I have something to offer. Does that mean, you know, that I’m going to run? No. I mean, it would be premature. Right now, let’s focus on the midterms. No one knows what the world’s going to look like in two years.

HH: Sounds pretty good to me, Congressman. You’re welcome here whenever you want to make your formal announcement. You just come back, and we’ll talk it through. Congressman Ro Khanna, we disagree on the 25th Amendment, but I look forward to your campaign, which I think is in the offing. Thank you, Congressman. I’ll be right back, America. Stay tuned.

End of interview.