Capehart and Weiner talk about Trump’s response to the National Guard shooting

Jun Yang:

The president responds to the shooting of two National Guard members by an Afghan national on the streets of Washington with a tougher crackdown on immigration.

To break this down for the rest of the week, we now turn to Capehart and Weiner. These are Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW, and Peter Weiner, a contributing writer for The Atlantic and a senior fellow at Trinity Forum. David Brooks is absent this evening.

This remains the big local story heading into the weekend.

Pete, I wonder how–what do you think of the way the President responded. Immediately send 500 additional soldiers. He immediately blamed the Biden administration for accepting the alleged shooter, then cutting it off — essentially cutting off a lot of immigration.

PETER WEINER, THE ATLANTIC: Yes, I would say his reaction was predictable and terrible. He prophesied – as it is. That was kind of Trump’s DNA.

I must say first that I find it kind of hideous that happens, when people die, the tragedies of life, the way the people who die and the victims are turned into political pawns. This has always left me kind of anxious. This is especially the case here and now.

But look, Trump is taking advantage of this opportunity. This goes back to the fever swamp he came from. His first ad when he ran for president in 2015, when he came down the golden escalator, what was it? It was an attack on Mexicans, which he said were drug dealers, criminals and rapists.

Then he said during the campaign that he would ban Muslims from entering the country. This united its base. So I think it’s getting back to its level, but I think it’s more broad now. And in this case, with the Afghans he’s attacking, these are people who either helped the United States during the war or were targeted by the Taliban themselves.

This was an act of American decency and compassion. To take that and change it and go after these vulnerable and vulnerable people and then expand it to include a broader attack on immigrants is really ugly.

Jun Yang:

Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, this is not a surprise. Anyone who cared about President Trump would have expected this reaction.

For Peter, he’s been saying these things, these anti-immigrant, xenophobic things since he started his job – since he entered the political arena. Let us return to the controversy with President Obama.

So the idea that now, in a second term in which he feels free, unfettered, surrounded by an administration that enables him to do all the things he wants to do, and the fact that he used a tragedy to further what he was already trying to do, is not at all shocking.

When it comes to bringing 500 more National Guard troops to Washington, for what purpose? I mean, originally, he said it was about crime. Well, if you’re really serious about crime, I think an effective White House and an effective Justice Department would work with local officials from the mayor and certainly the police chiefs to talk about, how can we help you fight crime?

Despite this, in a city like Washington and other major cities across the country, crime rates have declined. And so I think what we’re seeing is that the National Guard, for Peter, was – it’s sad when people who lose their lives on the spot are used as political pawns.

But the National Guard, they were used as pawns from the beginning, they were brought in under the guise of crime, and then they were used for other things. The National Guard here is used to beautify the parks. That’s not what they’re for.

And so what the president is doing is shameful, xenophobic, and ultimately detrimental to American national security. This perpetrator worked for the CIA in Afghanistan with the United States. We all know what he was doing. He was helping us, advancing our national security interests.

Jun Yang:

Pete, do you want to add to that?

Peter Weiner:

No, I’m just confirming what Jonathan said.

This is – it’s very important to understand Donald Trump and I think his psychological makeup, which is that he seems to draw energy from hatred, from generating hatred toward others.

And this ability to unleash dark emotions and dark emotions, we’ve never seen anything like it before, certainly in modern American history, and perhaps in all of American history. And the way he has the ability to amplify that is extraordinary.

The other thing I would add to that is that he knows what he’s doing in that sense. His base is responding to this. This is a morally distorted rule, and this was at the beginning of the Trump administration. But 10 years of this has made her look even worse.

Jun Yang:

Jonathan, another point.

This week we saw three big cases, high-profile cases, dismissed in federal courts, the last remaining election interference case against Mr. Trump in Georgia, the case of James Comey, the former FBI director, and Letitia James, the former New York attorney general.

What should we make of this?

Jonathan Capehart:

The wheels of justice are turning, and turning violently in different directions.

When it comes to Georgia, we’ve all heard it in his voice. “All I need is 11,780 votes, one more than we need.” This is election interference. But because of the prosecutor’s inappropriate actions, it was a way for the president and his legal team to get the result they just got.

When it comes to former FBI Director James Comey and the Attorney General – State Attorney Letitia James, this is malicious prosecution, and the courts have seen that. And to me, that shows that the lower courts are at least adhering to the law, adhering to the Constitution and looking at the briefs that prosecutors bring to the court, which, let’s say, are not up to the mark.

But what dampens my enthusiasm for the judiciary is that the president goes to court, and his first action after losing in court is to go directly to the Supreme Court. And I’m still not comfortable that the Supreme Court will take a look at the Comey and James cases and side with the lower courts. I’m not convinced of that yet.

Jun Yang:

Peter?

Peter Weiner:

Yes, I agree. It’s—Jonathan said it was malicious, and it was. He was also incompetent. I’m not sure in any case more than — one more than the other.

I mean this thing was brought up. It wasn’t even on the merits. The Attorney General was chosen, and he was chosen incorrectly. But this was, again, as all these things seem to be, a window into the heart and soul of Donald Trump.

And here, it gets to this issue that ranks very high on the list of things that I think should worry us, which is the use by the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief, of the extraordinary power available to him to target people, and to arm the Department of Justice and the FBI, in this case, to destroy people with whom he disagrees.

I mean, this is how police states work. Now, I don’t think we’re in a police state, but that’s only because Donald Trump hasn’t gotten his way yet. As Jonathan pointed out, the courts are now the only institution in American life that has stood up to him, not always, but in some cases.

But we still have three years to go, and we still have a lot to achieve. It is not clear if Trump decides to defy a court order, including a Supreme Court order, how that will be arbitrated. So we still have a way to go.

Jun Yang:

What do you think, Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, I mean, you’re asking Judge Boasberg whether his orders, with respect to supporting Venezuelan migrants out of the country, conflict with his orders that say no planes should take off, and if planes are in the air, they should turn around. He challenged him about it.

So they are defying court orders. It’s just a question of when will the courts take that step to hold them accountable?

Jun Yang:

We don’t have much time left. I’m sorry for asking this question.

But we have such a polarized nation, and we’re heading into the holidays. How do you cope? – Peter, let me start with you. How do you deal with uncomfortable conversations?

Peter Weiner:

Well, I think the first is whether you can avoid them, and sometimes, it’s necessary.

I will say – and my wife has been very helpful about this. In my experience, I obviously don’t do this perfectly, but when it works, it’s when you have a conversation with someone and really listen to them, and seek to know their story, to find out why they are where they are.

Therefore, it is not reflexive to turn it into a discussion. Rather, it is an attempt to connect with people on a human level, and then remind ourselves that we are not dehumanized, and politics does not define us. It matters. We work in politics because we think it’s important, but in the end it’s not the most important thing, and we have to be civil in that approach.

Jun Yang:

Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:

I would say that conversations are two-way streets, and that someone from my political viewpoint, for example, doesn’t have to sit and listen to the other person.

The other person needs to sit and listen to me, and to sit and listen to us. And if we are not, I don’t think, duty-bound or even morally obligated to sit and listen to someone who says things that distort our humanity, then that is insulting to us. We have every right to back down.

It’s up to that person to see if they’re the one to listen and understand where we’re coming from.

Jun Yang:

Jonathan, you have the last word because we’re running out of time.

Peter…

(He laughed)

Jun Yang:

Peter Weiner and Jonathan Capehart, thank you very much.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks John.

Peter Weiner:

Thank you very much, John.