Brooks and Keyhart on what Trump is trying to achieve with his election claims

Jeff Bennett:

President Trump once again putting false claims about the 2020 election at the center of the national political debate is where we start when we turn tonight to Brooks and Capehart’s analysis. These are The Atlantic’s David Brooks and MS NOW’s Jonathan Capehart.

Good evening, gentlemen.

Jonathan Capehart:

Hey, Jeff.

Jeff Bennett:

So, David, what did you hear in that speech last night? What do you think President Trump is trying to accomplish here?

(He laughed)

David Brooks:

Oh, subtle. I couldn’t figure it out.

He was — he had to get more creative with his dialogue. I mean he’s stuck in this 2020 thing. There was absolutely no evidence. There is no evidence. I think the good news is that he doesn’t have any policies to destroy our electoral system, as we’ve heard from secretaries of state. Therefore, we will hold fair elections in this country.

But there would still be a devastating impact on America to give this speech. A, you — it’s a signal to America that we don’t need to weigh the evidence here. We don’t have to think about whether it is true or not. And this — this has been a long Trump story, of course.

But I was reminded of a line in John McCain’s campaign speeches in 2000, where he said that healthy skepticism had turned into an all-encompassing cynicism about public life. And this is a long-term trend where people think they’re all crooks, they’re all crooks, they’re all corrupt.

It is a very easy position, but it is wrong. I’m always happy when you have people like Sue Gordon, the intelligence officer, on the show, because Americans see what an intelligence officer looks like, what a federal employee looks like, what two secretaries of state look like.

They are good and honest people who do professional work because they love their country. And the idea that they’re all frauds, all practices of the deep state, aside from being cynical and corrosive, is just a lie. We’ve spent our lives covering these people, and they’re mostly very good people doing the best they can, and not for a lot of money.

Jeff Bennett:

Jonathan, why do you think the president is still discussing this six years after the election?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, I think he’s reconsidering it now because, as the kids say, he’s scared.

(He laughed)

Jonathan Capehart:

He’s very afraid about what would happen if Democrats take back the House and take back the Senate. He said as much on the record. If they take charge, I will be investigated.

Quite frankly, there are reasons to investigate him and members of his administration. But I thought last night’s speech was a waste of time. For David, it was all a rehash of things we’ve heard before. In the end, it was just a surprise for the Save America Act, which went nowhere, not through the fault of the Democrats, but because of the Republicans who had problems with this bill.

When it comes to the deep state, the thing I kept thinking is, but hey, if you had problems with the 2020 election and you blame the deep state, that was your administration. So, as much as he did it from the East Room and there was all the pomp of the presidency, but in the end, I don’t think he did himself any favors.

Jeff Bennett:

And, David, we spoke on this show last night with Ty Cobb, who was special counsel during the first Trump administration, and he offered an extraordinary warning. He said he believes President Trump is laying the groundwork for an emergency declaration around the election.

Do you think the barriers will stand if President Trump tries to use the apparatus of the federal government to interfere more directly in how the election is run?

David Brooks:

I think so. Many people have thought that this is a predicate for some future action.

I think if you look at the things he’s tried to do, we’re helped by the fact that these are mostly state-run things, so he doesn’t have control. What is not run by the state is usually run by Congress. And so he tried. Something he did successfully was gerrymandering in Texas. He rigged the election and helped the Democrats in California.

He succeeded in this part of disparaging our elections. But almost everything else he did through executive order and other things, was invalidated by the courts. So I don’t think he’s going to have the ability to actually influence our elections.

Jeff Bennett:

How do you see that, Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:

Although I’m a little concerned about what happens on Election Day.

Congressman Jim Himes was with my colleague Lawrence O’Donnell last night, and he warned that, yes, what the president is doing is laying the foundation for stealing the election, and he said, for example, what happens if they seize ballot drop boxes from certain jurisdictions? What happens to the chain of custody? Then democracy will be at its weakest.

Sure, you can race to court and try to get them back, but the procedure has already been done. So, I hope you are right that we will have free and fair elections next November. But I have a healthy imagination, and I hope that people who care about free and fair elections will also have a healthy imagination and be prepared for any scenario that could happen.

David Brooks:

One quick little point. Mr. Georgia, the Secretary of State there, made the crucial point, which is that this does not help the Republicans.

And in Georgia, if you remember, when there was a runoff for two Senate seats a few years ago, Trump basically said, oh, never mind, it’s all rigged.

Jeff Bennett:

right.

David Brooks:

So guess what? Republicans sat at home. That’s why Republicans like this guy are so upset about what he’s doing now.

Jeff Bennett:

I want us to shift our focus in the remaining time to immigration enforcement, because we have now seen two more people killed in encounters with ICE agents using vehicles, a Mexican national in Houston, and a Colombian national in Maine, neither of whom were the original target of the ICE operation.

The administration briefly paused these — certain vehicle stops — before President Trump stepped in and reversed that decision. Then there was another encounter at the Las Vegas airport, and video posted on social media appears to show plainclothes ICE agents handcuffing a man.

He didn’t seem to know who they were or what was happening. These agents then walk away after realizing they are being photographed, and this man is left handcuffed. It emerged that he was later detained and arrested at Los Angeles Airport when he landed.

To say all of this, when we put all of these incidents together, plus what happened in Minneapolis, what does that say about how the administration uses federal law enforcement and whether there are adequate rules, training, staffing, or accountability when things like this happen?

Jonathan Capehart:

There is none of that.

We already know that there is not enough training. We already know that there is no accountability. With the shooting in Maine, federal agents took the person involved away. And that’s what we just saw there is outrageous.

Imagine, anyone watching, if someone with no law enforcement identifying information came up to you in handcuffs and tried to arrest you, and didn’t identify themselves, how would you react? I mean you’ll try to run away, you’ll be angry, he’ll be filled with resentment, and people around him will film and scream.

This is not the way – if you want to enforce our immigration laws, this is not the way to do it. This makes me wonder what is the real goal of management? Is the goal to control immigration or is it something else more nefarious?

Jeff Bennett:

What about the marked normalization of federal power in American life?

David Brooks:

Yeah, when I was a right-wing kid, I guess I’m right-wing, I…

(He laughed)

Jeff Bennett:

Right-handed child.

David Brooks:

Not a red-diapered baby, no matter what the opposite. I don’t know.

I remember going to a research center. I won’t call it because I’m not positive. They showed us a movie of what would happen if big liberals took over the government, and they had a picture of plainclothes federal officers kidnapping innocent Americans.

We just saw that. This is done in a republican administration. So we’ve come a long way, my dear. And I think what he’s saying is that nothing says tyranny like people in plain clothes grabbing a guy at the airport.

The thing — the part of this policy that I really object to — and all the training and all that stuff, I agree with Jonathan, but I hate classes. When you tell ICE or cops, you have to make this many arrests in this long time, that has nothing to do with the underlying problem. It’s just a number.

Of course, they will do everything in their power to meet this number. And of course you will be abused. Of course you’re going to get these automatic stops, because with an automatic stop, you don’t have to get a search warrant if you do that when you go to someone’s house. And of course it’s going to take the more aggressive form of I’m going to do something digital.

And it’s this act of pinpointing a number, all other flaws aside, that turns this game into something real…

(crosstalk)

Jeff Bennett:

How about that, does it undermine the legitimacy of basic law enforcement?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, yes, because – is getting to the number. If you’re two minutes away from getting your boss off your back, you don’t care what the law says, what the rules are.

We also cannot forget that these people are being aided and abetted by a Supreme Court decision that essentially legalized racial profiling in these cases. So everyone thought things were getting better after Minneapolis, and I think for those who were paying attention, it was like that at the moment, and we see that at the moment, we’re back to where we were during Minneapolis.

Jeff Bennett:

Jonathan Capehart and David Brooks, thank you, as always.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks.

David Brooks:

Thank you.