A Vintage Trump Meltdown
Trump claimed repeatedly that the mics weren’t working. Unfortunately for him, they were.
Huge prisoner-swap news breaking this morning: Russia has agreed to release Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, former Marine Paul Whelan, and Russian-British activist Vladimir Kara-Murza, all of whom had been detained on trumped-up charges.
According to the Daily Beast, Russia’s side in the swap may include the release of Vadim Krasikov, a Russian assassin currently jailed in Germany.
A friendly reminder: Today’s the day Simone Biles goes for the individual all-around gold. Happy Thursday.
How To Win the Black Vote
—Andrew Egger
For weeks, Donald Trump had been meeting the lowest possible bar: largely sticking to his talking points, mouthing the occasional pro-forma gesture toward unity, and generally avoiding major new scandals.
That’s not to say he’d sworn off the crazy: Just two days ago, he reposted a meme suggesting FBI Director Christopher Wray had ordered the last month’s attempt on his life. But “Trump slanders federal law enforcement” is a dog-bites-man story these days. And the lunacy was largely confined to online musings on his fourth-rate social media platform.
Then, on Wednesday, he got on a stage to be interviewed by three female representatives of the National Association of Black Journalists.
Apparently, Trump’s big-brain play to woo black voters away from Harris was to argue that, ackshually, she may not be black at all. You’ve likely seen the instant-infamy quote already:
She was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black and now, she wants to be known as black . . . All of a sudden she made a turn and she became a black person. . . . And I think someone should look into that, too.
By that point, the interview had long since gone off the rails. In fact, it was hostile before the very first question—which began later than scheduled due to apparent technical difficulties.
Trump plainly thought the organizers weren’t respecting his valuable time. He also seemed genuinely aggrieved at the quality of the microphones.
So when ABC News’ Rachel Scott kicked the interview off with a hard-edged question about Trump’s history of demeaning remarks toward black people, any thought of focusing on extending an olive branch to black voters vanished in a flash.
“Well, first of all, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner,” Trump replied. “I think it’s disgraceful that I came here in good spirit . . . And then you were half an hour late!”
Trump has a well-documented history of nastiness to black female reporters (it’s why there was controversy over NABJ inviting him at all). And his anger at Scott flared up repeatedly throughout the interview. Asked if he would consider stepping down if he felt his health was declining, Trump responded: “Oh, absolutely. I think I’d know. Look, if I came onto a stage like this and I got treated so rudely as this woman treated me—and I’m fine with it, because—she was very rude.”
That gratuitous aside was enough to draw a shocked response from the panel’s most Trump-friendly interviewer. “Oh my goodness!” Harris Faulker of Fox News could be heard muttering off to the side.
Trump’s sneering hostility toward Scott and his insane attempt to “prove” Harris is not black—one he and his mooks spent the rest of the day doubling down on—understandably sucked up most of the media oxygen. But there were other striking moments too.
Trump routinely promises his cheering crowds on the trail that he will give police officers “immunity from prosecution” if reelected. But asked how he can reconcile that pledge with horrifying cases like the alleged murder earlier this month of Sonya Massey of Illinois, he offered an incoherent dodge. That cop, Trump spitballed, “might not” receive immunity under his plan: “I’m talking about people that are much different cases than that.”
And as Will Saletan notes on the site, Trump offered perhaps his most breathtakingly explicit pledge yet to pardon those who committed violent crimes in his name on January 6th.
“My question is on those rioters who assaulted officers—would you pardon them?” Scott asked.
“Oh, absolutely I would,” Trump replied. “If they’re innocent, I would pardon them.”
“They’ve been convicted.”
“Well, they were convicted by a very tough system.”
Does He Know What He’s Doing?
—Bill Kristol
Donald Trump’s appearance yesterday at the National Association of Black Journalists was horrifying, for all the reasons that Andrew notes above.
But if you’re a Never Trumper, it was something else as well. It was another confirmation of the correctness of the judgment that the man should never have been president of the United States, and should never again be president of the United States.
As our colleague Tim Miller commented, in defending the decision of NABJ to invite Trump: “People should see this! A grumpy, cruel, hard-of-hearing, race-baiting a—hole.”
Well said.
But in the midst of Trump’s farrago of lies and insults, one comment stood out. It was his nonsensical comment that Harris “became a black person”—one that didn’t seem entirely off-the-cuff or unplanned.
Factually, this is utter nonsense. As the New York Times explained:
Ms. Harris has long embraced both her Black and South Asian identity. She attended Howard University, a historically Black institution, and pledged Alpha Kappa Alpha, the nation’s first sorority established for Black college women. Headlines from her earliest political victories dating back to the early 2000s highlighted both identities.
So why did Trump go out of his way to introduce this lie to the campaign? Why did Trump then double down on it on social media, posting: “Crazy Kamala is saying she’s Indian, not Black. This is a big deal. Stone cold phony. She uses everybody, including her racial identity!”
Why did Trump’s rally in Harrisburg last night feature the attack once again?
Trump may well have decided that to win, he has to increase the salience of race in this campaign. Sadly, this is not a new gambit in American politics. And sadly, it sometimes works.
Trump also wants to portray Harris as phony or inauthentic. This was a rap against her in 2019 as she attempted a sudden and failed pivot to the left. She’s been very different this year—but Trump needs as much as possible to run against the Kamala Harris of 2019, not the Harris of the past week. And if you can mix the inauthenticity argument with a racial argument, so much the better, in Trump’s mind.
Harris last night was calm and firm:
The American people deserve better. The American people deserve a leader who tells the truth, a leader who does not respond with hostility and anger when confronted with the facts. We deserve a leader who understands that our differences do not divide us—they are an essential source of our strength.
It’s a good response.
But Trump’s not going to give up. If this is what Trump is saying now in response to Harris’s original surge in the polls, what will he be saying in a few weeks if he’s actually fallen behind? This race could get incredibly nasty. I suspect it will.
The Harris campaign will have to figure out how to deal with this. But it may not be as easy to do as, in a just world, it should be.
The one thing I do know is that Harris shouldn’t be left alone to defend herself.
This is the moment for Democrats and also Republicans who care about civility and decency in our politics, for military and civilian and civic leaders who’ve worked with Harris, for people of all races and backgrounds who’ve known her over the years, to step up to defend her and set the record straight.
But they should also condemn Trump for his indecency. They could perhaps make this into a moment like the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, when Joseph Welch turned the tables on Joe McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last?”
Trump has no sense of decency. It would be nice if this were disqualifying for political success. But decency doesn’t always prevail in this world of ours. Decency needs to be aggressively defended. Indecency needs to be exposed and denounced.
At the 2016 Democratic convention, while discussing how to “handle bullies” who were attacking Hillary Clinton, Michele Obama said, “When they go low, we go high.” Of course one shouldn’t go low. But one shouldn’t be so high-minded as to fail to respond effectively and to counter-attack decisively.
So by all means, go high—and go hard.
Catching up . . .
DNC virtual roll call kicks off, teeing up Harris’s nomination: ABC News
Trump and his allies had a plan for how to hit Harris. Then he opened his mouth: Politico
Bomb smuggled into Iran guesthouse months ago killed Hamas leader: New York Times
Iran’s leader orders attack on Israel for Haniyeh killing, officials say: New York Times
Arson-sparked Park Fire is now California’s fifth-largest ever wildfire: CNN
Quick Hits: Kellyanne v. JD
Marc Caputo reports that the waves of controversy surrounding Donald Trump’s running-mate pick of JD Vance “is widening subterranean cracks of mistrust and rivalry” within Trump’s campaign:
At the center of the friction is the familiar face of Kellyanne Conway—Trump’s longtime political adviser who has as much a reputation for tactical brilliance as for strategic leaking.
In interviews with The Bulwark, twenty Trump campaign staffers, allies, confidants, and advisers were quick to shoot down any notion that Trump was turning his back on Vance or was displeased with him amid his rocky rollout. But more than a dozen of those sources volunteered without prompting that they believed Conway, who initially opposed the selection of Vance, was undermining him through leaks to the press expressing doubts about his readiness and the campaign’s vetting.
Conway denied the allegations, calling the dozen anonymous accusers “gossip girls” and “ankle biters” jealous of both her success and her close relationship with the former president, who frequently consults her and gave her a speaking role at the Republican National Convention earlier this month. She said Trump insiders are talking about the situation, but she’s not instigating it or speaking ill of Vance or the campaign.
“When it comes to concerned people questioning the vetting or selection of JD Vance, the calls are coming in, not going out,” she said. “I’m not calling them and saying this is bad. People are asking me. They’re not just asking me. They’re asking lots of people.”
Read the whole thing. This, too, reads like a vintage Trump story: While the top brain trust of Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita have run a much tighter ship for Trump this cycle, it was only a matter of time before things started reverting to the mean.
Cheap Shots
As our colleague Tim Miller commented, in defending the decision of NABJ to invite Trump: “People should see this! A grumpy, cruel, hard-of-hearing, race-baiting a—hole.”
Pete Buttigieg was on a recent Jon Stewart and made the observation: "What is the point of having a conversation with someone with whom you agree?" Clearly, he was not talking about chit-chat over the back fence, but this exactly why it was important for the NABJ to do it. It was not an endorsement, but a chance for him to strut his nonsense before an audience that he claimed to be courting. If that is his idea of courting, no wonder he's been divorced three times and has to resort to paying for it or taking it outright.
Part of what made DJT's antics yesterday so appalling is that we got to see them in real time, at real speed -- as one who watched it live, over lunch (and the spectacle did not help my digestion), I got to take in the full measure of the manchild in all his petty, self-aggrandizing, grievance- and victim-filled worst. It speaks volumes about the decline in civility in our society that such a lousy person can get even seven votes for President, never mind 70 million. In fact pretty much every one of us would be looking for exciting new career opportunities if we did that in our own lives.
Even traditional GOP shills and other soulless sorts on the political right had no words of support for the Scheiss show that played out, breaking ranks long enough to note that going off-script was a very poor strategy. Even what little defense was offered for him was appallingly and obviously bad. DJT was "a man of action"? What action? The world saw his mouth run, nothing more, the face of a bully trying to beat up on a black woman simply because he could and whom he knew was not able to fight back. To say it was disgusting is by any objective measure far insufficient. MAGA is of course a lost cause, for the Deplorables that they are. (Hillary Was Right, Example #28,379) But for others with even a modicum of objectivity and decency about them, could we finally be reaching a sticking point, at which DJT's schlock finally has become too shopworn and tedious, too stale, too embarrassing, and just too vile to accept?
As I've said (and you've known) all along, turn up the heat on him and he melts faster than ice cream on an Arizona summer day. Expect more of these moments as the polls show support shifting toward Kamala as she keeps it both real and professional. If DJT wants to keep on raining, she should keep on being the parade and give us all reasons to vote for her if DJT is so willing to tell us why nobody with a working brain should support him. Keep pressing his hot buttons and enjoy the spectacle. If you can withstand it. Experience-based advice: best not to do so while partaking of a meal. An ample supply of popcorn, on the other hand, would be welcome.