Capehart and Wehner on Trump's reaction to the National Guard shooting

The president is responding to the shooting of two National Guard members by an Afghan national on the streets of Washington with an even tougher crackdown on immigration. For analysis of that and the rest of the week, we turn now to Capehart and Wehner. That's Jonathan Capehart of MS Now and Peter Wehner, a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. David Brooks is away this evening. This is still the big domestic story is the weekends.

Pete, I wonder how you, what you make of the way the president responded. He immediately sent in 500 more troops. He immediately blamed the Biden administration for admitting the alleged shooter and then cut off, essentially cut off a lot of immigration.

Yeah, I'd say he reacted predictably and awfully. He predicted as he is. This was sort of the Trump DNA kicking in. I should say first that I just find a kind of ghoulishness that happens when people die tragedies in life and the way that the people who die and the victims are turned into political pawns has always left me kind of disquieted. That's particularly the case here and now. But look, Trump is taking advantage.

This is going back to the fever swamp from which he came. His first announcement for president in 2015 when he came down the Golden Escalator was what? It was an attack on Mexicans where he said there were drug dealers and criminals and rapists. Then during the campaign, he said that he was gonna ban Muslims

from coming into the country, and that united his base. So I think he's returning to form, but I think it's broader now. And in this case, with the Afghans that he's attacking, you know, these are people who either helped

the United States during the war or were targeted by the Taliban themselves. And this was an act of American decency and compassion. And to take that and turn it around and to go after these weak and vulnerable people and then broaden it to a wider attack on immigrants is a really ugly thing to see.

Jonathan?

Well, this is not a surprise. Anyone who's been paying attention to President Trump would have expected this reaction. You know, to Peter's point, he's been saying these things, these anti-immigrant, xenophobic things since he started his, since he entered the political arena.

Go all the way back to the birther controversy with President Obama. So the idea that he now in a second term where he feels unleashed, unfettered, is surrounded by an administration that is enabling him to do all the things he wants to do.

The fact that he used a tragedy to sort of amp up what he was already trying to do, not shocking at all. When it comes to bringing 500 more National Guard troops here to Washington, for what purpose? I mean, originally he said, it's about crime. Well, if you're really serious about crime,

I think a functioning White House, a functioning Justice Department, would work with local officials from the mayor and certainly the police chiefs to talk about how can we help you with crime, even though in a city like Washington

and other large cities around the country, crime has been falling. And so I think what we see is that the National Guard, to Peter's point, it's sad when people who lose their lives are instantly used as political pawns. But the National Guard, they've been used as pawns

from the very beginning, brought in under the guise of crime and then used for other things. The National Guard here used to beautify the parks. That's not what they're for. And so what the president is doing is it's shameful. It's xenophobic.

And in the end, it is going to hurt America's national security. This perpetrator worked with the CIA in Afghanistan with the United States. And we all know what he was doing. He was helping us and furthering our national security interests.

Pete, do you want to add to that?

No, I just underscore what Jonathan said. You know, this is so central to understand about Donald Trump and I think his psychological makeup, which is that he seems to draw energy from hatred, from generating hatred toward other people. And this capacity to unleash the dark passions and the dark emotions, we've never seen anything like it, certainly in modern American history,

maybe in all of American history. And the capacity that he has to amplify that is extraordinary. And the one other thing I would add to it is he does know what he's doing in this sense. His base responds to this. This is a base that has been morally deformed,

and that was at the beginning of the Trump administration. But 10 years of this has turned it into an even worse manifestation.

Jonathan, another point. This week we saw three big cases, high-profile cases dismissed in federal courts. The last remaining election interference case and Mr. Trump in Georgia, the James Comey case, the former FBI director, and Letitia James, the former New York Attorney General. What should we make of this?

The wheels of justice are turning and they're they're turning wildly in various directions. When it comes to Georgia, we all heard it in his own voice. All I need is 11,780 votes, one more than we need. That's election interference. But because of inappropriate actions by the prosecutor, that was an avenue for the president and his legal team

to get the result that they just got. When it comes to former FBI director, James Comey and state attorney general, Letitia James, this malicious prosecution and the courts saw that. And to me, it shows that at least the lower courts are sticking to the law, sticking to the constitution

and looking at the briefs that the prosecutors are bringing into court, which are not, let's say, up to snuff. But where my enthusiasm for the judicial branch gets tempered is the president goes to court, and his first action after losing in court

is to go right to the Supreme Court. And I am 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 just not convinced of it yet.

Peter?

Yeah, I agree. Jonathan said it was malicious, which it was. It was also incompetent. And I'm not sure which case won more than the other. I mean, this thing was thrown. It wasn't even on the merits.

It was that the prosecutor was chosen, had been improperly chosen. But this was, again, as all of these things seem to be, a kind of window into the heart and soul of Donald Trump. And here it touches on this issue, which is awfully high on the list of things that I think ought to worry us, which is President of the United States, Commander in Chief, using the extraordinary power at his disposal to target people, the weaponization in this case of DOJ and FBI, to destroy people that he disagrees with. I mean, that is how police states happen. I don't think we're in a police

state, but that's only because Donald Trump hasn't gotten his way yet. And as Jonathan was referring to, I mean the courts are the one institution right now in American life that it's stood up to him. Not always, but in some cases. But we still have three years left and this is a lot to play itself out. And it's not clear if Trump ever decides to defy a court order, including a Supreme Court order, how that gets arbitrated. So we've still got a ways to go.

What do you think, Jonathan? Well, I mean, you ask Judge Boasberg whether his orders in terms of supporting Venezuelan migrants out of the country against his orders, saying no planes should take off and if planes are in the air they should turn around and that he was defied on that so that they are defying court orders it's just a matter of when will the courts take that step to hold them accountable. We don't have much time left I'm sorry to ask this question but we've got such a polarized nation and we're going into the holidays.

How do you deal, Pete, let me start with you.

How do you deal with uncomfortable conversations?

Well, I guess one is whether you can avoid them. And sometimes that's necessary. I will say, and my wife has been very helpful on this, in my experience, I don't obviously do this perfectly, but when it's worked, it is when you have a conversation with someone and you genuinely listen to them

and you seek to learn their story, to find out why they have turned out where they are. So it's not the reflex to turn it into a debate. It's rather to try and connect with people on a human level and then to remind ourselves not to dehumanize and politics is not defining to

who we are. It matters. We're in politics because we think it does matter. But in the end, it's not the most important thing and we have to have civility in that

approach. Jonathan? I would say conversations are two-way streets. That it is not just incumbent upon, say, someone from my political perspective to sit and listen to the other person. The other person perspective to sit and listen to the other person, the other person needs to sit and listen to me,

sit and listen to us. And if we are not, I don't think, duty-bound or even morally required to sit and listen to someone who says things that denigrates our humanity, that is offensive to us, we have every right to push back. It's on that person, whether they are the ones

who are going to listen and understand where we're coming from.

Jonathan, you got the last word, because we're out of time. Peter Wehner and Jonathan Capehart, Peter Wehner and Jonathan Capehart, thank you very much.