Donald Trump, Chris Wallace, President Trump discussed on Brian Lehrer

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Mean, Don't we? When deciding whether Trump's Behavior incited the riding a January 6 don't we have to look at the political context and what politicians were doing in order to incite the kind of behavior that we saw? Over the summer with burning buildings and organizing, you know, rallies to raise money? And if you if you get in trouble with the law will bail you out. What could be more insightful than that? We're seeing on the press. We seen burning buildings within cops being dragged down the street. We see precinct being ransacked and politicians saying this is free speech in action, And yet yet and if they arrest you, well, yeah. Who isn't helping we possibly I analyze what words did with a wink wink and a nod and throw him out of office in the platform and and and and And silence him and call him a Honey, go ahead. No, I said and prevent him from running again, which is largely what's at stake and prevent him from running again. I mean, there has to be a larger context here. How can you just ignore the context from just a few months ago? Right. That's a great point. And when we've been talking about on the show and on other segments, I've played exactly some of the historical clips that you refer to on. We don't even have to go back as far Emily But but it's useful to as the first trump campaign where, like J says he would tell people you know if you see hecklers Rough him up and I'll pay him legal bills or, you know, however, he exactly put it. But then, even in interviews in the run up to this election, he would be asked. By Chris Wallace on Fox, for example. And others. Do you promise? I think it was Chris Wallace in the debate, one of the debates against Biden Do you promise a peaceful transfer of power? If you're declared the loser, and he wouldn't promise it so even by hedging In that context, he's nodding and winking to people that he would condone violence so that becomes evidence as well agree. Well, that's a really interesting question. How much you kind of hold the speaker responsible for things they've said previously, and I think we struggle with this like we all make these connections. I completely understand what You're talking about and what your collar brought up. But if you're talking about, you know, legally actually convicting someone either of impeachment or in a criminal court. How much do you want those previous instances to come in how direct a connection do you want there to be? What kind of proof? Do you want that his followers were responding to these kinds of messages. I actually think in President Trump's case. There's a lot of evidence and like it's pretty clear, but I am wary of make of allowing for two loose a set of Letting in this kind of evidence because again, like most of the time, the people who are accused of inciting violence or not the powerful former president, they're dissidents. You know they're demonstrators, and you just want to be Careful about what kind of precedent or set When we continue in a minute. We'll take more calls and also want to ask you to go deeper on something You said a few minutes ago, basically suggesting that this might boomerang and hurt progressives and people of color. As much or more as the president over time, So stay with us. Brian where with Emily Basilan on W. N Y C. I'm goalie, chef.

Coming up next