John: Fatal shootings rock the
nation.
The former president at the
center of unprecedented legal
prosecutions.
And the senate faces questions
from within its ranks after
another health scare.
To analyze all of this, brooks
and Capehart.
That's New York Times columnist
David brooks and Jonathan
Capehart, associate editor for
the Washington post.
Gentlemen, welcome to you both.
It seems like a lot of the
political news or news relating
to politics these days have been
in courtrooms.
Today, two former proud boys
sentenced to 18 and 10 years in
present.
This -- in prison.
This week, a judge is set Donald
Trump's trial date for
conspiring to try to overturn
the 2020 election and stay in
office, the day before super
Tuesday.
David, could the coming election
be overshadowed by the last
election?
David: That looks that way.
At least the primary season.
I have a real problem with the
way they scheduled it pre-super
Tuesday.
I understand the people in the
judicial system don't want to be
political, but to be oblivious
to politics and the effects of
their actions seems to be
somewhat irresponsible.
If he really -- if it really
does get held that day, trump
will be under attack by the
establishment.
The day before super Tuesday, it
will be impossible for any other
Republican candidate to get
traction in that circumstance.
All these indictments have
helped trump.
You've got to think, you do the
indictments, he deserves to be
indicted.
But are you aware of what is
about to happen because of those
indictments?
It is even worse to do it
scheduled.
They will say, he allegedly did
these things a bunch of years
ago, they politicized it, then
scheduled it right at super
Tuesday?
They are trying to destroy our
man.
We will rally around.
Jonathan: Then when do you hold
the trial?
A lot of times, we talk about
how judges and the judiciary
should keep politics out of
their decisions.
So, why start now?
The former president wanted his
trial to go into 2026.
Judge chutkan was light, no.
And rightfully so.
I honestly wish the trial could
happen at some point this year
so that we could get it started,
get it going.
But I just think it is an
accident of timing.
We also have to remember that
who knows what else is on judge
chutkan's docket, the other
cases that she has to work with?
So I am not so much concerned
about when these trials will
happen as much as I am excited
for them to happen because this
is the one time -- well, one of
four times that the former
president is going to be held
accountable for his actions
related to the 2020 election.
John: There's another legal
argument that is floating
around, some conservative
scholars arguing the civil war
language in the 14th amendment
should bar Donald Trump from
being president again.
It is actually being tested in
court.
One of the GOP Republican
candidates, longshot candidates,
is filing suit to test this.
Do you think there is anything
to that argument?
Jonathan: I have serious
questions, particularly from the
two conservative writers who say
that there is no action of
congress that is needed.
It is right there.
All you need to do is just
enforce it.
I read that and I am looking at
American politics today, I am
looking at state legislatures
and elected officials around the
country who are not nearly as
honorable as the folks who you
would need to depend on to make
their argument work.
I think the key is for the
American people to make the
decision at the ballot box.
I am glad that the candidate in
New Hampshire is bringing suit
because at least in that way,
someone is bringing the
question, and we will get a
legal response.
But until then, I think it is up
to the American people.
David: There is another case
where we have legal scholars
making a legal case oblivious to
the political realities.
I think their ideas are in
cuckoo land.
We have a country where people
are distrustful of institutions,
then their guy gets caught
stuffing the ballot without a
hearing and it magically
disappears.
We get locked into all sorts of
legal concerns whether trump
really did insurrection or not.
If the standard is embraced, do
we think Republicans will not
want to start throwing Democrats
off the ballot?
This was a pro civil war unique
to the situation, where you had
former confederate generals
potentially getting active in
politics.
That was a clear threat.
They wrote this thing into the
constitution.
We are not in that circumstance.
It should not apply.
John: This week, we had what is
becoming unfortunately fairly
routine.
We had two shootings.
One at the university of north
Carolina.
The student newspaper at unc had
their front page filled with
text messages and other messages
sent between the students.
It really showed the visceral
fear that these students were
feeling.
But the shooting itself barely
made a blip on the radar
elsewhere.
Are we just becoming too numb to
this?
We saw the terror among the
students, but are we becoming
too numb to this?
David: We might becoming a
little numb.
I confess, I was thinking about
it today.
I think about what we could do
toward off these shootings.
Gun-control, red flags.
If you see a young suicidal man
reading neo-nazi literature,
that ought to be a red flag.
If that is in your family, you
need to tell somebody about
that.
As I was thinking about it, I
was thinking, I am going through
the mental routines I go
through, thinking, we could do a
Litt incrementally.
But when you see the video that
we saw, it still remains freshly
shocking and traumatic.
But I am glad the student paper
did that to remind the rest of
us that this is just raw
evil and you can get him
here to it.
Jonathan: It is way too routine.
It used to be it was front page
news, it was breaking news.
This happens so much that
sometimes a mass shooting can be
a news brief in the newspaper.
I think the tar heel did a
fantastic job of dramatizing to
everyone, to the community, just
what they went through, but also
to the nation so that we don't
get used to this even though we
have gotten used to this.
David: I would like to see a
study done if you reduce the
media coverage, does it reduce
the copycats?
I don't know the answer to that.
John: There was another shooting
in Jacksonville over the last
weekend where somebody who
clearly left a lot of writings
about his hatred for black
Americans, for black people,
killed three people.
A lot of people in Florida
pointing to the lax gun laws in
Florida, especially the
concealed carry, carrying a
concealed weapon without a
permit.
Is that a fair connection?
David: I think we have hundreds
of millions of guns in this
country, so I have low hopes
that some gun-control
legislation will reduce people's
ability to get guns.
But I do think that was a case
where the guy had previous
suicidal tendencies, was reading
this crap online, and hopefully
in those cases, hopefully
somebody in the family or a
friend can say to somebody, red
flag.
Because that kind of case, he
fit every stereotype of somebody
who is going to do this awful
thing, and somehow nobody
stepped in.
Jonathan: We can't talk about
Jacksonville without talking
about the political environment
around black people, and
particularly around black
history, in Florida.
There is a reason governor
Desantis was booed when he did
the right thing by going to the
community, but the community
booed him for a reason.
His so-called anti-woke
legislation, what is happening
with the teaching of black
history in Florida public
schools, that sends a message
not only to the black community
that the governor does not think
much of you or your history or
your contributions to this
country, but it also sends a
signal to those people, deranged
or not, who believe that black
people are inferior and
therefore are worthy of
extermination.
If the governor does not want to
be booed, he needs to do better,
not just in terms of his
rhetoric, but in terms of his
legislation.
John: We've got a minute left.
We also saw this week another
scary episode.
Mitch Mcconnell just freezing
midsentence.
This is the second time in a
matter of weeks.
If this happens again or keeps
happening, can he lead the
senate in an effective way?
Jonathan: If it happens again, I
don't think so.
As I said before, these
situations demand that we as a
nation have a conversation about
what leaders of that age, what
we should expect of them if they
want to stay in leadership.
John: The leading presidential
candidates are 77 and 80.
This is the oldest congress in a
century.
David: They are just getting
started.
I am not a doctor, but if he is
having seizures, then that can
be treated, and somebody who has
occasional seizures can do a
job.
But he has to be clear with us
about what is actually
happening.
The statement from the doctor
and the congress was not clear
at all and not trust inducing.
John: We've got to leave it
there.
Think you both.
--Thank you both.
♪♪