Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley has studied racist comments and racist presidents in the past, but to him, President Donald Trump’s “sh*thole” comments is a whole new level.
“Donald Trump is the most racist president since Woodrow Wilson,” Brinkley told CNN host Don Lemon. “He probably, at this juncture with Sh*thole-gate beats Wilson out, has no compassion for people of the world, Donald Trump. It’s not a partisan comment I’m making. George W. Bush did amazing work with AIDS in Africa, saved millions of lives. Jimmy Carter won a Nobel Prize for working with Norman Borlaug in Africa doing crop yields increases, or fighting worm disease, river blindness. The Clinton Foundation was all over Haiti down there doing amazing work. All former presidents, in recent times, have love and compassion in their heart, Donald Trump has a heart of stone and he doesn’t like these people.”
Brinkley went on to say that he was shocked that there weren’t religious leaders coming out to denounces the words from Trump. He was also shocked the GOP wasn’t quick to stand up against Trump.
“I think we need to have people from the Catholic church, Mormon church,” he said. “Tonight, to me, is some kind of tipping point. I know it’s a Trumpism, but no sane person can say this isn’t just blatant racism that we heard utters out ever the American president’s mouth. Where is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)? Where is their tweet? They always want the to do their interview on television. Denounce the president loud and clear. It’s a loser in history hitch your kite with on this one.”
With Martin Luther King Jr. Day Monday, Brinkley said that Trump has no right to even say the man’s name. “He knows nothing about him, nothing about his historical legacy.” He noted that King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail” begged southern pastors to speak out.
“What’s deafening tonight is the silence coming out of the Grand Ole Party of Lincoln,” he continued. “They’re just sitting this one out. It’s inconvenient for some and I think Trump needs to pay a heavy price and Republican party needs to distance them self very quickly.”
Watch the full commentary below:
Here’s why Trump contradicted his own White House on the Supreme Court rulings
Following the Supreme Court's pair of 7-2 decisions rejecting President Donald Trump's claim to have absolute immunity from subpoenas, he blasted the ruling on Twitter, claiming he being unfairly targeted and the victim of "prosecutorial misconduct." However, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany released a statement saying that "President Trump is gratified by today’s decision."
‘They deserve it’: Republican strategist tells GOP it’s their own fault for going down with Trump because ‘they know better’
Republican strategist Susan del Percio said that there is no excuse for GOP members who failed to do the right thing and fight back against President Donald Trump when they had the opportunity.
Speaking to MSNBC's Joy Reid Thursday, del Percio called Trump "the anchor" around the GOP's necks, "dragging them down."
"But, you know what, they deserve it," she continued. "There are Republicans out there that deserve this because they know better. They should have been better on impeachment. They should have been holding him accountable all along. Now they are scared and worried about themselves. Well, boohoo, you brought it on. there's no excuse."
‘The monarch has taken a body blow’: Ex-prosecutor explains why Court ruling is devastating for Trump
On MSNBC Thursday, former federal prosecutor John Flannery broke down the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling against President Donald Trump on immunity from subpoenas.
"I think what it says is that the monarch has taken a body blow as a result of what will be an historic decision, as we've indicated," said Flannery. "I think that the position of the DA in New York is very special, because he can speed this up in a way that the House can',t and has a specific strength, I think, in this case, that it is criminal."
"The most significant thing about it is this is the first Supreme Court case in which there's ever been agreed that a prosecutor could subpoena a president," added Flannery. "Prior prosecutions have been federal, that have been treated by the Supreme Court. So this is a big difference. The majority of the court, 7-2, basically said, from 1740 on, the public is entitled to the testimony, to the evidence of any person. They said that the documents — the question is the character documents, not the character of the person. In this case, what we have is a situation which I bet that the DA is going to go to the court as soon as possible, move to compel an appearance to their subpoena, and going to have the discussion as to what if anything may be limited or excluded and get production as quickly as possible."