MSNBC dismisses fears about DC safety, says 'it ain't Mayberry,' amid Trump crackdown
Trump deployed 800 National Guard troops to D.C. this past week to support other federal law enforcement agencies patrolling the streets and attempting to quell violence in the city. The White House said Saturday that the operation had already resulted in more than 240 arrests, 25 homeless encampments cleared and 38 guns taken off the streets.
Top Democrats across the country have pushed back on the crime crackdown, citing statistics purportedly showing violent crime is at a 30-year-low.
While discussing the federal takeover, Capehart expressed how frustrated he was to hear people describing D.C. as unsafe.
"You know what concerns me about this?" he asked co-host Eugene Daniels and The Independent columnist Ahmed Baba. "In the last few days, since the president has said 'I'm going to send troops in, I'm sending troops in,' I've been overhearing in restaurants, people just sort of talk about this. And the way they talk about it sends a shiver down my spine."
"'Oh, Washington. I mean the crime is just so— I mean I don't feel comfortable at all,'" Capehart said, mimicking conversations he overheard.
"And I don't say anything," he continued. "I don't leap across the table and say, 'I'm sorry, sir, ma'am. I live in that city.' But to me, it just sounds like if the president were to go that extra step and invoke the Insurrection Act, that there are going to be quite a few people who are going to be down with it. They'll be fine with it."
"Because they believe his lies about crime in D.C.," Daniels agreed, before acknowledging that "things" do "happen" in the city.
"Right. It ain't Mayberry!" Capehart agreed, likely referring to the fictional, idyllic town in "The Andy Griffith Show."
"Correct," Daniels continued. "At the end of the day, things do happen, but it is not at the levels Donald Trump is talking about, and most importantly, there's a billion dollars that Congress is still holding that D.C. wants and that is supposed to be given to them. They have not gotten it and the mayor of D.C. has been very clear about what she wants that billion dollars for and some of that is safety in the city."
Several Republican governors also announced Saturday that they were sending National Guard troops to assist Trump's operation, NBC reported.
During a press conference Monday, Trump warned that other major U.S. cities with reputations for crime could be next.
"You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is," Trump said. "We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore — they're so far gone. … We're not going to lose our cities over this, and this will go further."
Other journalists have ridiculed the Trump administration's efforts to clean up crime in the nation's capital.
CNN host Abby Phillip mockingly compared Trump to Batman while criticizing the federal takeover of D.C.'s police force during a segment on her Monday night show.
"Donald Trump makes himself Batman and the nation's capital is Gotham City," she said, adding, "The President of the United States has declared himself crime-fighter-in-chief, and he's taking over Washington's police force."
But MSNBC host Joe Scarborough claimed on Wednesday that some D.C. journalists are secretly cheering Trump's efforts.
"So many people have been calling me over the past couple days, going, 'You know, like, Washington should have gotten involved years ago. This place is dangerous, it's a mess, it's a wreck and whatever,' and then they'll go on Twitter and go, 'This is the worst outrage out of all time,'" Scarborough said on "Morning Joe."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
New Mexico's governor called in the state's National Guard to address crime issues. Here's how they're being used
Federal agencies US military Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow In New Mexico's most populous city, National Guard troops are listening to the police dispatch calls, monitoring traffic cameras and helping to secure crime scene perimeters, tasks not usually part of the job. The New Mexico National Guard is in Albuquerque to help counter what officials have called a surge in crime, but unlike the recent deployment of troops in military fatigues by the federal government in the nation's capital and earlier in Los Angeles amid protests over immigration enforcement, the state's polo-shirted Guard troops were ordered in by the Democratic governor. And last week, New Mexico's governor declared a state of emergency in other parts of the state, which gives her the discretion to mobilize more troops. Here's how a National Guard deployment is playing out in New Mexico and why it matters. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's state of emergency order issued for Rio Arriba County, the city of Española and area pueblos, was made at the request of the local governments, she said. The Albuquerque deployment of 60 to 70 troops came after an emergency request from the city's police department citing the 'fentanyl epidemic and rising violent juvenile crime as critical issues requiring immediate intervention.' The new declaration is aimed at helping local police respond to a 'significant surge' in violent crime, drug trafficking and public safety threats that have 'overwhelmed local resources.' Rio Arriba County has the highest overdose death rate in the state, the governor's news release said. The troops are helping police with non-law enforcement duties and are not armed, will not make arrests, detain anyone, use force or engage in any immigration-related activities, the city said. 'We understand there are concerns based on what is taking place in other parts of the country, and we want to assure the public that here in Albuquerque, the Guard's role is clearly defined, and focused on support without enforcement,' Police Chief Harold Medina said in a June news release. CNN has contacted the Albuquerque Police Department and the New Mexico National Guard about whether the deployment has been effective but did not receive a response. 'There is no question why the NM National Guard is helping out,' New Mexico National Guard spokesman Hank Minitrez said in a June Facebook post. The post described troops working behind the scenes in police offices, and conducting traffic management and manning perimeters around crime scenes when necessary. Albuquerque officials said last month they saw 'success with targeted resources' in the city's downtown. Shootings are down 20% this year compared with 2024, the city said in a news release, a figure that tracks with data provided to CNN by the governor's office. Grisham, a Democrat, criticized President Donald Trump's deployment of 800 troops in Washington, DC, as 'executive overreach' and said the contrast 'couldn't be clearer' between her state's usage of the National Guard and that of Trump's. The DC National Guard reports only to the president, while a governor acts as the 'commander in chief' of their state's troops and police agencies. Trump has suggested he could do the same in other major Democratic-led cities despite their leaders not asking for help. Meanwhile on the West Coast, questions are still lingering in a court case over the president's deployment of troops to Los Angeles in June as dramatic protests unfolded over immigration enforcement in parts of the city. The visual contrast between the troops in New Mexico and those sent to LA and the capital shows a difference in approach and intent. Grisham's office said the 'key difference' between her deployment of troops and Trump's is her order was in response to direct requests from local communities. 'While President Trump uses the National Guard to trample local leadership, New Mexico brings together local and state governments to make our communities genuinely safer,' she said. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the federal intervention in his state 'purposely inflammatory.' Washington, DC, Attorney General Brian Schwalb called the president's actions unnecessary and pointed out violent crime in the district reached 30-year lows last year. Trump said he was going to 'look at' taking action in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles because of their crime rates when he announced his plans to take control of DC's police department this week. It is not clear what specifically Trump wants to do in other cities. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have all seen a sustained decline in crime so far this year, according to a mid-year report from the independent nonpartisan Council on Criminal Justice. It's a 'dangerous precedent' for the federal government to start deploying troops to deal with local and state policing matters, as they are historically used for crowd control, protecting federal property and federal workers, or responding to a natural disaster, according to Jeffrey Swartz, a former National Guard member and professor emeritus at Cooley Law School. The courts in California have yet to address a claim at the center of the case brought by Newsom to block Trump's deployment of troops in the city: whether the troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th century law prohibiting the use of the US military for domestic law enforcement. The three-day trial concluded last week, but the judge did not say when he will rule. 'When the president nationalizes a unit or a state National Guard, they now fall under the Posse Comitatus Act saying they are not allowed to be used for civil policing,' said Swartz. 'He cannot authorize federal troops to make arrests. That is solely within the power of the governor.' The National Guard can, however, take someone into custody under circumstances where there's a danger to federal property or federal officers, he added. The act reserves law enforcement functions to the states, but its language is short, which 'lends itself to vagueness and argumentation,' said David Shapiro, lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Swartz said National Guardsmen 'don't like the idea of being on the streets and being put in a position where they might have to use force against fellow citizens.' 'These people are citizen soldiers, not full-time. They have jobs. They have families,' he said. 'They signed up to protect the country against external threats, not internal ones.'
CNN
26 minutes ago
- CNN
Takeaways from the Trump-Putin Summit; Netanyahu's Playbook in Gaza; Implications of Defunding mRNA Research; AI's Growing Impact on the US Economy - Fareed Zakaria GPS - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Takeaways from the Trump-Putin Summit; Netanyahu's Playbook in Gaza; Implications of Defunding mRNA Research; AI's Growing Impact on the US Economy Fareed Zakaria GPS 41 mins Today on the show, Fareed is joined by President Biden's former National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, for a wide-ranging conversation on the major takeaways from Friday's Trump-Putin Summit, and why Netanyahu is prolonging Israel's war in Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia center, talks with Fareed about Putin's wins following his meeting with Trump, and how it changes the war's with the Trump administration's cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars for mRNA research—which was vital in developing COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Leana Wen, the former Baltimore health commissioner, joins the show to discuss the importance of this technology, and what cuts mean for American as spending for artificial intelligence skyrockets in the US, Derek Thompson speaks with Fareed about AI's promise—and if it's a bubble waiting to Jake Sullivan (@jakejsullivan); Alexander Gabuev (@AlexGabuev); Leana Wen (@DrLeanaWen); Derek Thompson (@DKThomp)
CNN
26 minutes ago
- CNN
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months
The Supreme Court's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump's effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are 'outdated,' 'poorly reasoned' or 'egregiously wrong.' While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on average than earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably on abortion but also affirmative action and government regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have only expedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, from being fired by the president without cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree 'that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. 'For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. 'Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. The high court has already agreed to hear an appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could 'blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates.' In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an 'aberration' that was 'plainly wrong the day it was decided.' If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, 'it should overrule that outdated decision.' Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to shoot down campaign finance rules as violating the First Amendment. A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a 'mistake' that 'must be corrected.' 'If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,' Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote recently that there are 'multiple flaws' with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, a wedding cake baker or a website developer – likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. 'They are not exercising their own rights,' he wrote, 'but the powers of the state.' Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers on Louisiana's fraught congressional districts map and whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described 'non-Black voters,' it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The court heard oral arguments in the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June of holding the case for more arguments. Earlier this month, the court ordered more briefing on the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, the court ordered officials in Alabama to redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. 'Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there,' said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging over redistricting and the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a 1950 Supreme Court decision that severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose 'incident to service.' The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. 'This court should overrule Feres,' Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative, wrote earlier this year in a similar case the court declined to hear. 'It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.' Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the 'sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers' adopted by the Feres decision 'is at odds' with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has 'been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court.' Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-old Supreme Court precedent that barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religion have shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe 'as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent,' the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. 'Santa Fe,' they said, 'was dubious from the outset.' It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high court reinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to 'a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.' Kennedy submitted a brief in the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, 'has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker.'
