For instance, yesterday, somebody wrote sarcastically on Facebook, if Trump were to cure cancer, others would object and claim that “he was hurting the drug companies”.
The issue of whether Trump’s critics can cut him some slack and not get on him for everything became an even greater issue over the past few days. On Saturday, Trump failed to isolate the far right Nazis, Klan and Alt Right and others for provoking hate and violence during their “unite the right” rally in Charlottesville Virginia. His critics attacked him for not doing so. On Monday Trump read a prepared statement naming the Nazis, the Klan and other right wing organizations.
Ironically, while Mr. Hillyer and I were engaging in the live interview on social media, the President engaged in a press conference in which he seemed to double down to support his prior response to the violence in Charlottesville.
Since that press conference, more Republicans and members of the media have expressed their collective outrage at Trump’s responses.
Still, Hillyer’s opinion is still very relevant, if not more relevant to the issue whether Trump’s critics and the mainstream media could ever be satisfied with Trump.
Below is the Hillyer’s answer to that question. Tomorrow we will present part 2 of this discussion but you can click on the video below to watch the entire interview with Quin Hillyer:
“The answer the answer is yes--for a number of Trump critics the question isn't being reflexively anti Trump or pro Trump or whatever--it has to do with responding to Trump's actions and statements as each individual action and statement merits--and just because somebody criticizes Trump five times in a row doesn't mean that they're criticizing him just because they like criticizing Trump--it could be that Trump has done or said something stupid or not just five times in a row.
And it might be that the sixth thing he does or says will not be seen as stupid or obnoxious and that same critic would praise him.
So I don't think it's fair to just label somebody and as anti-Trump and therefore to discount legitimate criticisms that that person offers.
QUESTION: Okay, so like this past, this past weekend and yesterday and all I mean you had a situation, of course, where you had the rally and and he gets up there he tweets and he basically--I think is trying to level the playing field not aggravate one side or another and and he said that that was enough-- obviously some people said
It wasn't enough. I was one of them who said it wasn't enough. I'm proud to stand with many many other conservatives, the editors of National Review, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas--who was a big Trump supporter, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina the Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah on and on it goes you know lots and lots of people legitimately thought that Trump was trying to assert a moral equivalence or in this case an immoral equivalence in this particular instance between the Nazis and white supremacists and the people who were protesting against the Nazis and white supremacists. And while while it is absolutely legitimate to say that in general the antifa group the left-wing group is all bad elements and that they might not have behaved well, and have all sorts of criticism and in general--the simple reality is, that in this case, these were Nazis and white supremacists waving Nazi flags deliberately armed to the teeth, deliberately shouting Nazi slogans and deliberately trying to foment unrest and violence, and it was one of their members who committed the heinous murder that was committed and in that case there is no way that a president of the United States should not put the blame squarely on the white supremacist period, end of statement.
Instead of trying to say, oh well, as many of them and then repeating "many of them, many groups are bad", no! That's the wrong thing to say and people were right to call him out on it
QUESTION: So what do you think the impact is, I mean, obviously he didn't want, he did not want to add the additional names--he's gotten slammed, I think at this point for CEOs people who are on his his manufacturing group have decided to drop out do you think this is temporary or what?
Hillyer: Well look uh I will give the president credit. I still didn't think that when he made his new statement 48 hours later, should not have taken 48 hours, but when he didn't made his new statement, even though even looked like he was being forced to--like his heart wasn't really in it--the fact is the words to the other, were very good and very appropriate and so I will give him credit for it. But you know I think at some point we need to stop obsessing about what the president did or did not say, accept his words and move on.
But because you bring up his reaction to the resignations from the Industrial Council or whatever the heck it's called--it was very odd and very telling that while the president could not, could not bring himself for 48 hours to specifically call out the white supremacist and the neo-nazis, he was very quick and very passionate about about attacking the black CEO of Merck who he had put on that council and who he had praised in the past and suddenly because the black CEO of that company had dared to resign from the council because he was upset at Trump's failure--Truck eagerly and bitterly attacked him rather than saying you know what—“I am sorry that he feels that way, I did not mean to offend him, or anybody else, I thanked him for his service and and you know but you know but I'll but I will accept his his resignation”. He could have done something gracious like that--that's what presidents are supposed to do, especially when you've got a guy who you have praised, who suddenly you're saying--is a terrible guy? That just makes you into a hypocrite and especially when the guy is black and has reason to be upset at neo-nazis.