At the White House, Monday, President Trump held a press conference with the president of Finland.
While the conference was originally supposed to center on U.S.-Finnish relations, due to the scale of flooding, damage, and human suffering in Texas, Hurricane Harvey was top of the agenda.
And addressing the hurricane, Trump was impressive. He referenced the courage of emergency services and citizens in overcoming Harvey’s difficulties. Trump pledged to work with Congress to support Texas in rebuilding: that effort, he said, will “be something very special.”
Yet when he was next asked by a Finnish reporter about Russian threats to the Baltics, Trump was weak. He refused to specifically identify Russia as a threat to western security, and when pressed on whether he would respond militarily to Russian aggression in the Baltics, Trump equivocated. He would only say that the U.S. is “very protective” of the region. This is a poor message to send at any time, but especially when on the stage with a frontline U.S. ally (albeit a non-NATO member) like Finland.
Still, Trump’s biggest error came in response to a question from Fox News’ John Roberts about his Friday pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Trump stated that he pardoned “Sheriff Joe” when he did because Hurricane Harvey meant more viewers would be tuning in to television. In doing so, he implicitly suggested that the hurricane’s human suffering is a legitimate means to advance his own domestic agenda.
Trump then suggested that his pardon was not that bad in the context of other pardons like that of Bill Clinton to Marc Rich, and Barack Obama to Chelsea Manning. Trump’s argument here is illogical. While the pardons he references were indeed inexcusable, Trump cannot excuse his own pardon under the pretext “others did the same.” As the Washington Examiner has noted, the Arpaio pardon is inexcusable and fundamentally counter to the rule of law.
The real takeaway: Trump had an opportunity to present a message of nonpartisan unity amidst a deep national crisis. Instead, he diluted some positive comments with others that were defined by hypocrisy and contradiction.
