Rachel Scott’s piercing interview at National Association of Black Journalists event left former president fuming

ABC News’s senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott has reportedly faced threats to her life after her piercing interview of Donald Trump at the National Association of Black Journalists convention left the former president fuming.

The NABJ’s executive director told members at a meeting on Saturday that “Scott had received death threats following her work asking incisive questions of … Trump at the group’s national convention” three days earlier, Eric Deggans of National Public Radio wrote in an X post published Saturday.

…

Scott asked Trump on Wednesday, “Why should Black voters trust you?” given his history of inflammatory comments about Black people. Among other questions, she also quizzed him about whether he believed Vice-President Kamala Harris had risen to the top of the Democratic ticket for November’s White House election solely “because she is a Black woman”.

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    13·
    1 month ago

    Amazing that they recognize how awful that interview went, but still think it’s the interviewers’ fault for asking him questions and not Trump’s fault for being a belligerent idiot.

  • Verdant Banana@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1650·
    1 month ago

    US politics is toxic because it is divisive

    two parties have hijacked our elections and created football politics that pit one side against the other

    should be different voices with multiple different representators in government just like the voters if all were allowed to vote

    • ccunning@lemmy.world
      445·
      1 month ago

      two parties have hijacked our elections and created football politics that pit one side against the other

      THaeYRe baSICALLLY ThE SA aME!

        • Gumby@lemmy.worldEnglish
          302·
          1 month ago

          That is 100% untrue, considering one party’s destination is fascism.

          • Verdant Banana@lemmy.worldEnglish
            236·
            1 month ago

            what do you call it when both parties are for locking up kids at the border just for one example

            or what do call it when both parties support over funding the police without more regulations and oversight

            there are numerous examples

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      514·
      1 month ago

      Political parties should be abolished. Imagine how much more attention you would have yo pay if you had to understand who to vote for. Plus then it would allow people like your local mail carrier to run for things like school committee.

      • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        2·
        1 month ago

        Political parties should be abolished.

        How?

        Imagine how much more attention you would have yo pay if you had to understand who to vote for.

        Bring back the old literacy tests while you’re at it.

        Plus then it would allow people like your local mail carrier to run for things like school committee.

        They aren’t? If yes how would that change?

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          1 month ago

          How?

          Good question. I said should, not could… it would take a constitutional change, which is currently impossible. I used to think a lot about this, and there just is no law that wouldn’t get stricken down if passed.

          Bring back the old literacy tests while you’re at it

          Pfft. The two are not the same. You could be perfectly illiterate and still find out what the supposed values of the politicians were by simply listening to them, or just talking to others about policy and politicians ties to them, like we used to.

          They aren’t? If yes how would that change?

          The Hatch Act applies to all career federal civil servants and prevents anyone under that designation from running from office in any partisan race. Meaning if your local government doesn’t allow political affiliations to be listed, then you can run for dog catcher or school committee or whatever. Non-partisan local elections used to be the norm, now they are exceptionally rare. Forcing every election to be non-partisan opens up a bunch of likely trustworthy people to be able participate in politics through running for offices.

          • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            1·
            1 month ago

            How?

            Good question. I said should, not could… it would take a constitutional change, […]

            I mean: if you had the power, how would you ban parties? At what point do political organizations become parties? How about individual representatives working together?

            Bring back the old literacy tests while you’re at it

            Pfft. The two are not the same. You could be perfectly illiterate and still find out what the supposed values of the politicians were by simply listening to them, or just talking to others about policy and politicians ties to them, like we used to.

            Yes literacy is not the deciding factor, but it was always a pretense to keep certain people from voting.

            Imagine how much more attention you would have yo pay if you had to understand who to vote for.

            How much time should a person spend following politics to get enough of an understanding? What about poor people working long hours with little free time?
            Guess I should have gone with the landowning requirement instead.

            The Hatch Act applies to all career federal civil servants and prevents anyone under that designation from running from office in any partisan race. Meaning if your local government doesn’t allow political affiliations to be listed, then you

            Sound like a problem with the Hatch Act, not with political parties. Over here civil servant can run in political races as long they separate their work and political live, they are not allowed to wear uniforms at political events for example.

      • Verdant Banana@lemmy.worldEnglish
        221·
        1 month ago

        thank you my point exactly

        case in point is the mail why wouldn’t a mail carrier be votable to congress or senate or president or any government position

        not only would the expertise come in to play but people would finally see something like participating in government a reality like running for offices for themselves or just voting

        would break the traditional rule of the US and shatter the elites’ power