CNN’s Dana Bash on Trump & Harris, fact-checking and “America’s deadliest election” | Salon Talks

Before the interview, Donald Trump is saying, "Do  a good job." Praising you and then afterwards at   his rally last week saying that "You're  too nice and you're nasty, you're both. The Truth Social post that he put  up before was a long... did you   see a long diatribe about how I  have the potential for greatness? Yes, you do. Obviously I failed. Hi, I am Dean Obeidallah. Welcome to Salon  Talks. Today we're here with Dana Bash,   you know her from CNN, she's the Chief  Political Correspondent. She's the host   of "Inside Politics," the co-host of "State  of the Union," and she got a brand new book,   "America's Deadliest Election: The  Cautionary Tale of the Most Violent   Election in American History.: Nice to  see you. Thanks so much for being here. Thank you for having me. Appreciate it. Sure. When people hear the title "America's  Deadliest Election," their mind of course,   will come to January 6th. That's  not at all what the book is about,   at least not directly. Tell people about this  gubernatorial race in Louisiana. How did you find   it and why is it so compelling to you that you  wrote a book, which is really a compelling book? 1872. It is very much not 2020 and 2021 that  you're talking about. And that back then was   real violence, hundreds and hundreds of  people died including a massacre of Black   men. And that's really the context in which this  election took place. It was during Reconstruction   and the election beforehand was in '68 and  newly freed Black men, of course it was only   men then, were allowed to vote and they did. And they elected people who, as they should,   support their point of view and support their  rights. And the segregationists, the racists,   saw that and said, "Whoa, we can't let that happen  again." And so that was when they begun to use   intimidation, disenfranchisement at the polls.  And they were successful in keeping thousands   probably of Black men from voting. And so the  election was so corrupted, nobody knew who won.  Therefore, nobody would concede. So there were  two governors, they were opposing candidates,   neither would concede, so both were inaugurated  by their own people. The legislatures, same thing,   two legislatures sworn, in two slates of judges.  And it was total and complete chaos. And it   got to the point where the leaders were  calling for violence. And that happened.  Colfax Massacre in Grant Parish, named for  Ulysses S. Grant, and there were 150 Black men   murdered in cold blood because they were trying  to protest and protect the right to... or make   clear that they didn't have the right to vote,  and they should have. In order to prosecute that,   they realized that these White men probably  wouldn't get convicted in a jury of their   peers in the state of Louisiana.  If it went into the federal court,   it was tried on the basis of civil rights,  and it got all the way to the Supreme Court.  And the Supreme Court decided in a very  important monumentous decision, Cruikshank,   that it is up to the states and not the federal  government to determine people's civil rights.   And the South said, "Okay, we agree and we're  going to impose Jim Crow laws for the next   100 years." And that is how we got there.  And it all started with this election. It's kind of remarkable that this election  was the spark to all of that and how that   Supreme Court decision as you go through, laid the  basis for Jim Crow laws later through the South.  Just so people can understand the context, because  I think it's so important what you're saying, this   is in the post Civil War era, it's Reconstruction.  Tensions as you paint in this picture are very   high. There are former Confederate officers,  fighters who are living there and they're seeing   Black people voting, people who they had enslaved  or they were involved fighting for slavery. Their slaves. Exactly. So how much of that contributed  to it? And the election of 1872,   that was the spark that exploded, but it  wasn't in a vacuum, it was all of that   that was going on. Can you share a little bit  about that kind of tinderbox that was there? It was such a tinderbox. And first of all it was  just the fundamental belief of these people who   were White supremacists, that Black people  shouldn't have those rights, even if they're   not their slaves, they shouldn't have rights.  And then there was the economic aspect of it,   which was huge because they suddenly didn't  have free labor. And that was a big part of   Reconstruction to try to answer that. Up until then, and this is one of the   many parallels between then and now,  people trusted the electoral system,   by and large. You cast your ballot. It was  done by hand. It took a very long time.   Somebody said, "This is who won." And  that was it. And that stopped with this   election as it should have because it was so  incredibly corrupted and people who had the   right to vote were not allowed to vote. And because of this, and this is focused   on Louisiana at the beginning of the  book, then we fast-forward to 1876,   the presidential election where this kind  of corruption was true in Louisiana again,   also other states. And the President of  the United States could not be determined   because four states, including Louisiana,  their electoral slates were so messed up.  In fact, they sent two electoral slates  to Congress. And it was the first time   that we could find that a vice president had to  decide whether or not his job was ceremonial or   whether he could have an impact and really  decide which slates of electors would be   determined. And that vice president, or the  people around that vice president, determined   that it was only ceremonial. So I don't know  about you. Did you know any of this history? I knew the Colfax Massacre part. I didn't know  anything about the 1872 election. I didn't know   about the people that you introduce us to. In  a way, this book, the young republican was the   governor there, he's got a bright future. Then  how it gets darker and darker because I thought   at first I'm like, "Oh, this book is about this  young guy." I'm like, "Oh, this is much darker." Very dark. But the reason I asked is as a  reporter, especially somebody covering politics,   had I known about this history before,  we were... never mind the 2020 election   and all that happened then, but January 6th,  2021, watching Mike Pence struggle with that   question and then decide just like back then  that it was in fact just ceremonial. There were   so many parallels in here. The people in the  streets of New Orleans screaming "Hang him."  Assassination attempts including one, and  this was after the book was already done,   that Donald Trump's assassination attempt  happened. But if you notice in the book,   the gubernatorial candidate, when they tried  to kill him, he describes the bullet whizzing   by his head and hearing the bullet. It's  eerie how many similarities there are. There is another similarity, and you talk about it  in your book, the Partisan News Media feeding lies   about election misinformation. And it caused an  incitement of violence and there's no doubt about   it. And then again, that's something that we can't  help but see. And the idea that you had certain   pro-Trump media outlets that later had to pay  massive fines or damages because of what they were   doing, misinformation, those lawsuits continue. I think a great point you make and that people   don't realize partisan media has been with  us, and it's probably worse, to be honest- It was worse. ... in the early days. But can  you share about how partisan   media played a role in fueling this and  again, that lesson for us now in 2024? Yeah, and Partisan media has  been around since the press. Washington and Hamilton. Yes, exactly. So that is true. The difference in  1872 is that technology was starting to improve.   The telegraph existed. And so there were many  more newspapers and information could flow   more freely and faster than on horseback  and via train. So that was a big part of   it. And it was big business to have newspapers. Gosh, I don't advocate having partisan newspapers   in local cities and states, but having more news  newspapers, can you imagine? They had multiple,   I mean hundreds of newspapers on the local level,  and they were printing out many a day. And the   point you're making is really key is that for the  most part, they were mouthpieces of the parties,   of the party leaders. And it was hard for  people to find the facts as they were,   as opposed to the feedback loop  that they were getting from people.  You assume they believe in the democratic cause  and the segregationist that you're going to buy   those papers. And so that's basically all they  were hearing. And it is eerily similar to today,   except that we're all seeing that on our phone  with algorithms so it's a hundred times worse. It is. You can just live in your own cellphone  and never see the news of the other side. And the   partisan press, it does go back. George Washington  was subjected to it, but he was even called,   he was taking bribes from the British.  This is the guy who led our of troops in   the Revolutionary War. It got that ugly  and that bad so early, and it was just   reading a book on Washington where that was  a big part of like, "Wow, that's stunning."  In the book, you go into great detail about  the Colfax Massacre. That's not the only...   That gets headlines, it's horrific.  It was a White supremacist terrorist   attack. There's so much other violence that  went on at that time, it is jaw dropping. And on the streets, the Colfax Massacre was  not in New Orleans, it was in Grant Parish.   There was violence on the streets of New Orleans,  pitch battles on the streets of New Orleans. And   the Battle of Liberty Place, which I know that  there are plaques there to tell people about it.  And people who grow up in Louisiana and learn  Louisiana history learn a little bit about it.   But I don't believe that they learn the fulsome,  the whole story about the real violence and the   need for federal troops. That's the other part  of the story that also led to the South being   able to do what it did for a hundred years until  the more modern day civil rights movement in the   fifties and sixties came about, which is the  fact that the states were left alone to fend   for themselves with regard to the troops down  there, also as part of the 1876 compromise,   which is another crazy story that they couldn't  get agreement on who won the presidency because   the electoral college was split thanks  to those four states being thrown out.  And they came up with a commission and eventually  the President of the United States at that time,   the winner was Rutherford B. Hayes, was decided by  one man. And it was also part of a backroom deal   where Hayes, with a wink and a nod, more than a  wink and a nod, was like, "Okay, I'll take it."   But it was very clear the implication is that  he would have to pull federal troops out of the   South. So any chance at keeping the peace and  keeping Black people safe with federal troops,   which Grant tried to do on and off throughout  the early 1870s, that was over as well. I didn't know about the gubernatorial fight.  The only reason I knew a little bit about   Rutherford Hayes and that commission is  because Ted Cruz had wanted a commission   like that after the 2020 election and called  for it and specifically said that election. That's right. And the Electoral Count Act, which then  set January 6th this date for what happens happened after that disputed election where  they're like, "Okay..." They're like, "It doesn't   matter who benefited, we got to stop this." And  that's why they amended it recently. So you also   talk about the rise of the White Leagues  there. Can you touch on them? And to me,   I think our history is filled with times where if  white supremacy is challenged in terms of power,   violence becomes one of the tools  in their arsenal. They might try   to do voter suppression, that kind  of stuff, but the White Leagues,   and do you see any similarities today to  some of the far-right movements in the US? Sure. They still live on, and the White Leagues,  one of the groups was called The White League,   but the KKK was born in this time—not in  Louisiana, in Tennessee—but still offshoots of   it certainly spread all over the South. And White  supremacists were an outgrowth of Confederates,   of slave owners. Not all of them, some of them  reformed, I don't want to say that they haven't.  But this is all about not just wanting free labor,  but genuinely believing in a disgusting way that   people who are not white are lesser than,  and they believe that it is their right to   do whatever they need to do, including kill and  suppress in order to keep that way of life. And   the reason is because if they see a Black man or  woman as lesser than, then they don't think it's   a problem to commit violence against them. And  it's absolutely horrific and it does still exist,   not like that. We weren't in a post-Civil war  era, but it still exists in pockets of America. It certainly does. And we see it more in  sometimes coded language, calling someone   a "DEI hire." The idea that you're inferior, you  could not achieve this on your own if you're of   color. The only way you could achieve this is  some government program that helped you. You   did recently an interview of Vice President Harris  and Governor Walz, and from your insight, you know   the left and the right are going to look at that  interview through a microscope. Does that impact   any way in the way you prepare or the way that  you deal with the actual interview in real time? It's funny, as I was preparing for the interview,  one of my amazing colleagues said to me, "You have   to think of this like the debate. You're going to  get know what storm on your head." And I was like,   "Yeah, I know." But I felt like it was different  and it was for lots of reasons, mistakes were   certainly not as high in the consequences, didn't  end up the same. But it's related to what we were   just talking about, about the partisan media and  people in their echo chambers and in their silos.  And for the left, they can't understand  how a journalist would ask a question   to help voters who are not with them,  illuminate what this person would do as   a leader and as a leader of the free world. From the right. They can't understand why I   didn't just absolutely destroy her with each  question. And that's not our job. That's not my   job as a reporter, as an objective reporter.  It is to do what I just mentioned earlier,   just to get more information, especially in the  situation where we are now, where Kamala Harris   is a very new candidate. She didn't go through  the paces. She didn't go through a primary process   where the voters could decide whether or not, the  Democratic primary voters, could decide whether or   not they wanted her as flawed as those processes  are. And that's a whole different conversation.  And she has been somebody who only had her  own kind of platform of ideas up until she   became Joe Biden's vice president. And as all vice  presidents do, they are underneath and they adopt   the policies of the presidency. So it's a long way  of saying, yes, I expected it. And it comes with,   as another one of my colleagues says, it comes  with being in the arena and modern day politics. It does. And I wonder, they're like,   "Okay, interview them. Is Jake  around? I'm off on Tuesday." I was off. I was at the beach. "Maybe some else can take this because  do I really want to do this?" Now,   does it impact you in any way as a  human being where before the interview,   Donald Trump is saying, "Do a good job." Praising  you and then afterwards at his rally last week   saying that "You're too nice and you're nasty,  you're both. It's kind of remarkable." He said. Oh, really? I missed that. Yeah. He said you were too nice to  them, but you're nasty to him and that   to read exact, "She's always nasty but  she's so nice to the Democrats." And he   said "It's a weak interview," that kind of stuff. I missed that. Well, look, he says so much. No, it's fine. Just to be honest. This is what he does. The Truth Social post that he put  up before was a long... did you   see a long diatribe about how I  have the potential for greatness? Yes, you do. Obviously I failed. But does it matter at all as a journalist, do  you have such a thick skin that you're like,   "This comes with a business," or  does it impact you in any way? I'm a human being and it's not pleasant.  But it honestly makes me more resolute in   understanding the impact and the importance  of what we do as journalists and to try   to tune it all out. It's hard, but I try,  especially when it all comes onto your phone. It's a different time. The one  good thing is that Trump says   so much stuff there's no way people  can see everything and react to it. And even I didn't see that and it was about me. Right. You're telling me for the first time. You're going to have to Google  yourself and you're going to see- No, I'm good. I do not do that. That's how I  preserve my mental health. I do not do that. I think it's got to be important. There  are certain people, if they criticize you,   I'm not speaking for you, but that it  would be fine for me. Because I'm like,   "Okay, my point in writing an op-ed or saying  something political, because I have a point   of view. If you want to disagree with it,  that's fine." I'm not here to say "Silence."  Here's my point, if you want to disagree.  When it's personal, there's no need for that.   That's the stuff, why do that? You moderated,  co-moderated with Jake, the big debate that   happened in June, another debate's coming up. How  much push and pull is there inside in the world   there of CNN or even ABC that's going to do this  about, "Do we fact check or do we not fact check?"  And that ties into the book because the partisan  media there is spewing their garbage. CNN   obviously, they made a choice, "We're not going to  fact check." As a journalist, when you hear Trump   saying something about the election lie and this  does your instinct like, "I should say something,"   or you go, "That's it. These are the rules and  we're just going to do it and that's life."? My instinct is always to say something. In  that situation, which is a debate where it's   not just us, it's not the interview that I  did. It's him against the person who he's   challenging to be President of the United  States. Historically, since Kennedy, Nixon,   virtually all presidential debates are done with  the moderators facilitating and not participating.  And we made the decision that we were not going  to be participants in that way in saying, "Okay,   hold on, President Biden, we're going to get to you in a second. But let me just say XYZ ABC   that you just said is not true. Go ahead,  President Biden." Because we felt that that   was his job to do. And the way that the debate  unfolded, imagine if we did all the aggressive   fact checking on Donald Trump. We would've been  accused of doing President Biden's job for him.  And by the way, we would've also  had to fact check President Biden,   which Donald Trump didn't do, I don't  think, on a couple of things. Big things,   like he said, "No American serviceman died  on his watch," which is not true. Abbey Gate,   13 people were killed. So it's tough. I'm  not saying it's not tough. It is really,   really tough. But a debate is very different  from an interview or a town hall where you are   the person who is running the show and  you're the only one there to challenge. No, I appreciate that explanation. It makes  a point, and I hope people watching to see   that there is distinction. There really  is intellectually here when you approach   one versus the other, because you'd be eating all  your time, to be honest, not debate fact-checking   Donald Trump, who Daniel Dale said like 30+  lies, others found hundreds, whatever it may have been. And it's not just the time. I mean, time is one  thing, but it's also the role that we have.   The question is in a debate whether the opponent  is going to call it out or not. And again,   it is tough because these times are not like  Romney, Obama or others, and it's difficult. The stakes have never been higher.  Last thing, but just on a personal   note. When you were moderating that debate,  did you get a sense something was wrong with   the President Biden? I don't mean fit  like a doctor, but this is not normal. We saw what you saw. Oh, you did. Okay. It wasn't like... Okay. No, we saw what everybody saw and  it wasn't what we... we did a lot   of prep. That was not part of our  prep process, I'll just say that. Fair enough. So last thing, this book,  "America's Deadliest Election," if you read it,   and it's a very compelling book. It's well  written and it's a dark time in American history,   but there's still connective tissues to what  we're living through today. How do we prevent   getting darker? How do we prevent going instead  of 2024 getting better, sliding into 1872? That's a really tough question, and I  don't know the answer. All I know is that   whomever said originally, and we've all heard  versions of, "If you don't know your history,   then you're going to repeat it." That is very  true. And I think that we just have to be really,   really focused on the guardrails  that do exist in our democracy,   in the system that allows for it to continue and  those that don't, and just be hyper aware. And I   do think after 2020 and early 2021 societally,  we are more aware of it. But as we saw in 1876   with that contested presidential election  where nobody won, it could actually be worse. The history is very important. George  Orwell, there's a famous line in 1984,   "Whoever controls the past, controls  the future." And the idea of... that's   why this history is very important. It's an  unreported on area. It was great meeting you. Again, the book "America's  Deadliest Election." Thank   you for tuning into Salon  Talks, I'm Dean Obeidallah.