Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Hugh Hewitt vs. Donald Trump — We debate

    Hugh Hewitt vs. Donald Trump — We debate

    Three takes on the “incident” from 3 Legal Insurrection authors

    Thursday, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Donald Trump.

    Among other things, Hewitt asked Trump a handful of foreign policy questions. “Are you familiar with General Soleimani?” asked Hewitt. “Yessss. Go ahead, give me a little. Go ahead, tell me,” responded Trump.

    Hewitt explained that Soleimani runs the Quds forces, which Trump confused with the Kurds, though Trump eventually remembered who Soleimani was. Hewitt was then complementary and reminisced of the time Trump “schooled the Senate” on real-estate, and then went on to explain that he’s looking for a Commander in Chief that knows who the players in the vast battlefield of Islamic terrorism.

    “Do you know who the players are without a score card, Donald Trump?” Hewitt asked.

    “I think by the time we get to office they’ll all be changed, they’ll be all gone, I knew you were gonna asks me things like this and there’s no reason because number one, I will hopefully find General Douglas McArthur in the PAC, I will find whoever it is that I’ll find, but they’re all changing, those are like history questions, do you know this one, do you know that one.”

    “I don’t believe in gotcha questions, I’m not trying to quiz you,” retorted Hewitt.

    “Well that is a gotcha question,” Trump accused. And then a media controversy was birthed.

    A gotcha question? An unprepared candidate? A throwback to the time the media played “Can you name this international player” with Bush 43?

    Trump supporters say he was duped, others see The Donald as being unprepared. Here’s what we think.

    Kemberlee Kaye

    As to Hewitt’s questions? I found them fair and well within the Foreign Policy 101 class. Which is part of why Trump’s ignorance on the matter is a bit concerning to me.

    When Hewitt asked if Trump knew the players without a scorecard, Trump had an opportunity to say that though he wasn’t fully up to speed, he was doing his best to educate himself or something that would indicate he’s interested in familiarizing himself with America’s foreign threats. Unfortunately that’s not what happened. Instead, Trump took the opportunity to discuss the “good looking wall” he’d build along our southern border.

    He then went on to claim he’d, “be so good at the military it will make your head spin.” Not exactly reassuring words from someone who is daily auditioning to lead our country. He’d hire experts, fine. That’s the smart thing to do. But to discern whether the counsel your advisors provide is wise or foolish, you must first have, at the very least, a rudimentary understanding of the landscape.

    By the time the next president is sworn in, our country will be in a much graver, significantly weakened global position. We need someone who will take seriously what our current president has not.

    At his very core Trump is a businessman. If the presidency is the job he’s seeking, he ought to be prepared for the interview.

    Amy Miller

    First of all, the Kurds/Quds mixup was just that—a mixup. This was a phone-in interview, and during phone-in interviews, these things happen. They pulled themselves together and moved on, and so will I.

    Trump should have known immediately who Soleimani is. Soleimani is a key player, and someone who should be showing up in foreign policy briefing papers on a regular basis. That being said, the light came on 30 seconds later, so I’ll give him this one too.

    I don’t believe that Hewitt’s questions about various world leaders and groups were “gotcha” questions; as I said, these are all things that could be compiled into short-form briefing papers, the use of which during campaigns is not uncommon. Still, it’s Trump’s attitude toward knowing who the major players are that I find worrisome:

    “By the time we get to office, they’ll all be changed…they’ll be all gone. I knew you were going to ask me things like this and there’s no reason.”

    The disingenuousness of this statement is almost unparalleled within the Annals of Trump. He goes on to claim that he’s going to find “absolutely great people” who can better answer questions like the ones Hewitt posed—but Trump’s gamble here becomes twofold.

    Trump may be right. We may be dealing with different leaders and despots by the time January 2017 rolls around; but suggesting that current ignorance is justified by the prospect of future developments is beyond the pale. When Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact in 1938, Winston Churchill wasn’t sitting back with a pipe waiting on the Poles and the Czechs to sort themselves out; instead, he campaigned for rearmament because he’d been watching the power struggle within Germany and understood what “Chancellor Hitler” meant.

    Fast forward to today. It’s impossible to understand the evolution and effects of the Arab Spring unless you understand the men and women behind the shuffle; or to understand Dmitry Medvedev’s strange tenure as Russia’s president without understanding the rise and influence of Vladimir Putin.

    And on and on it goes.

    Trump insists he will know the details. He will know the plan. The trouble is that the plan is already in motion. There’s no way for a presidential candidate to know everything a president needs to know—this is way above the entire field’s pay grade at this point—but Trump’s approach suggests that the foreign policy slate will be wiped clean on day one, which any student of history knows is the farthest thing from reality.

    William Jacobson

    My first reaction when I heard the conservative media’s snide reaction was Yes, Trump should know more.

    But it also it reminded me too much of how the media peppered G.W. Bush with questions about the names of leaders around the world and then mocked him for not knowing.

    I tweeted, Are we now in the “Who is the President of Uzbekistan” phase of the campaign?

    I don’t think it’s as important as many are making it to be.  If anti-Trump folks want to ensure Trump’s success, keep trying to prove how much more book smarts you have than he does.

    Being president isn’t an AP exam, it’s leadership and having the best people around you. And being willing to acknowledge what you don’t know.  Trump strikes me as a quick study.

    We already have “the smartest president ever” in the White House, and it’s a disaster because he thinks he knows better than everyone else. And he’s not half as smart as he thinks he is, which is a really dangerous combination.

    I don’t know what to make of Trump. I understand fully all the criticisms, both ideologically and of the man. I share a sentiment I heard — I think on radio or TV — from Laura Ingraham, that you can’t not watch him, and he is by far the most entertaining politician we’ve had in memory.

    It’s the Greatest Show On Earth. And for the first time in my adult life, I feel it’s bigger than me at the moment.

    That’s why I’ve been mostly an observer to the show. About 10 rows back from the center ring, just enjoying. I figure the folks will figure it out at the voting booth. I trust the people on this more than I trust the media.

    I’m not for Trump, but I am Trump-curious.

    This interview, though, didn’t make me any more or less curious.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Trump stumbled, and will stumble again and again. His followers will either abandon him or, like Obama bots, ignore, rationalize, and/or forgive his ignorance and unfamiliarity with the issues. I suspect the latter.

      Why are you people so obsessed with Trump’s supporters?

      Good grief, man, get a grip.

        gasper in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 1:41 pm

        I have a good grip – on reality. You should try going there sometime.

          Seems we have at least 4 new would-be blog owners of Legal Insurrection by virtue of their asinine contempt towards Trump supporters in the comment section…

          Amy in FL

          There may be others but these four stand out above the crowd.

            Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 5:24 pm

            That’s a personal attack.

            STOP IT!

            gasper in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 6:49 pm

            It is called an opinion – you have one and I have one. Wouldn’t this be a dull world if we all thought the same? I’m stating my opinion and you attack. That is very leftish behavior.

            Seems we have at least 4 new would-be blog owners of Legal Insurrection by virtue of their asinine contempt towards Trump supporters in the comment section…

            Amy in FL

            There may be others but these four stand out above the crowd.

            Well bless your heart! Thank you so much for noticing me! Do go ahead and “report” me to our kind host, and be sure to include examples of my heinously uncivil tone which deserves to get me banned! Get Professor Jacobson to deem “Contempt Of Trump” a crime, lèse-majesté style! Why put up with dissent when you can just have those in authority ban it?

            This is all so “Lives of Others” … So East Germany. I love the fact that I’m being placed on a list of Heretics Who Have Questioned Authority The Donald And Must Be Silenced.

            What next, will you lobby Oligarch-Emperor Trump to have the government seize my property via eminent domain, Zimbabwe-style, and hand it over to you? Oh, you precious thing.

            MarlaHughes in reply to VotingFemale. | September 8, 2015 at 8:04 am

            I feel left out. Does upvoting every single comment that draws attention to the fact that Trump is not nor ever has been a conservative count?

    Ragspierre | September 6, 2015 at 11:50 am

    “Why do my two heroes, Sarah Palin & Ted Cruz, support Donald Trump’s presidential bid as I do?”

    They don’t. In fact one of them is running in opposition to Mr. Establishment.

    “Since Trump is Conservative enough for Palin & Cruz & Mark Levin & Rush Limbaugh & Laura Ingraham, he is Conservative enough for me.”

    Well, see, that’s what you get when you only hear what reinforces your POV. Not one of those people have endorsed Mr. Establishment (I don’t listen to Ingraham, so she might have). In fact, Rush made EXACTLY the same observation of T-rump supporters I’ve made in almost the same words; they are projecting on him like Obama voters have. Look it up.

    “I will also add, I am an undecided voter…”

    Oh, yes. We ALLLLLL believe that one…!!! Please, dear!

    But what others say, even those I respect, doesn’t decide what I think. And rationally no Conservative can support BIG GOVERNMENT loving, crony capitalist, Mr. Establishment. Read his crappy immigration paper. I have. It is ALL about BIG GOVERNMENT, and nothing else.

    I will reply to you on the thread we have been commenting on unless you want me to copy and paste it all here so there is continuity.

    You posted this same comment over there first.

    See you over there.

    Laura Ingraham weighs in on Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Donald Trump and the subject of Gotcha Questions…

      Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 6, 2015 at 5:33 pm

      “He’s more of a Bush guy than he would be a Buchanan person.”

      Do you even understand that juxtaposition?

      Do you understand how her previous statement about being more libertarian contradicts that?

      Did Hewitt somehow make T-rump lie about the Kurds/Quds thing?

      OR his handwritten and signed note about what an honor it was to be on the show?

      I dunno, but I think first hand stuff is WAY more telling than what someone says on the radio the next day.

      How ’bout you?

        You ask me a question and here is my reply.

        I had to wait until I could provide meaningful citation concerning my views on Hugh Hewitt.

        Here it is as of today’s date, September 8, 2015:

        This is the new information from a leading national conservative news & opinion site regarding the RINO-GOP/RNC’s war to keep them in control and examining whom/what in the media are their political attack dogs.

        Hugh Hewitt’s GOP/RNC Establishment upper echelon role is discussed in detail, and it is *damning,* imo.

        I urge everyone who agrees or disagrees with my POVs to read it… it’s just that damning.

        Hugh Hewitt, GOP Debate Questioner, Sides with Establishment, Not Voters


        Hewitt is going to be asking the questions in the Sept. 16 debate, and he’s already made clear he doesn’t like Trump—he doesn’t like his populist priorities, and he prefers establishment candidates, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has tried since 2012 to boost the migration of lower-wage, profit-boosting foreign workers into the United States.

        “No. no, he doesn’t” have the “temperament” to be president, Hewitt said about Trump, to NBC host Chuck Todd Aug. 9.

        The next debate takes place Sept. 16 at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, but Hewitt is already doing his best to rough-up Trump.

        Trump sat for a Sept. 3 interview on Hewitt’s radio show. While the title of the audio file posted on Hewitt’s website suggests that the interview was presented to Trump as an opportunity to answer why he “took the [GOP] pledge,” yet Hewitt’s first mention of Trump’s GOP pledge did not come until 20 minutes and 32 seconds into the interview—an interview which was a grand total of 20 minutes at 47 seconds long.
        Hewitt is the media darling of establishment Republicans and GOP leadership. For instance, in June of this year both Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)and House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)separately appeared on Hewitt’s show to sell the Republican plan to grant Obama authority to pass globalist wage-reducing trade deals, and earlier this year, Mitt Romney decided to allow Hewitt to be the first to report that Romney would not be running for president.

        Thus the talk radio host, who was handpicked to participate in the debates as part of the Republican National Committee’s plan to provide balance to “Establishment” media outlets, is himself an establishment media figure in an election where outsiders and voters are jointly slashing at the bipartisan establishment that has run Washington since at least 1988.


        The above excerpt is only a part of a comprehensive evaluation of Hugh Hewitt’s activities supporting the GOP/RNC Establishment’s agenda and particular websites steered by them which runs opposite of the best interests of most voters.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Send this to a friend