Can I dissent here a little? My first impression was that it wasn't chosen with deliberately anti-Semitic undertones. At first glance, it looked like a simple comic-book style dialogue box, the kind used when a point is emphasized. It took me a second to realize that if I tilted my head a little, it resembles a Star of David. I'm not Jewish, nor an anti-Semite, so it wasn't my first instinct to connect the symbols. If I hadn't read the story, I might not have noticed at all.
It seems to me that there are two possibilities here:
1. This was an honest, inadvertent mistake. His staff put together a little campaign poster, which was supposed to be simple and easy, without much thought put into it. Without realizing the possible undertones, they innocently used this star-framing which connotes something exciting. Images work on our subconscious level. Stars are pointy, jagged, inducing feelings of unease - making them a perfect framing for the message "Hillary Clinton is corrupt!". Too few points looks amateur, minimal, and possibly child-like. Too many points looks cluttered, pretentious, and drowns the intended effect in distracting flamboyancy. Shorn of the religious and ethnic meaning, that star is aesthetically balanced, and hews a nice middle-ground. One thing I noticed is the star isn't standing right-side up - which would look almost immediately like a Star of David. It's actually tilted a little, and required me to tilt my head to see the intended meaning. As I said, at first glance, it looked like an ordinary cartoon dialogue box.
I find this to be the most likely answer. Some staffer slapped this together, received criticism, said "opps!" and changed the offending image.
Back when I was a journalism major, I had to take a diversity class. We examined a few cases of infamously insensitive headlines or stories. One of them was an ESPN editor
who had his career ruined after he used the phrase "a chink in the armor" in a headline, referring to an athlete who'd had a tough time during a game. The problem was, that athlete was of Asian descent. The writer swore it was an honest mistake, and even my teacher, who was a staunch cultural liberal conceded that he probably meant no harm in using the phrase.
Frankly, I find the situation to be a little absurd. There seems to be a consensus that the writer wasn't being mean-spirited, and the phrase he used is a common colloquialism which normally has no negative undertones. However, he lost his job over what was almost certainly an honest mistake. It seems that any reasonable person would clearly understand the lack of offense intended, and the ordinary nature of the situation. However, we live in unreasonable times where PC ideologues with Jacobin zeal seek to graft artificial social standards onto ordinary situations and expressions - which they then police - are taken seriously. There's a difference between normal human courtesy and decency, and PC abstractions, but that's a whole other topic.
Something similar probably happened here.
2. However, I admit that a small part of me wonders if Trump doesn't deliberately pander to white nationalists. There's little evidence that he does. The vast majority of complaints about him are quite over-heated, and in different times and other places, would likely cause no controversy at all. However, he did once post those false racial crime statistics; and he did that weird thing where he seemingly was reluctant to repudiate David Duke, despite doing so before and after the interview. Now, allegedly, this. White nationalists are generally huge fans of Trump, although not necessarily because he shares their goals and outlook. Often, when a group is on the margins for a long time, they start supporting anyone who supports any of their issues, even if they do so for different reasons.
However, as I said, part of me does wonder. White nationalism is, unfortunately, a growing movement (thanks in part to situations like the ESPN editor I discussed earlier). Trump seems to have a natural intuition, and I wonder if he is aware of this, and is perhaps taking advantage of it. However, let's assume he is deliberately pandering to racists. What does he stand to gain from it? White racism is still a small movement. Does he really need to pander for the votes of the tiny number of people who are turned on by this sort of thing?
For the record, I'm far to the right of the mainstream, yet I fear the rise of white nationalism and the balkanization and racial tensions it will inevitably create if it becomes mainstream. If I thought Trump was seriously sympathetic to them, I would be quite turned off. However, I don't get that impression. I think that most people who claim this are mostly seeing what they want to see.