What fallacies are in here?

It's fallacy-free up til the "Your comment..." At that point, person 2 is assuming that by calling Trump these things, person 1 is dividing people him/herself, which is a possibly false argument. Also, calling him a clown is attacking him, and not his point, which is an ad hoc attack.

Ill go with tokenism on the part of person 2.

Person 1: A lot about Trump sickens me, but maybe at the top of the list is his very intentional efforts to divide us up by the color of our skin, our gender, our sexual orientation and our religion. 

Without context, this appears to be just an opinion followed by a unsupported claim. No fallacies.

Person 2: His housing secretary is black, his enterprise chief is back, his top 3 White House advisers are women, his intelligence chief is gay, and his grandchildren are Jewish.

Person 2 is providing evidence against person 1's claim. No problems (assuming this is factually true). Granted, this isn't strong evidence, but these facts wouldn't seem to be consistent with the claim of person 1.

Your comment demonstrably proves that you're guilty of exactly what you accuse others of, you enormous clown.

I take issue with the word "proves" as this could be argued to be evidence that person 1 did make a divisive statement, but we don't know if their intentions were to be divisive, so we don't know if person 1 is doing "exactly" what they are accusing Trump of doing. This conclusion does not follow; therefore a Non Sequitur . As for the clown comment, just some trash talking; not fallacious.