CNN’s Jeffrey Lord Gets Spanked On Air Yet Again For Trying To Defend Trump’s Racism
On Monday afternoon, it was reported by Bloomberg that Republican nominee and pretend billionaire Donald Trump had told surrogates to forcefully defend his racist attacks against a federal judge. In fact, the best strategy to engage in would be to call critics and even the judge himself the real racists. Armed with his new marching orders, CNN’s resident Trumpkin Jeffrey Lord took to the air and provided us with some of the most ridiculous segments in cable news history.
After spending Monday night and all of Tuesday spinning an elaborate and convoluted justification of Trump’s actions that revolved around identity politics and Trump somehow being anti-racist, Lord continued his contrarian line of attack Tuesday night during CNN’s live election coverage. In what was described by Media Matters as the worst CNN segment this entire election, Lord got pummeled by the other eight people on set, some of whom were conservative pundits as well.
After spending the entire evening getting ridiculed on social media, Lord came back for seconds on Wednesday morning. And, just like the night before, got his ass handed to him, this time by conservative commentator Mary Katherine Ham, hardly a social justice warrior.
Appearing on New Day, Lord told host Alisyn Camerota that he wasn’t going to “re-litigate” the whole Curiel flap again, only to immediately commence doing that. Once again, he stated how disappointed he was with the GOP embracing “identity politics” and that they were being the real racists by doing that, as it came directly from slavery or something. Fortunately, Ham stopped him right there, pointing out for the millionth time that Trump was the one who first brought up Curiel’s ethnicity.
“I’m sorry. I’m sorry but bringing — hold on. I’m sorry, but Donald Trump brought up the ethnicity of the judge many times unprompted. That was identity politics of the ugliest kind in and of itself, and it is the reason we are still talking about this. And it is not some leftist capitulation to say that saying a man cannot do his job because of his ethnicity is a problem. It should be a problem for many people who are conservative and who are in the Republican Party. It should be.”
Of course, because Lord is a Trump apologist first and foremost, and will contort himself like a human pretzel to defend Daddy, he went with his old argument that Curiel was the real racist because he embraced his heritage, and Trump was the true civil rights hero by pointing it out. Seriously, that’s his argument.
On top of that, he brought up Sonia Sotomayor’s statements about being a Latina years back as proof that ethnicity can present a conflict for judges. Once again, Ham and Camerota pointed out the serious flaws in his argument and essentially called him a stupid craven asshole.
From Media Matters’ transcript of the segment:
LORD: M.K., with all due respect, the judge has made a career out of his ethnicity. He belongs to a group, I might add, that a year ago announced it was going to boycott all of Donald Trump’s properties. That’s not an impartial judge. That is not an impartial judge.
HAM: Hold on. Then make that argument either to the court and ask for recusal, or make that argument in public. But that was not the argument that Donald Trump made. You are making up his argument after the fact.
LORD: No I am not. He said his Mexican heritage, that’s Latino. Hello? It’s the same thing. It’s Latino. This is a judge who has made much of his Latino background. And this is where I say this is a much larger argument than Donald Trump. When Judge Sotomayor boasted that she was a wise Latina who could make better decisions than a white male, liberals swooned over that.
CAMEROTA: Well Jeffrey, I mean there is a difference. Hold on a second. Jeffrey, just a second, because I have heard you use the Sotomayor analogy. One is about how you are enriched by your heritage, that’s what Sotomayor was trying to say.
LORD: She said she could make a better decision than a white male.
CAMEROTA: Yes, and eight years later she tempered that and sort of went back on that, what some believe was clumsy language. But it was about how that has enhanced her experience. What Donald Trump was saying was that it negate — that being of Mexican ancestry disqualifies you. It’s actually the opposite of what Sotomayor analogy you used.
LORD: Ali, it’s just basic 101. If you have conflict in a case, if you’re a judge and you have got a conflict with a defendant, it doesn’t matter what the conflict is, you should get out of the case.
HAM: Right, and he made the argument that the ethnicity itself was the conflict. He did not make the points about his associations or what they backed. He didn’t make those points. What he said was many, many, many, many times that the ethnicity itself was the problem and that is why he is being called to task for it.
LORD: M.K., with all due respect, that is not the point. And again, this goes to the —
HAM: That is the point. That’s the point he made 20 times in an interview.
One has to wonder why CNN keeps Lord employed at this point. First off, do they really need to have two full-time Trump supporters on staff, whose sole job is to defend every stupid thing Donald Trump says? Second, is this the best you can do if you feel like you need to have a Trumpkin on the payroll? I mean, aren’t there better options?
CNN should just go into Penn Station & hire the 1st person they see yelling at their shoes as a Trump surrogate
— Elias Isquith (@eliasisquith) June 8, 2016
Below is video of the exchange, courtesy of Media Matters:
