While most of the nation was buying things for the grill on Monday, a major Donald Trump surrogate was getting grilled on national television. She tried to defend Trump’s tweet of a ghastly anti-Semitic meme not once, but twice–and made herself look like a fool both times.
Scottie Nell Hughes has been one of Trump’s most prominent female surrogates for the last year. The Christianist/tea party radio commentator is probably best known for suggesting that a riot “wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing” if Trump isn’t crowned at the Republican National Convention. So it comes as no surprise that she finds nothing wrong with Trump’s now-infamous tweet of a picture of Hillary Clinton superimposed on a stack of cash, with a Star of David to her right.
It’s hard to believe any surrogate would defend this after it emerged that the original image had been floating around a notorious alt-right/white supremacist imageboard on 8chan for two weeks before Trump got his hands on it. But Hughes certainly tried on the Monday morning edition of “CNN Newsroom.” Watch here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ5p-gkXvWk
Hughes appeared alongside CNN political analyst Errol Lewis. Apparently Lewis knew what Hughes was going to do. He said that while many of Trump’s people might want to avoid talking about that tweet, “this is not a subject you do that with.” He believed that by downplaying and refusing to apologize for this incident and similar incidents, Trump was doing something that should be obvious to any fair-minded American.
“I think everybody, everybody who’s not a complete partisan understands exactly what his campaign is doing. They understand that it is deliberate. They understand that they’re playing footsie with some very dangerous, radical, disgusting elements of this country and that they hope to ride in the White House based on that support, and it’s disgraceful.”
Host Carol Costello reminded Hughes that one big reason people were outraged by this tweet is that some 57 percent of hate crime victims are Jewish. Hughes responded in typical fashion. She harrumphed that the image was originally created on June 15, and eventually made its way to 8chan. Therefore, Hughes argued, Trump really isn’t responsible.
To Hughes’ mind, “unless you can responsibly tell me 100 percent” that Trump or someone on his social media team went to 8chan and grabbed that image, “this whole thing is just assumptions.” Um, Scottie? Trump more or less controls his own Twitter. How can you or any other surrogate say with a straight face that he isn’t responsible for that tweet?
Costello pointed out that Trump had indeed tweeted that image, and wondered why Trump hadn’t apologized. After more shrill from Hughes, Lewis fired back that Trump and his surrogates need to tell the American people why this image made it “into the candidate’s mouth, in effect.” He added that the onus is solely on Trump to explain why he used that image–and past experience indicates that he won’t unless there’s a national outcry. In another jab at Hughes, Lewis said that she and anyone else trying to defend this tweet “should be ashamed of themselves.”
Apparently Hughes is a glutton for punishment, because she tried to peddle more or less the same line on the Monday afternoon “CNN Newsroom.” Watch here.
Hughes whined that every time Hillary is supposedly exposed, a “petty controversy” pops up to deflect attention. When host Brianna Keilar pointed out that Trump was the one who tweeted the image, Hughes repeated that since the original image was originally tweeted on June 15, you can’t “assume” that someone on Trump’s team took it from 8chan. She whined that it was “absolutely irresponsible” to point fingers at Trump.
Hughes then claimed that the original tweet was still there–with a circle replacing the star. Keilar was having none of it, pointing out that Trump deleted the original tweet and put up a replacement after a barrage of criticism. Hughes whined that this was more proof the media is trying to tar Trump as a bigot. Baldwin asked the obvious question–why did he change the tweet if there was nothing wrong with the original? Hughes said that decision was made to turn the focus to “what the meme was about”–an attack on Hillary’s corruption.
After watching this, I almost feel bad for Hughes. But unless you have orange blinders on, she made herself look utterly foolish. In what world can you not be responsible for something that rolls off your candidate’s Twitter? Apparently in Trumpland.
