On Tuesday morning's New Day on CNN, Trump derangement syndrome was on full display as CNN regulars spread misinformation and freaked out over the dispersal of rioters in Lafayette square before President Donald Trump's speech on the riots across the country.
As the group incorrectly claimed that the protesters were all peaceful and that tear gas was used against them, legal analyst Laura Coates and co-anchor Alisyn Camerota both invoked the deadly Tiananmen Square massacre that killed hundreds of pro-democracy demonstrators in China over 30 years ago.
Introducing the segment at 6:16 a.m. Eastern, co-host John Berman stated that "we all saw attacks on peaceful protesters" who were "tear gassed so that President Trump could take a picture in front of a church."
After liberal political commentator Bakari Sellers cracked that "George Wallace is probably looking up at him with a smile," Camerota also claimed that "peaceful protesters" were "fired on with tear gas" so that "President and his attorney general and Ivanka in her heels and big designer bag could cross the street, and the President could try to figure out how to hold a Bible."
But Park Police have denied that the dispersal was done because of the President's speech or that tear gas was used, noting that the decision was made because some protesters turned violent and were hurling objects at police.
A bit later, Berman turned to Coates, saying that "peaceful protesters" were attacked and that "people's lives were endangered" so that the President could visit the church: "There are people whose lives were endangered for that picture, you know, tear gas, rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades, you saw people getting hit. People got hurt -- people got hurt for this picture, and yet, even if your goal is to stop the looting, I just don't get how this helps that."
In her response, after ranting that President Trump violated people's First Amendment rights, she likened the dispersal of the protesters to the Tiananman Square massacre:
The idea of being able to express oneself in front of the White House has been so iconic. It was converted instead to a version of Tiananmen Square. And why? Because the President wanted to have a photo opportunity. The idea that we would gas people -- gas people protesting simply to move them out of the way and then give them a speech at some point to talk about why you want to have in the military.
After complaining that the President was "dog-whistling" about the Second Amendment, Coates concluded her rant: "People were gassed -- and why? For a selfie equivalent? It;s absurd."
Camerota then suggested that the President wants to use the military in a way similar to the Tiananmen Square crackdown as she turned to Sellers and posed her next question:
It doesn't feel like anything is de-escalating. As Laura points out, the President is threatening to call in active military to crack down, a la Tiananmen Square. And the protesters don't want to stop protesting until meaningful change is made. And so how does this end? Or what happens next?
Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Tuesday, June 2, New Day on CNN:
CNN's New Day
June 2, 2020
6:16 a.m. EasternJOHN BERMAN: This comes after we all saw attacks on peaceful protesters outside the White House. They were tear gassed so that President Trump could take a picture in front of a church.
(…)
How does a vile shutdown of peaceful protesters in front of the White House so the President can take a picture -- how does that make it better?
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: ...Look, yesterday the President of the United States used tear gas -- he used the military against peaceful protesters. The only thing I could think of is that George Wallace is probably looking up at him with a smile.
(…)
ALISYN CAMEROTA: The optics, the visual, the symbolism yesterday of what happened was just so strange on every level. Peaceful protesters being fired on with tear gas. I actually see police also using their baton against some of the protesters so that the President and his attorney general and Ivanka in her heels and big designer bag could cross the street, and the President could try to figure out how to hold a Bible. it was so strange, and, I mean, has anyone ever looked more uncomfortable holding a Bible?
And one of the people of the clergy was very upset was the bishop who overseas that church. And so the Episcopal bishop of the diocese said that she was outraged and basically appalled by what she was seeing by the Bible being used as a prop and the church being used as a backdrop.
(…)
BERMAN: Even if your goal is to stop the looting, even if your goal is to dampen some of the tensions we've seen, how is putting lives at risk in front of the White House -- how does it help that end, Laura? There are people whose lives were endangered for that picture, you know, tear gas, rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades, you saw people getting hit. People got hurt -- people got hurt for this picture, and yet, even if your goal is to stop the looting, I just don't get how this helps that.
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Because it doesn't, John, because all it does essentially is take what has been the most iconic public forum -- the place where people are able to express themselves -- are able to engage in the purposeful protest across this country -- there is no more fundamental right we talk about here in the United States of America than the freedom of speech.
That's all part of the First Amendment that actually has five powers -- freedom of press, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition one's government. The idea of being able to express oneself in front of the White House has been so iconic. It was converted instead to a version of Tiananmen Square. And why? Because the President wanted to have a photo opportunity. The idea that we would gas people -- gas people protesting simply to move them out of the way and then give them a speech at some point to talk about why you want to have in the military.
(…)
COATES: But what is being talked about is excessive force, fundamentally excessive force. And so your solution to trying to show top down what the government stance is on excessive force is to violate the Constitution and the First Amendment, and then to use excessive force to make your point. It is absurd, is what it is, and then you've got the notion that -- in the one hand, in a speech, John, he wasn't talking about the First Amendment. He kind of signaled, "And your Second Amendment rights," as if that was supposed to be some way of conveying or insinuating something -- maybe it was dog-whistling -- I don't know what it was.
But what it was not was the leader of the executive branch of government whose job it is to enforce the law, and the President of the United States arguing instead as commander in chief to look at protests through the prism of combat and threaten to send in the military. It is something that will never be -- that I have never seen before. Many people looking at this and wondering and disoriented: "What country is this? What sidewalk was that?" Because surely it couldn't have been in front of the White House which I know we've always termed "the people's house." It wasn't yesterday. People were gassed -- and why? For a selfie equivalent? Its absurd.
CAMEROTA: Bakari, it doesn't feel like anything is de-escalating. As Laura points out, the President is threatening to call in active military to crack down, a la Tiananmen Square. And the protesters don't want to stop protesting until meaningful change is made. And so how does this end? Or what happens next?
