Debunking Tommy Christopher on the Attack on Steve Crowder, Part 4: Why Did Tommy Christopher Not Mention the Statements from Black Witnesses on Who Pulled Down the Tent?
Alternate post title: “Is Tommy Christopher a racist?”
I am spending (at least) five posts ripping apart Tommy Christopher’s recent post about the attack on Steve Crowder.
Part 1 showed how Christopher built his entire post around the false assumption that Lee Stranahan filmed and edited the Crowder video — then rewrote the post to remove the repeated references to Stranahan, and issued a correction that doesn’t come close to revealing how central Christopher’s partisan-driven error was to his post.
Part 2 showed how Christopher misrepresented key aspects of Crowder’s interviews with Sean Hannity and Sun News. Christopher claimed Crowder told viewers he had not pushed anyone. But Crowder said no such thing. Christopher claimed Crowder had admitted in a separate interview that he had pushed the man who punched him. But Crowder said no such thing.
Part 3 took on Christopher’s claim insinuating that the video itself shows Crowder pushing the guy to the ground. Part 3 takes a careful look at the available raw video and shows that it is, in fact, inconsistent with Tommy Christopher’s insinuation.
This post, part 4, examines whether Tommy Christopher is a racist — and concludes that, at least by his standards, he is.
One thing I found curious about Christopher’s post: he gives space (albeit skeptically) to the argument that this was a false flag operation, and that the tent was torn down by Americans for Prosperity insiders:
In the video of the tent incident that Breitbart.com columnist Lee Stranahan posted, you can clearly see that many union members are acting to protect the tent, and one witness even told Thom Hartmann that he saw the tent appear to be taken down from the inside, and that it was union members who alerted police and tried to rescue those trapped inside.
The “inside job” part of this man’s story is the least reliable, but Crowder’s dishonesty, and the lack of a full video, raises questions about whether the man he pushed was actually trying to protect the tent, and how violently Crowder pushed him.
It’s great that Christopher deems the “inside job” claim to be the “least reliable” claim the guy makes. But why bring it up at all? And saying it’s the “least reliable” claim leaves open the possibility that it’s somewhat reliable.
I find it fascinating that Christopher gives any space to this claim at all — yet makes no reference to the statements of Clint the hot dog guy and his wife, who say in this video that Americans for Prosperity did not pull down the tent themselves, and that anyone who says they did is a liar:
Clint also says he was called a “nigger” and an “Uncle Tom” by the people pulling down the tent — presumably because he had the gall to sell hot dogs to the AFP people.
Christopher is famously quick to label other people racists. Now: imagine that instead of union people, these were Tea Partiers who called this guy a “nigger” and tore down a tent occupied by left-leaning folks. Do you think Tommy Christopher would be ignoring the testimony of the black man who lost part of his business to the Tea Partiers who called the man racial slurs?
I venture to say that, in such a situation, Christopher not only would have highlighted that part of the story, but would have labeled “racist” anyone who disbelieved or contradicted or ignored the black man’s statements.
I’m not saying Tommy Christopher is a racist for ignoring Clint’s statements, or for ignoring in this piece the way that Clint was abused by lefty racists. But if the tables were turned, that’s what he would be saying.
Tommy Christopher may not be a racist. But if you apply his own standards to his conduct here, you would conclude that he is.