Must watch: Anderson Cooper asks GOP Florida AG if she’s an anti-gay hypocrite

OMG. CNN’s Anderson Cooper just committed the most wonderful act of journalism I’ve seen in years.

Cooper was interviewing conservative GOP attorney general of Florida, Pam Bondi, about the Orlando massacre. And Cooper expressed a concern many of us have expressed as well — why is it that all of these anti-gay Republicans are suddenly so concerned about the gay community, after bashing us for years?

Cooper went one step further. He quoted Bondi’s own anti-gay court cases back to her, where she had her office claim that gay people were trying to “harm” Floridians.

UPDATE: Bondi is livid, and publicly attacking Cooper over the interview.

Bondi said it was inappropriate for Cooper to press her on her relationship with the LGBT community, especially in front of a hospital where shooting victims were continuing to recover.

“There’s a time and place for everything,” she said. “But yesterday wasn’t the time nor the place in front of a hospital when we could have been helping victims.”

First, Cooper noted several times during the interview that he was simply raising a point made by a number of people in the LGBT community, that it was hypocritical for all of these anti-gay Republican officials to suddenly act so concerned about the lives of gay people. In fact, I wrote about just that topic three days ago. So it was a fair point to raise.

But second, it was also a necessary point to raise. 49 people are dead. When is the appropriate time to consider what killed them, why, and whether the fact that the Republican party routinely attacks gay and trans people had anything do with it, or at the very least doesn’t make it a tad hypocritical for Republicans to now express their condolences. It was North Carolina Republicans who ginned up fear about trans people peeing in their bathrooms. And it was three GOP presidential candidates, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal, who attended a conference, not six months ago, where the host called for gays to be put to death. Is it not appropriate, when considering how the shooter could be this hateful towards gays, to consider the very people who spew anti-gay hatred into our culture?

There are a lot of victims in Orlando right now. Pam Bondi isn’t one of them.

In fact Anderson was correct about Bondi’s anti-gay history:

“Governor Rick Scott, Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi, State Surgeon General John H. Armstrong, and Secretary Craig J. Nichols (the “State Officials”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), move to dismiss the amended complaints in these consolidated cases. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the claims against all but the DMS Secretary, and all claims fail on the merits. The Court should also deny the preliminary injunction motions because there is no likelihood of success on the merits, there is no immediacy requiring a preliminary injunction, and disrupting Florida’s existing marriage laws would impose significant public harm.” — AG Bondi, Gov. Scott – May 12, 2014

Bondi didn’t know what to do. As a side note, Bondi, who is on her third marriage, once said that gays have unstable families.

And then Anderson came back for more. And more. And more. Media Matters has the transcript and video, below.

If you have ever complained about why journalists refuse to come back and ask a follow-up question when a politician gives a bogus answer, ask no more.

Cooper’s coverage of the Florida tragedy has been heart-wrenching, and first rate. Today’s interview with Bondi continues his flawless coverage.

Thank you, Anderson, for all of us.

ANDERSON COOPER: I want to ask you, I saw you the other day saying that anyone who attacks the LGBT community, our LGBT community, you said, will be gone after with the full extent of the law.

PAM BONDI: That’s exactly right.

COOPER: I talked to a lot of gay and lesbian people here yesterday who are not fans of yours and who said that they thought you were being a hypocrite, that you for years have fought — you basically gone after gay people, said that in court that gay people simply by fighting for marriage equality were trying to do harm to the people of Florida. To induce public harm, I believe was the term you used in court. Do you really think you’re a champion of the gay community?

BONDI: Let me tell you. When I was sworn in as attorney general, I put my hand on the Bible and was sworn to uphold the constitution of the state of Florida. That’s not a law. That was voted in to our state constitution by the voters of Florida. That’s what I was defending. Had nothing to do — I’ve never said I don’t like gay people, that’s ridiculous.

COOPER: But do you worry about using language accusing gay people of trying to do harm to the people of Florida when doesn’t that send a message to some people who might have bad ideas in mind?

BONDI: Anderson, I don’t believe gay people could do harm to the state of Florida. We’re human beings.

COOPER: But you argued that in court.

BONDI: My lawyer argued a case defending what the Supreme Court allowed the voters to put in our state constitution.

COOPER: Right, but you were arguing that gay marriage, if there was gay marriage, if there was same-sex marriage, that would do harm to the people of Florida, to Florida society.

BONDI: That it was constitutional to put that in the constitution.

COOPER: Are you saying you did not believe it would do harm to Florida?

BONDI: Of course not, of course not. Gay people — no, I’ve never said that. Those words have never came out of my mouth.

COOPER: But that is specifically what you were arguing in court.

BONDI: No. No. What we argued was it was in the constitution of the state of Florida. Let me give you an example. Medical marijuana. A 12-year-old could get it if it passed. We took that to the Supreme Court because of that language, hold on. But if that passed, I would defend that, as well, because it’s my job to defend what’s in the constitution of the state of Florida. That’s what it was about.

COOPER: The hotline that you’ve been talking about on television which allows family members and spouses of the dead to get information, which is incredibly important, and I appreciate you talking about it on the air, had there been no gay marriage, had there been no same-sex marriage, you do realize that spouses, there would be no spouses, that boyfriends and girlfriends of the dead would not be able to get information and would not be able probably even to visit in the hospital here. Isn’t there a sick irony in that?

BONDI: Let me take it a step farther. People aren’t right now who are partners and aren’t married officially aren’t able to get information, so we’re trying to assist them in getting information. Because early on we only have 24 people —

COOPER: Isn’t there a sick irony that you for years were fighting that very idea?

BONDI: I was defending the constitution of what over 69 percent of the voters put in the constitution.

COOPER: But the courts, the federal courts said that’s not the constitution and you continued to fight it.

BONDI: No. That’s why we rushed it to get it to the U.S. Supreme court because we needed finality.

COOPER: Well, before the Supreme Court, there was a federal judge and you continued to fight it after the federal judge ruled, and in fact you spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money fighting it.

BONDI: Well Anderson, we rushed to get it to the Supreme Court. You know what today is about? Human beings. Today’s about victims.

COOPER: It is about gay and lesbian victims.

BONDI: It sure is. LGBT victims. It’s about Florida —

COOPER: I’m just wondering is it hypocritical to portray yourself as a champion of the gay community when — I’m just reflecting what a lot of gay people have told me, they don’t see you as that.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

66 Responses to “Must watch: Anderson Cooper asks GOP Florida AG if she’s an anti-gay hypocrite”

  1. sugarntasty says:

    Simply vote for change Florida, Bondi protect old guard of racist. Anderson to late become self-aware since majority affluent LGBTQ never assist. Discriminatory policies effecting the majority Mr.Powerboy!

  2. And I’ll keep censoring your efforts to disrupt this forum by making every unrelated story a discussion about how much you hate Hillary. It’s trolling.

  3. Moderator4 says:

    Houndentenor, as I just told 2karmanot, both of you need to step back and calm down.

  4. Moderator4 says:

    2karmanot, you and Houndentenor need to calm down, and I will tell him the same thing.

  5. Houndentenor says:

    Yes, often purity is an aberration. Very little gets doing in passing legislation that doesn’t involve some compromise. You can compromise or get nothing in many cases. Those are your options. Having a majority helps but neither party can maintain a majority for long without some moderates who defy that purity. That’s just reality.

    Also, fuck you for going Godwin on me as if I’m some sort of Nazi collaborator. I think most of the time people like you would rather lose so they can complain about shit rather than actually be in charge and try to get something done. That allows you to be pure but it certainly doesn’t help anyone.

  6. 2karmanot says:

    So the ideological purists are a problem huh? Me thinks you might have been a Vichy in another life. It’s called collaboration and when it come to Democracy purity is not an ideological aberration.

  7. 2karmanot says:

    Exactly so. Aravosis Bernie derangement has gone beyond mere propaganda into cracked-pot territory.

  8. goulo says:

    If you think I’m “defending his vile homophobia”, then you clearly didn’t read what I wrote. (Hint: if someone says “The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor” and I point out that this is false, that does not mean I’m defending Naziism and the holocaust, nor am I saying that Hitler didn’t do OTHER attacks – just that it’s bogus to say that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.)

    Do you REALLY think Dan Patrick wakes up every Sunday morning to prepare an image with a bible quote to post it at 7am, and that this past week’s 7am tweet was an INTENTIONAL response made AFTER the shooting, rather than his weekly 7am tweets (complete with pretty images) being prepared in advance? I really don’t think the evidence supports that theory. Most people who post something at the same early morning hour every day or every week prepare them in advance, for obvious practical reasons.

  9. Phil in FLL says:

    And that is exactly the conclusion you would come to if you ask yourself one simple question:

    Who would benefit and who would be harmed if the person’s suggestions became reality?

  10. Phil in FLL says:

    Some historical perspective. Same-sex marriage was outlawed throughout the Western world (on pain of death) in 342 CE, when Constantine’s fundamentalist Christian sons became Roman emperors. In modern times, the first nation on earth that legalized same-sex marriage was the Netherlands in 2000. A mere four years later, in 2004, no nationally known American politician spoke in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. State-level Massachusetts politicians did, although Governor Romney did everything he could (unsuccessfully) to stop the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

    Now we’ll do the math. 2000 – 342 = 1658 years. So, John, am I to conclude that some of your commenters want to call pro-gay and pro-civil-rights elected officials bad people because they didn’t support same-sex marriage in the decade between 1995 and 2005? After 1658 years of intense oppression? And only 4 years after the Netherlands became the first nation on earth to end the legal prohibition of same-sex marriage? Why do I smell a not-so-hidden agenda?

    But I shouldn’t pick on the self-described “far left” for obvious examples of a hypocritical homophobic agenda. You will laugh yourself silly to learn that rightwing radio talkshow host, Sean Hannity, has been spending the last several days sanctimoniously declaring that Hillary is anti-gay because the Saudis have donated some money to the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Hannity now fancies himself the defender of gay people in Saudi Arabia from the evil Hillary Clinton. Here is Hannity’s quote from last year concerning same-sex marriage:

    “People will have to bake gay wedding cakes because they’re going to be forced to by the state”

    Some earlier examples of Hannity’s hateful, discriminatory comments included saying that it is common practice for homosexuals to literally eat fecal matter and that he would never want a homosexual teaching his children, comments which got him fired in 1989 (link here).

    I’m afraid this sockpuppet, not-so-hidden homophobic agenda manifests itself among those who are both self-described rightwingers and self-described left-wingers. How then can you tell what someone is really thinking? It’s easier than you think. Just ask yourself who would benefit and who would be harmed if the person’s suggestions became reality.

  11. margaretpoa says:

    “Bogus”? You don’t know Patrick, nor do you have anything to base the claim that it is a “bogus accusation” on. Because he really does say things like that every day. But by all means, defend his vile homophobia or continue to pretend that I’m too stupid to analyze his flatulent rhetoric if that’s what floats your boat.

  12. Seabeacon says:

    I love when she’s on the hot seat. We already know she’s a homophobe.

  13. Terry says:

    Excellent work Anderson! It is necessary because she was trying to make people think she has a caring thought for any gay person and she doesn’t.

  14. Houndentenor says:

    The difference is that the war had just ended and African American soldiers had proven themselves in combat. There were also a lot of members of Congress in both parties (back then there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats as well as vice versa) who would have blocked any bill to change that order.

    That was not the case in 1993. Perhaps you are too young to remember but the leader of the change to fight Clinton on allowing gays to serve in the military was Sam Nunn (D). He didn’t even have a majority of Democrats on board, much less any Republicans. And the bill they passed without him negotiating would have been far worse than DADT. Sometimes you have to take some of what you get rather than nothing and consider that a victory. I realize that many ideological purists on both the left and the right consider that selling out but when the alternative is worse it’s what you have to do if you are a responsible adult.

  15. Blogvader says:

    It’s very difficult for me to buy the line about opposition when Truman integrated the military for race nearly twenty years before the National Civil Rights Act was passed. He used the power of the executive order.

    I think the difference here was courage and will, not power.

  16. Blogvader says:

    Good call. I intend to.

  17. Houndentenor says:

    Keep fighting. Get more Democrats elected this year. And in 2018. Take back state legislatures. it’s possible to get things done but it takes more than just electing a president.

  18. Houndentenor says:

    That’s not actually true. Congress had the votes to pass something far worse than DADT and to override his veto. He made a compromise. A terrible one that pleased no one, but that’s what happened. The idea that he could have signed an executive order and that would have ended it is just not representative of what happened.

    All that said, John is wrong that DADT was an improvement. It was intended to be and even in 2008 McCain was claiming it was. It wasn’t. More people were discharged under DADT for being gay than had been previously. Let’s not for get how antigay the country was in 1993 or 1996 when a LOT of Democrats voted for DOMA (again with enough votes to override a veto). Clinton wasn’t necessary for either of those bills to pass. That’s how hated we were in the 90s.

  19. Blogvader says:

    Well, the candidate I support has a little experience with fighting for causes that are facing popular resistance.

    Maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s a better idea to negotiate from the middle and stop fighting for big ideas.

  20. Houndentenor says:

    I first saw the tweets via an acquaintance who teaches social media marketing. She mainly retweeted it to remind her students that in the wake of any tragedy auto-tweets should be immediately disabled (and maybe you shouldn’t have them at all). She emphasized someone should have to approve the release of anything that goes out globally just in case the timing will make what might otherwise be a harmless joke or glib comment look monstrous. Of course this particular tweet was clearly aimed that those opposing him on the trans rights issue in Texas so it was despicable enough as it was. But, yes, it was an auto-tweet. No one got up that early on a Sunday morning just to be an ass. As we have seen, it’s taken the bigots a few days to start spewing their venom.

  21. Houndentenor says:

    Because when you take on the health insurance industry they bury you in ads and derail anything you might want to do for reform.

  22. Houndentenor says:

    Maybe we should poll people who were at the club Sunday morning to see if they minded the way AC questioned her.

  23. JT says:

    John, he’s a complete buffoon. But I suspect you know it. He’s effectively trolling for Drumpf by trying to get people not to vote for a Democrat.

  24. Bill_Perdue says:

    He’s censoring me again. How long before I get banned? Oh, could anything be more frightening?

  25. Bill_Perdue says:

    The Clintons are barely and recently rebranded bigots, racists and union busters.

    Their support is meant to trawl for votes and nothing else.

    Others don’t have the same worshipful attitude about the Clintons.

    David Mixner calls out Hillary’s DOMA answer

    Mixner on DADT and the betrayals of the Clintons.

    What do you think of this Republican plant? “Bill Clinton reportedly told John Kerry to throw gays under the bus during 2004 election. What is he telling Hillary, and is she listening?”

    That’s the end of any discussion between us on any subject.

  26. Blogvader says:

    I readily admit that I disagree with Bernie’s stance on guns. I do not like it, but I understand it given his constituents. I’ve said it before and I say it again now. You’re right. His stance on guns sucks, but guns are much less of a danger to this country than poverty and price gouging in health care.

    What attracts me to Bernie is that he’s the only candidate repudiating Wall Street and calling for real, necessary regulation. (Whereas under both Bush and Obama, Wall Street’s received a pass on their criminal behavior.) With Hillary, you’re supporting that state of affairs, because her ties to Goldman Sachs are public. (Minus the quid pro quo, of course, which is private.)

    He’s the only candidate who believes that health care is a basic human right and is willing to fight for that belief.

    By glossing over DADT (Which Clinton could have prevented by executive order as Truman did with racial integration) and DOMA which the Clintons supported, you’re the one rewriting history, John. Not me.

  27. Read my extensive pieces on the Cilntons and LGBT issues. First of all, she was there during the Reagan, right after in fact, and embraced the AIDS community. Not a minor feat when the Reagans were letting our people die.

    DADT was an improvement from what we had before, which was a total ban. DADT happened because Bill Clinton tried, and failed, to lift the ban on gay service members 20 years too early. You’re faulting him for trying and failing to do what you wanted?

    I’m sorry. You do not get to rewrite LGBT history because you hate the Clintons. They rocked on gay rights. And like any candidate, Bernie included, they have their warts. AFter all, Sanders was elected the first time with the help of the NRA, I don’t see you talking about that. Sanders voted against the Brady Bill 5 times, I don’t see you talking about that. Sanders opposed gay marriage untiul 2009, after we already had it and lost it in CA. I don’t see you talking about that. Sanders is as imperfect as anyone else. If Hillary and Bill are evil and corrupt then so is Bernie under your standard.

  28. Blogvader says:

    The key word in that sentence: “Was”.

    As with many of her positions, she’s flip-flopped. She eagerly and very deliberately voiced support for the parasitic American health insurance industry during the debates, the same one that’s ranked 36th in the world.

  29. Hillary was the original Bernie on health care. Which makes me wonder if the issue really is wanting Hillary to focus on issues you care about.

  30. Yeah, though back in 2004 no one thought gay marriage would ever happen in our lifetime. You’re doing the trick that very young millennials, and the far left do, of late. You’re picking one of two things from an otherwise stellar record, and using it to call someone the worst person earth. The Clintons were and are historic allies of the LGBT community. I worked on national gay rights issues back in 1992, onwards. I was there working on dadt. I was there when we tried to pass ENDA. I was there when DOMA was passed. And I was there when Bill Clinton broke the glass ceiling on gay and AIDS over and over and over again. I get that you hate the Clintons. You do not, however, get to rewrite my community’s history because you hate the Clintons. Their support for the gay and trans community has been HISTORIC. It’s a historical fact. And you insistence otherwise, as I noted above, resurfaces the old suspicions about whether you’re simply a sockpuppet.

  31. Alana Anderson says:

    what Pauline answered I didn’t know that people can make $4529 in four weeks on the internet . check this site out ..


  32. 2karmanot says:

    Rocked huh? Seriously? Bwaaaahaaaahaaa

  33. 2karmanot says:


  34. 2karmanot says:

    Anderson shredded the Bondie Barbie

  35. Bill_Perdue says:

    “Bill Clinton reportedly told John Kerry to throw gays under the bus during 2004 election. What is he telling Hillary, and is she listening?”
    6/7/07 1:25pm by John Aravosis

    That 12 years ago, not 26 years.


  36. Bill_Perdue says:

    GS is just the tip of the iceberg. “Hillary Clinton has vowed to be tougher on Wall Street than any other presidential candidate, but that hasn’t stopped the financial industry from sending a flood of cash to help elect her,” Bloomberg reports.

    “That includes segments of finance she has singled out for greater oversight in her plan to rein in ‘shadow banking,’ where financial companies act like banks without being regulated like them. Hedge funds, private equity and insurance executives, who could face greater oversight under the plan, have given a combined $24.9 million to Clinton and the super-PACs supporting her, a Bloomberg review of campaign finance records shows.” via Political Wire

    But in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” which aired Sunday morning, billionaire industrialist and philanthropist of the far-right Charles Koch says given the performance of former president Bill Clinton and her own record, he thinks “it’s possible” that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be better at fulfilling his libertarian and pro-business agenda than any of the Republicans currently in the running.

    Asked by journalist Jonathan Karl if he could actually see himself supporting Clinton in a hypothetical general election against Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or John Kasich – Koch smiled, but didn’t say no.
    “We would have to believe her actions would be quite different than her rhetoric. Let me put it that way,” Koch responded.”

  37. Bill_Perdue says:

    Not quite. “Hillary Clinton evolved on same-sex marriage within the first 72 hours of her presidential run, as her campaign said Wednesday that the former secretary of state now backs marriage equality as a US constitutional right.
    The about-face, dropped as Clinton was preparing the second of two progressive-leaning appearances in Iowa, represents a significant – if not completely unexpected – shift from her previous statements that same-sex marriage should be legislated state-by-state rather than on the federal level.”

  38. Blogvader says:

    “You prefer Trump?”

    No, we’d prefer that Hillary build a coalition and address our concerns on the economy and health care. We’re concerned about issues, not a cult of personality.

    Hillary’s affiliation with Goldman Sachs should be worrisome to all.

  39. Blogvader says:

    I think ‘rocked’ may be overstating it, John.

    Did she stand by her husband on DADT and DOMA?

  40. Bill_Perdue says:

    No. Trump = Clintons.

  41. Oh please. Say what you will about Hillary, but she has rocked on lgbt issues for 30 years.

  42. Will you stop with the Clintons. These are the times that I grow increasingly convinced that you’re a long term GOP sock puppet, Bill. This isn’t about the Clintons. You prefer Trump? Because that’s who you’re going to get. And like we learned in 2000, when we got Bush instead of Gore after lots of folks said that Bush and Gore were the same thing so it didn’t mattered, we learned what mattered. In fact, you’re criticizing Bush 2 in your comments above. So let’s put to rest this rather dangerous equivalency. Been there, done that, screwed us all.

  43. It’s necessary because of the tragedy. And it’s not politicizing when you call someone out on their hypocrisy.

  44. The Clintons have repudiated DOMA, and have at 26 years that I know of a record that is ridiculously pro-gay. Bondi has one photo of clasped hands that she claims is on her web site, that no one can find.


  45. goulo says:

    I haven’t seen any reason to doubt that his 7am Sunday morning tweets are not prescheduled to appear each week, rather than someone literally going to the keyboard at 7am every Sunday. It was therefore not a tweet made in response the shooting.

    To be clear, I’m not saying he’s a gay-friendly good guy, just that bogus accusations discredit legitimate accusations about stuff he really does do.

  46. Bill_Perdue says:

    She’s doing what they all do, covering her ass.

    The Clintons did it with DOMA and Bush/Rove did it with state DOMAs. Right wing cult leaders and their political toadies do it every time someone is hurt or killed because the fact of the matter is that they promote violence by venting their bigotry and empowering thugs.

    There was a regular chorus of it after Sheppard was murdered.

  47. Bill_Perdue says:

    I wonder if he’d make the same accusation against the Clintons and Bush2 for DOMA and state DOMAs.

  48. Sugaronmytongue says:

    And what is wrong with politicizing a tragedy. Since when is this not acceptable? Every incident in which innocent people are killed are political. Hell, GW justified invading a nation that had nothing to do with the innocent lives being killed. Was there nothing political about a President coming out and making statements regarding 9/11. Anderson was calling out a woman whose statements on one hand had attempted to harm the LGBT community in Florida and on the other hand was now stating that she did not do what everyone knew she did. She made the LGBT community in Florida political. She deserved everything he called her out on and I am sure that those who lost their lives were somewhere in the universe applauding him.

  49. Jesse D Roberts says:

    It’s necessary because that blonde dumbfuck is a fucking hypocrite using the tragedy to portray herself as something she is not. It IS a reporters duty to hold them ACCOUNTABLE.. Obviously your a Rethuglican who doesn’t think they have to be accountable for their lies and hypocrisy.

  50. Ninja0980 says:

    He smacked her down but good.

  51. cylon8 says:

    why exactly was this necessary poliicizing a tragedy shame on anderson

  52. Emi says:

    Hillary does the most skilled side step but only after she has lied

  53. I hope none of the victims were found shot to death in the wrong bathroom. That’s what’s important to Republicans.

  54. olandp says:

    Wow, now Pammy sees us as human beings, will wonders never cease.
    Anderson needs to ask her about her payoff for letting Trump University
    skate on fraud.

    Five hundred thousand dollars Pammy.

  55. margaretpoa says:

    She’ll use the LGBT community like Trump and the rest of the GOP does: only inasmuch as they think it helps them promote their agenda of division and hatred of others. I will never be his tool though.

  56. margaretpoa says:

    Cooper needs to come to Texas and take Dan Patrick to task for saying that the Florida massacre was “god’s judgment” and then claiming that he had planned on saying that prior to the shooting anyway.
    Too bad Molly’s gone.

  57. Zorba says:

    It’s not just the “Florida side step,” Mike. Way too many politicians in way too many states keep dancing this side-step. Sadly. :-(
    Hypocrites, every damned one of them.

  58. ksec says:

    Bravo Anderson Cooper

  59. BeccaM says:

    She says she put her hand on a Bible and swore an oath upon it.

    The same book that many fundamentalist Christians use to advocate for gay people to be put to death.

  60. Jim Olson says:

    Journalism at its finest. I’d love to see all journalists take on these hypocrites like this.

  61. tamarz says:

    Interesting that when pushed about whether she’d be advocating for the gay community in the future she avoided any direct answer and that she said that the people were killed because they were in the wrong place and the wrong time, no mentioning of the fact that this was a hate crime against the LGBTQ community.

  62. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Good for Anderson. As for Bondi, she’s great at dancing the Florida side step. Of course, she’s not believable.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS