News
‘Cowardly’: NY Times Pummeled for Ignoring NC GOP Nominee’s Hitler and Holocaust Remarks
Mark Robinson is a “political firebrand” and a “fiery outsider eager to dive into the culture war,” according to a New York Times profile published just hours after the Republican North Carolina Lt. Governor won the GOP nomination to become the Tar Heel State’s next governor. The Times neglects to mention Robinson’s remarks on Hitler and the Holocaust, creating even more outrage online for the paper of record.
“Mr. Robinson, 55, is now poised to face his Democratic opponent, Attorney General Josh Stein of North Carolina, in the general election in November. Both men would break ground if elected: Mr. Robinson would be the first Black governor, while Mr. Stein, 57, would be the first Jewish governor,” The Times’ Eduardo Medina reported in his profile serving up “five things to know about Mr. Robinson.”
They are, according to The Times: “His political career was fueled by online support,” “He made history as the first Black lieutenant governor of North Carolina,” “His upbringing was difficult,” “His wife had an abortion decades ago, and it has shaped his views on the issue,” and, at the bottom of the list, “He has long held anti-L.G.B.T.Q. views.”
But as many on social media rushed to note, there are more than five important things to know about the Trump-endorsed Mark Robinson.
NCRM and others, especially Right Wing Watch, have reported on Lt. Governor Robinson’s political positions and remarks, remarks The Times glosses over but acknowledges as “incendiary comments on social issues, which have mobilized his Trump-aligned base and repulsed Democrats.”
Right Wing Watch, which has extensively chronicled Robinson’s career, reported on his campaign launch for governor last April, calling him “an unabashed Christian nationalist and virulent anti-LGBTQ bigot.” They add, “in 2021, Robinson asserted that ‘this will always be a Christian nation’ and told those who disagree, ‘If you don’t like it, I’ll buy your plane, train, or automobile ticket right up out of here.'”
And while The Times notes Robinson “told a congregation that ‘there’s no reason anybody anywhere in America should be telling any child about transgenderism, homosexuality, any of that filth,'” it ignored the vast majority of his hate-filled anti-LGBTQ comments and his remarks regarding Hitler and the Holocaust.
In 2021, Robinson attacked same-sex relationships as inferior to heterosexual ones, while proudly declaring even cow manure is superior because it serves a “purpose.”
“I can’t stand to turn that TV on and I don’t want my grandkids watching that television because I don’t want to have to explain to my grandkids why two men are kissing,” said Robinson, speaking in a church, according to Right Wing Watch. “And I don’t care what anybody thinks about that. Get mad at me if you want to you. Ain’t no child got no business seeing no two men kiss. If they did, God would have made it that way! He didn’t!”
“In this country,” he continued, “we don’t have a homosexual issue—that’s just a tool of the devil to continue to divide us and lead us into immorality.”
Robinson also says the U.S. Constitution – specifically, the First Amendment – both allows him to spread his anti-LGBTQ hate and be protected from being criticized for it.
READ MORE: Fox News Called Out as ‘Disgraceful Garbage’ Over Crime Claim
“Because I’m a Christian,” Robinson said in 2021, “because I believe that homosexuality is a sin and adultery is a sin and fornication is a sin—but chiefly because I believe homosexuality is a sin—these people want to call me names and push me out of the public square. That is not how this country was designed to work.”
But it’s Robinson’s promotion of Hitler’s remarks and his alleged Holocaust denialism that are drawing great rebuke and repudiation online, after he clinched the gubernatorial nomination Tuesday.
In a 2014 Facebook post Robinson directly quoted Hitler (NCRM will not republish the quote but there is a screenshot below.)
Jewish Insider last year reported Robinson has “minimized Nazi atrocities and advanced conspiracy theories about Hollywood and the media using Yiddish ethnic slurs.” In a separate post, the news outlet reported that Robinson “found his efforts to declare solidarity with Israel backfiring — by drawing renewed scrutiny to his long history of invoking antisemitic conspiracy theories and casting doubt on the Holocaust.”
News outlets have pointed to this 2018 Facebook quote from Robinson, in which he call the Holocaust “hogwash.” It reads in part: “This foolishness about Hitler disarming MILLIONS of Jews and then marching them off to concentration camps is a bunch of hogwash.”
Mehdi Hasan, the former MSNBC host who now writes at his media startup Zeteo News, adds: “The Holocaust-as-hogwash GOP candidate has also posted quotes from Hitler, encouraged conservatives to start re-reading the words of Hitler, and spread a number of bizarre antisemitic conspiracies, from claiming that the Marvel movie ‘Black Panther’ was ‘created by an agnostic Jew and put to film by satanic Marxists’ that was ‘only created to pull the shekels out of your Schvartze pockets’ (Schvartze being a Yiddish slur for Black people), to accusing Jewish billionaire George Soros of somewhat orchestrating Boko Haram’s kidnapping of more than 200 Nigerian schoolgirls in 2014.”
Talking Points Memo‘s Hunter Walker last year took a deep dive into Robinson’s social media history, publishing perhaps the largest single compendium of his posts, and unearthing one where he “seemed to veer into Holocaust denial.”
“There is a REASON the liberal media fills the airwaves with programs about the NAZI and the ‘6 million Jews’ they murdered,” wrote Robinson, as Walker reported. “There is also a REASON those same liberals DO NOT FILL the airwaves with programs about the Communist and the 100+ million PEOPLE they murdered throughout the 20th century.”
On social media, many expressed concerns and upset with The New York Times’ profile.
“This is not how I’d write about someone who has dabbled in Holocaust denial and made a seemingly nonstop string of deeply disgusting and bigoted comments in his career. What’s with the kid gloves here?” noted Jared Holt, a senior researcher of US hate and extremist movements at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
“You can depend on the New York Times to write soft, cowardly mini-profiles of dangerous radicals, in this case Mark Robinson, the GOP nominee for NC governor. NYT calls him a ‘firebrand’ and a ‘fiery outsider’ but doesn’t mention he’s a Holocaust denier,” observed Mark Jacob, the former Chicago Tribune editor who now writes about politics and the media.
READ MORE: ‘No Balls to Scratch’: Trump Voter’s Candid Confession on Ruling Out Nikki Haley
“The New York Times not mentioning Mark Robinson’s antisemitism & Holocaust denialism in their headline and subheadline. A morally bankrupt & incompetent newspaper,” adds professor of political science David Darmofal.
“This NYT piece on crackpot gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson makes no mention of his antisemitism (not anti-zionism—he’s a staunch supporter of Israel) and Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is no longer the preserve of outright (or crypto-) nazis,” writer Dave Mandl said.
Writer Dean Gloster adds, “Mark Robinson, the GOP candidate for NC Governor, is a Holocaust denier who calls school shooting survivors ‘prosti-tots,’ says tolerance for gays and lesbians ‘will end civilization’ and calls for arresting trans people, and calls Michelle Obama ‘a man’. So NYT praises him.”
And Philadelphia Inquirer opinion columnist Will Bunch wrote: “There needs to be a New York Times Headline Generator where you could plug in terms like ‘Holocaust denier’ and it spits back phrases like ‘fiery outsider eager to dive into the culture war.'”
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.
“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.
“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.
READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’
Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.
On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”
On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”
After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:
“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.
“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”
READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’
Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.
Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.
But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”
RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’
“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.
“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.
SCOTUS Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “If the president … orders someone to assassinate [a rival], is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?”
Trump attorney D. John Sauer: “It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.” pic.twitter.com/RddEEYIUrR
— The Recount (@therecount) April 25, 2024
Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”
The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.
“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.
RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.
“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.
“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”
Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”
CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”
Watch the video above or at this link.
READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns
Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.
“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”
The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”
Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”
READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act
Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”
Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”
“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”
NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”
Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.
During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”
READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment
Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”
But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.
“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”
Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward.
It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.⬇️ pic.twitter.com/F3qXi47ZT6
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) April 25, 2024
NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”
The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”
Watch the video above or at this link.
READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks
President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off
CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial
Noem Defends Shooting Her 14-Month Old Puppy to Death, Brags She Has Media ‘Gasping’
Noem Defends Shooting Her 14-Month Old Puppy to Death, Brags She Has Media ‘Gasping’
President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off
CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial
‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’
Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’
OPINION3 days ago‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks
OPINION3 days ago‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns
OPINION3 days ago‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail
News1 day ago‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’
News3 days agoGag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing
News2 days ago‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act
News2 days agoJustices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’
News2 days agoJustices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’