Would Trump Backers Support O.J.? CNN Host’s Claim Ignites Fury!

ATLANTA, GEORGIA – CNN host Kasie Hunt on Friday controversially suggested that supporters of former President Donald Trump would have defended O.J. Simpson during his notorious murder trial, drawing a provocative parallel between the loyalty of Trump’s base and the public sentiment surrounding Simpson during the 1990s.

O.J. Simpson, a once-celebrated NFL star, passed away this week at age 76 from prostate cancer. His notoriety stems not just from his sports career but from his acquittal in one of the most polarizing legal battles in U.S. history, concerning the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman.

🎧 Listen To This Article

On “CNN This Morning,” Hunt connected the passionate defense of Trump by some of his supporters to the way Simpson’s fans supported him during his trial. Anti-Trump GOP strategist Sarah Longwell noted that both situations exemplified how certain figures could transcend their actual circumstances to become symbols or focal points of broader cultural narratives.

Hunt and Longwell discussed how both Trump and Simpson have managed to craft narratives of victimhood around themselves, which resonates with their respective followers, reinforcing their roles as either martyrs or misunderstood heroes in the eyes of their supporters.

CNN Host Makes Ridiculous Claim

 

During the broadcast, Hunt highlighted a recent headline from The New York Post announcing Simpson’s death, emphasizing its blend of sensationalism and political commentary. She speculated about whether the fervent loyalty seen among Trump’s base today could similarly have rallied behind Simpson, had their situations been contemporaneous.

This comparison sparked a backlash, particularly among those who see it as unfairly conflating unrelated issues and figures in a way that oversimplifies and misrepresents the complex dynamics at play. Critics argue that drawing such parallels does not reflect the reality of the situations and unfairly targets political groups by associating them with controversial figures without sufficient basis.

The blatant attempt to malign Trump supporters with lawlessness takes some serious mental gymnastics. The association between riots and Democratic leadership can be drawn from instances like the 2020 George Floyd protests. In cities like Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis, where Democratic mayors and governors preside, protests escalated into riots. Critics argue that these leaders’ initial hesitancy to enforce strict measures to quell the unrest or their sympathetic rhetoric towards the protesters’ causes permitted, or even indirectly encouraged, lawlessness. While it is a simplification to solely blame Democrats—as the situations are nuanced and involve complex social grievances—these examples are often cited to argue a pattern of leniency or indirect support for disorderly conduct within Democratic jurisdictions.

The riots in 2020 were among the costliest civil disorders in the United States history. The property damage claims from the riots across the country were estimated to range between $1 billion to $2 billion in insured losses. This figure doesn’t include uninsured losses, which could push the total costs even higher. These events have predominantly been associated with one political party, yet in light of the events on January 6th, it seems the left feels it now holds the moral high ground. However, it’s important to remember the following:

1. Watts Riots (1965) – Los Angeles, California: Triggered by an incident between police and a young African American motorist, these riots lasted six days, resulting in 34 deaths and over $40 million in property damage.
2. Newark Riots (1967) – Newark, New Jersey: Occurring over four days, these riots started due to longstanding racial tensions and police brutality, leading to 26 deaths and extensive urban devastation.
3. Detroit Riots (1967) – Detroit, Michigan: Also known as the 12th Street Riot, this was one of the most violent and destructive riots in U.S. history, resulting in 43 deaths and property damage estimated at $322 million (adjusted for inflation).
4. Los Angeles Riots (1992) – Los Angeles, California: After the acquittal of police officers videotaped beating Rodney King, widespread riots broke out, lasting several days and resulting in approximately $1 billion in damages and 63 deaths.
5. Cincinnati Riots (2001) – Cincinnati, Ohio: Triggered by the police shooting of Timothy Thomas, a young African American man, these riots highlighted tensions between the community and the police, resulting in significant property damage.
6. Ferguson Riots (2014) – Ferguson, Missouri: Following the police shooting of Michael Brown, protests escalated into riots. The events highlighted issues of police militarization and racial injustice in law enforcement.
7. Baltimore Riots (2015) – Baltimore, Maryland: Sparked by the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody, these riots involved clashes with police, looting, and arson, leading to hundreds of businesses being damaged.
8. Charlotte Riots (2016) – Charlotte, North Carolina: After the police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, several nights of protests escalated into violence and property damage.
9. Minneapolis Riots (2020) – Minneapolis, Minnesota: Following the murder of George Floyd by a city police officer, protests rapidly turned into riots with widespread looting and property destruction.
10. Kenosha Riots (2020) – Kenosha, Wisconsin: Sparked by the police shooting of Jacob Blake, these riots featured arson and property damage, significantly impacting the community.

Such comparisons are seen as not only reductive but also as a way to malign the GOP by suggesting an alignment with figures like O.J. Simpson, which detracts from the party’s stance as one of law and order. This narrative fails to acknowledge the multifaceted nature of political support and the diverse viewpoints within any political group.

The discussion around these issues is a reminder of the nuanced approach needed when discussing legal, cultural, and political phenomena. Simplistic or overly broad comparisons can lead to misunderstandings and divisiveness, emphasizing the need for careful analysis and consideration of the facts in public discourse.