Poll: What—The Hell—Did CNN’s Chris Cuomo Mean By This Tweet? [Updated]

Kimberly Corban was suffocated and raped in her dorm room at age 20. She has become a prominent gun rights advocate, saying that she protects herself and her family with a firearm and believes that it is her duty as a parent to do so.

The  National Rifle Association tweeted out a video of Corban sharing her story. “Only in America,” Cuomo tweeted in response to the tweet, which featured Corban’s quote, “I’m a mother of two, and if a predator or anyone else tries to harm me or my family, they have to come through my firearm first.”

What was that supposed to mean? We know—there is no doubt about this, and Ethics Alarms has documented the fact—that Cuomo is really, truly, a dolt. He is the poster child for affirmative action for celebrity and politician offspring. An alleged lawyer, his every other reference to the law is incorrect. He has said that hate speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment. He is the perfect example of that horrible species, the stupid person who thinks he’s smart. CNN keeps him employed because 1) he’s cute, 2) he seems to be a nice guy, and 3) he’s a typical knee-jerk progressive. Reading his twitter feed is profoundly depressing. He is at once glib, earnest, and incoherent.

“Only in America” was widely interpreted as mockery, and since the apparent target was a rape victim, Nice Guy Chris was forced to turn the rusty crank that fires up his cerebrum and try to come up with some other explanation after catching some flack. Here’s what he said he meant, four hours later: ARGHH! Chris deleted both his tweet and his explanation of what it meant as I was typing this! It was addled blather about how only in America do citizens have a right to lawfully defend themselves but their government cannot agree on “reasonable” regulations to prevent misuse and oh yeah mental illness.  That was MORE coherent than what Chris wrote.

UPDATE: After this was posted, a commenter tracked down Cuomo’s deleted “explanation.” I put in the comments what I had been planning on doing in the post before Cuomo deleted the relevant tweets while I was writing. Commenter Philk57 prevailed upon me to bring that comment into the main post, so here it is:

This what Cuomo wrote and took down:

“No offense intended. Too short on twitter. ‘Only in America’ are we still debating the legitimate right to protect oneself like you and many others vs sensible way to keep guns from wrong people. Only here can we not address the issues around school shootings in a way that respects the ill and also people who get guns legally (as I did) and use responsibly (as I). We are stuck with good people having to beg to keep a right and not getting done what is right for federal reasonable restrictions and mental health reform.”

Wow.

1. “Keep guns from the wrong people” is a shocking statement from a lawyer. The law doesn’t distinguish between right and wrong people, nor does the Constitution. Felons forfeit the right to possess guns, but that’s based on being convicted of a serious crime, not being “the right people.’

2. In many countries, like Great Britain, “people like” her cannot own guns.

3. Is Cuomo criticizing the fact that in the US we get to debate? Sound like it…

4. He uses both “sensible” and “reasonable” to describe needed regulations, both common substitutes for actual policy suggestions from the “do something!” anti-gun crowd. A tell.

5 “Only here can we not address the issues around school shootings in a way that respects the ill and also people who get guns legally (as I did) and use responsibly (as I).” is literally gibberish…

6….As is “We are stuck with good people having to beg to keep a right and not getting done what is right for federal reasonable restrictions and mental health reform.” Both are word salads that don’t convey any substance at all.

Why did he delete this and the original tweet? I assume because, as often happens with Chris, his Peter Principle status was being exposed, and even though CNN appears to have infinite tolerance for hosts and contributors who once would have been sent packing and into less challenging fields like bicycle repair Thus he decided, or was told, that it would be simpler to destroy the evidence of his incompetence than to try to defend it.

I don’t want to be mean to Chris, but incompetent journalists do real damage, especially the kind  that use a law degree obtained because of a famous father and a powerful brother to make trusting members of the public think he has more  analytical skills than the average tuna fisherman.

Here’s the poll:

48 thoughts on “Poll: What—The Hell—Did CNN’s Chris Cuomo Mean By This Tweet? [Updated]

  1. Here’s his explanation, courtesy the Washington Times:

    “No offense intended. Too short on twitter. ‘Only in America’ are we still debating the legitimate right to protect oneself like you and many others vs sensible way to keep guns from wrong people. Only here can we not address the issues around school shootings in a way that respects the ill and also people who get guns legally (as I did) and use responsibly (as I). We are stuck with good people having to beg to keep a right and not getting done what is right for federal reasonable restrictions and mental health reform.”

    I think he may well have meant something about gun rights and reasonable regulations, and he couldn’t express it clearly. But I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/29/chris-cuomo-only-in-america-response-to-rape-survi/

    • So why did he delete that explanation and the original tweet? And BOY is it irritating to have a tweet vanish when you’re trying to copy and paste it! And what are “sensible” ways to keep guns from “the wrong people”? What does THAT mean? No wonder I couldn’t duplicate it from memory.

      • Because he didn’t know how to articulate his position in a better way, and didn’t want to deal with the unfavorable retweets any more. Like when someone on Facebook deletes all their comments on a post, so they won’t get notified of new replies. That’d be my guess; again, giving him the benefit of the doubt, which he may not deserve.

        It’s possible his original intention with “Only in America” was to mock the NRA and gun rights advocates, but I think his follow-up explanation was essentially a lament: W

  2. >>The National Rifle Association tweeted out a video of Corban sharing her story. “Only in America,” Cuomo tweeted in response to the tweet, which featured Corban’s quote, “I’m a mother of two, and if a predator or anyone else tries to harm me or my family, they have to come through my firearm first.”

    I got lost in here; I thought Corban’s video was titled “Only in America”, and Cuomo tweeted “I’m a mother of two…” 🤔

  3. I should have included, “He was mocking America,” because that’s the easy, thought-free default position of progressives now. I wanted to try to dissect his tweeted explanation, for I read it right before he took it dowm. so here goes nothin’. He wrote:

    “No offense intended. Too short on twitter. ‘Only in America’ are we still debating the legitimate right to protect oneself like you and many others vs sensible way to keep guns from wrong people. Only here can we not address the issues around school shootings in a way that respects the ill and also people who get guns legally (as I did) and use responsibly (as I). We are stuck with good people having to beg to keep a right and not getting done what is right for federal reasonable restrictions and mental health reform.”

    1. “Keep guns from the wrong people” is a shocking statement from a lawyer. The law doesn’t distinguish between right and wrong people, nor does the Constitution. Felons forfeit the right to possess guns, but that based on being convicted of a serious crime, not being “the right people.’
    2. In many countries, like Great Britain, “people like” her cannot own guns.
    3. Is Cuomo criticizing the fact that in the US we get to debate? Sound like it…
    4. He uses both “sensible” and “reasonable” to describe needed regulations, both common substitutes for actual policy suggestions from the “do something!” anti-gun crowd. A tell.
    5 “Only here can we not address the issues around school shootings in a way that respects the ill and also people who get guns legally (as I did) and use responsibly (as I).” is literally gibberish.
    6.As is “We are stuck with good people having to beg to keep a right and not getting done what is right for federal reasonable restrictions and mental health reform.” Both are word salads that don’t convey any substance at all.

    • He was mocking America as a whole and specifically people who own guns. At least initially.
      People who want to own guns are the wrong people by definition. At least that’s how I understand his position.

        • Yeah, criticizing gun owners who want to protect their families is something people do only in America? Pull the other leg. If we’re supposed to put all our trust in gov’t agencies for protection, why DOES he have a gun? Grouse in season in June? Civil war reenactments? Or the lady should trust she will be protected when she wasn’t before, but he is too special to not have a gun? [btw: the ‘it was too profound to explain excuse was a hoot of an answer. it was mocking AND incoherent responding]

          I don’t think he really meant anything coherent, beyond mocking a presumed conservative gun owner, one who has a proven experience to validate her need. Note this is how progressives continue to alienate moderates and eventually liberals. For all we know, she was a fan of his… until he mocked and pushed down on a suburban housewife. Good job on believing all women!

    • It’s possible that Cuomo’s original intent in writing “Only in America” was to mock the NRA and gun rights advocates, and without any further explanation, that is the interpretation I’d think most likely. But, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think his follow-up comments, as incoherent as they are, show that “Only in America” was a well-intentioned lament.

      He says that self-defense is a “legitimate right,” which implies that using a gun in self-defense is acceptable in his mind, and he suggests that proposals to address school shootings through gun control and mental health reform don’t adequately respect the rights of the mentally ill and of lawful gun owners like himself. He’s trying to express a “moderate” position that’s supportive, on the one hand, of the basic right to own a gun, and that acknowledges, on the other hand, that it’s too easy for irresponsible people to obtain and use guns for mass shootings. From his perspective, it appears that the US is the only country that hasn’t figured out the appropriate balance of freedom and security on this issue.

      This sentiment isn’t all that different from a lot of our fellow-citizens, who respect the 2nd Amendment but are horrified by the mass shootings they see in the news and desperately want something to be done. It’s ultimately confused and self-contradictory, but I don’t think ill-intentioned.

  4. My guess is that Chris didn’t bother to look into the story beyond Corban’s quote which was featured in the tweet and that he interpreted it to be what progressives characterize as typical, knee-jerk gun nut talk. That’s what he meant by “Only in America”. Yeah, Chris, only in America do people who have a constitutional right become enthusiastic and passionate about the need for it.

  5. My interpretation is he is mocking the fact that only in America do people have to stoop to the barbarous low of having to defend oneself with guns, ewww. Also, he might be referring to the rampant rape culture that is so pervasive everywhere in America, that this poor woman was victimized in college. If only we could more like Europe, where everything is Good and Decent. And if a rape occurs, it’s usually covered up (because the perpetrator might be from a protected class) so nobody has to get upset about the idea of existence of Evil in society. Humans are perfectible, doncha know?

  6. Honestly, who the hell knows? Remember that in my world, progressives are no longer entitled to an evaluation under Hanlon’s razor.

    But even if I assume malice, I have no idea against whom the malice is directed: Gun owners? The NRA? Rapists? Friedrich Nietzsche? There’s no way to know.

    Even his bizarre explanation gives no clue. Yes, he talks about guns and the “legitimate” right to protect oneself, but only in response to pro-2A challenges. Is that even the actual basis for his reply?

    I doubt even Chris knows, because as you’ve so adroitly pointed out, he’s an idiot.

  7. Kimberly Corban stated,

    “I’m a mother of two, and if a predator or anyone else tries to harm me or my family, they have to come through my firearm first.”

    Chris Cuomo wrote in his replied,

    “Only in America”

    I think it’s really clear what happened and what he really meant.

    1. He saw the statement “they have to come through my firearm”, he considered the source that posted the video and he flushed whatever intellect he had at that moment in time right down the porcelain throne, of course that’s assuming he had any intellect to begin with. It was a typical progressive dumbass knee-jerk reaction.

    2. Because of his blind bias against the NRA and firearms, it blew straight over his ignorant head that the person who wrote it was a victim of a violent rape. It was a typical progressive dumbass knee-jerk reaction.

    3. It appears that he believes that any use of a firearm is unwarranted.

    4. Cuomo’s statement shows his contempt for the Constitution and was/is and a direct rhetorical attack against the existence of the second amendment in particular!

    5. The deletion of the tweet and follow up explanation is a typical progressive move; he removed public access to his dumbass knee-jerk reaction that shows he’s a blind progressive imbecile. Once deleted; if it can’t be found then his supporters can claim that it never happen, and if it never happened then supporters can claim that any screen shots of it are false Photoshop fabrications created by evil libelous people that want to destroy his reputation and smear an honorable progressive.

    Chris Cuomo is a typical progressive and a dumbass.

    • Imbecile. Such a good word. I don’t know why I neglect it. I have so much occasion to use moron, idiot, cretin, dummy, dolt and fool, and imbecile is more elegant than any of them.

      • It’s certainly more elegant than my preferred choice: “numbskull”. I, too, shall endeavor to work “imbecile” into my vocabulary more frequently.

    • “he considered the source that posted the video”

      Correct, Steve. He saw the source and confirmation bias did the rest. He didn’t read or view the rest for clarification.

    • Well, okay, but riddle me this: He claimed later to be a firearm owner himself.

      So … why? Is he using them only for hunting? I doubt that. Is he just letting them sit around so he can respond to tweets questioning him on the subject that he “owns firearms?”

      What is the proper use of a firearm according to Cuomo? If a criminal enters his home and states his intent to rape and murder his wife, is he just going to leave the firearms in the safe and call a cop? Unlikely, even for him.

      That’s why this is so perplexing. I don’t know a living soul who owns a firearm they are not willing to use to defend their home from criminal invasion. Concealed or open carry is different… I’m talking about a home invasion. Why would Cuomo lament the availability of firearms for home defense if he has one himself for that purpose, and what the woman was clearly talking about.

      • I don’t know a living soul who owns a firearm they are not willing to use to defend their home from criminal invasion.

        Glen I know people like that. You logic is flawed in this way, just because a person has a firearm does not mean that person is willing to shoot someone with it.

        If a criminal enters his home and states his intent to rape and murder his wife, is he just going to leave the firearms in the safe and call a cop?

        By the way; a firearm locked in a standard upright locked firearm safe cannot realistically be accessed fast enough to be used in a real home invasion emergency. There are some uniquely designed lock boxes that will hold one or two firearms that can be rapidly accessed but you have to be able to get to them really fast. Even a bedside rapid access safe for a handgun is a decent choice for being awoke in the middle of the night by an intruder. In general, the fastest accessible firearm is a firearm that is carried on the person and the person has reasonably trained themself to access and use that firearm.

        • Granted. I guess here in Kentucky, even the liberals aren’t stupid enough to lock up their guns so they can’t defend themselves.

          Or perhaps, and even better, I’m just fortunate enough not to know anybody like that.

          • I guess here in Kentucky, even the liberals aren’t stupid enough to lock up their guns so they can’t defend themselves.

            Careful!!!

            An unsecured firearm could be obtained by members of the household or others visiting the home and used in illegal ways that can bring back liabilities and criminal charges upon the firearm owner.

            • Well, since there are only two members of our household (not counting our 18-year old Chihuahua) and we don’t have visitors, I don’t think this is much of a concern.

              By the way, I assure you I know how to handle my firearms, so no need to worry.

        • Heh.

          Doubt it, though. I don’t think he could figure out which end is the dangerous one on a firearm like that, let alone properly load one.

  8. I know it wasn’t what he meant, but if you take the tweet completely at face value, it is substantially identical to the position a old teacher of mine takes. When she was in college, living in an apartment, a man broke into her home and seemed to have every intention of raping her until she pulled her 100% legal firearm and shot him in the knee. (She never said, but I suspect that she was aiming slightly higher.) Then, being the good citizen she was, she called 911. He was arrested, she was commended, and life went on.

    She once said something similar to me. “Only in America.” She meant, of course, that since the Second Amendment gave us the right to bear arms, unlike any other nation, here alone could we know that we could always defend ourselves and our families with even lethal force if needed, even against a corrupt government. It is a shame that Mr. Cuomo does not likely mean that.

  9. Jack, I think you owe bicycle mechanics an apology. They possess and share with their customers a valuable skill.

    • One of the best I ever knew was in my home town. He was a high-functioning Down Sydrome sufferer. Bicycles were his life. But I fear he would have been only slightly better than Chris, Don, et al. as a political analyst…

      • I’d take a competent bicycle mechanic over any political analyst in terms of who provides more benefit to the society. Of course, I’ve always found mechanically inclined people interesting and admirable.

          • My Dad grew up on a farm and sold farm machinery and trucks. He always thought the mechanics in the IH dealership’s shop were the greatest. My uncle was a genius and self taught engineer who’d studied geology at the University of Chicago. On that side of the family, they made their own machinery and always looked down their noses at the engineers who had designed the equipment they were always repairing and re-engineering. It’s a funny kine of arrogance but an interesting way of looking at the world. People who understand how things work and can fix those things are invaluable. Their self-esteem is warranted.

    • Unless I’m mistaken, Orville and Wilbur Wright occupied themselves primarily with bicycle mechanics, before they built a flying machine that actually flew.

  10. Is it possible that part of the problem here isn’t whether Cuomo said something random and stupid (which he did) but this tweet culture we have? Tweeting to me in general seems vapid, narcissistic, and serves to create more confusion in general. I don’t decry people having a platform to share their thoughts, however I question why media and those who follow it, bother to take much of what’s said on Twitter and Facebook seriously.

    These platforms give a false sense of “knowing” information. In reality what we “know” is that the person having to share their every meandering thought is someone who wants attention and thinks their most likely regurgitated sentiments have meaning or purpose. Just because someone thinks their words have merit doesn’t mean they do, especially on social media.

    These platforms don’t ask us to evaluate our thoughts…only to “share” them rapidly and repeatedly. This ultimately serves to distract with disinformation. Russian interference is hardly necessary at this point, since we are volunteering to waste precious time on the shallows.

    • Mrs. Q, I think twitter is popular with the media because it’s so easy to use tweets to write a story. Beat the hell out of doing real reporting.

    • Nicely said. I prefer actual comment boards like here. Saying something substantive requires more thought. While great quotes and bon mots can get viral, it usually takes more space. The hardest fiction writing can be the 500 word flash story including a non-obnoxious resolution. Rambling is easier, concision is elegant.

  11. Guns are the great equalizers of the strength gap between women and their potential rapists.

    They also save thousands of ordinary lives every day when used to protect homes and families.

    And sure, cowards can get a gun too. I don’t begrudge liberals for making this a talking point of theirs. I don’t personally own a gun since I don’t think I’m at enough risk to warrant it, but I embrace the right of someone like Chris Cuomo, who is at considerably LESS risk and is probably a coward, to own one, even if that makes him a hypocrite. Cowardly and wimpy males, like women, have historically been victimized by powerful men. They, too, can reap the benefits of firearm ownership.

  12. Cuomo, I don’t pay attention to, so, no comment there. But this post did revive my curiosity about a line from the movie, “Jurassic Park.”

    For…how long has it been now, 26 years? I have puzzled over the line shrieked by the rich guy who “spared no expense” to reanimate actual dinosaurs from DNA from blood trapped inside mosquitoes, trapped in amber for millions of years, so that he could become even richer off of dinosaur-watching tourism.

    His line? “GUUNNNNS!

    For at least 25 years, I have pondered in puzzlement, and with great suspicion, as to why that line even made it into the screenplay – and why the line was delivered like that – by that particular character.

    When the whole joint (the island, the “park”) was clearly in chaos, a couple of the surviving-but-in-mortal-danger-and-sane characters grabbed some guns from a storage locker and – GASP! – USED the guns to defend themselves against out-of-control dinosaurs. Then…was Hammond his name?…the rich guy?…overheard the gunfire over a phone or walkie-talkie. From his reaction, you’d think he’d just heard one of the velociraptors break its precious Jurassic pelvis.

    I mean…the guy already had a couple of his grandkids on the verge of being eaten by his favorite wildlife – and the gunfire made his head explode???!

    I mean…was that line meant to be just yet another cheap way to stereotype rich tourism developers as self-mocking ignoramuses? Was it really necessary for Hammond (I’ll just go with that name for the rich guy) to express panicky shock – SHOCK! – at the sound of guns discharging on HIS island? HIS little all-expenses-paid time-warp Twilight Zone? What kind of obliviousness on the part of a developer of such an attraction were we moviegoers expected to suspend disbelief in? Why, never – NEVAH! – would it make any sense to have a simple means of deadly force like a GUN on hand, in an island Frankenmonster zoo! “Spare no expense” – but NO GUNS. Right. It would be so unfair for the humans to have the upper hand over the animals, with such a cruel tool! Gad.

    So…for 26 years, I have wondered about that line. I have wondered, with the suspicion-turned-verdict-a-la-Kavanaugh-is-a-sex-monster that “GUUNNNNS!” was deliberately intended, even in that early year of the reign of Bl and Hlary Cnton, to implant a suggestion – conveyed, of course, by a rich, old white guy – that Americans have GOT to DO SOMETHING to curb gun violence. Like the title of this post by Jack, “What – the Hell – did the “Jurassic Park” movie makers mean by that line?”

    I mean, why the hell else would that line be thought worthy of including in the movie?

    Only in America…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.