A former MSNBC host, known for controversial statements, recently ignited a firestorm during a CNN panel discussion. Tiffany Cross asserted a startling connection between the decline in public visibility of the Proud Boys and a supposed influx of its members into the ranks of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The claim, delivered without supporting evidence, immediately drew sharp rebuke from fellow panelists. Cross posited that the reason for the Proud Boys’ relative silence was a deliberate shift – a migration into federal law enforcement.
“Furthermore, there’s a reason why we have not seen a resurgence of the Proud Boys, and that is because I believe a lot of them are likely made ICE officers…” Cross stated, prompting a stunned response from Kevin O’Leary.
O’Leary challenged the assertion directly, questioning whether Cross was suggesting ICE officers were, in effect, a modern-day militia. He pressed her on the lack of factual basis for the claim, repeatedly labeling it “WAY offside.”
Abby Phillip also intervened, pointing out the speculative nature of Cross’s statements. She emphasized the absence of “concrete evidence” linking Proud Boy members to ICE, highlighting the leap in logic being made.
The exchange escalated as Cross doubled down, drawing a parallel between ICE and the Gestapo, a comparison O’Leary vehemently protested. He defended the men and women of ICE, emphasizing the risks they take while fulfilling their duties.
Cross then introduced a further accusation, alleging the presence of “White supremacist tattoos” on the necks of federal officers. This claim, equally unsubstantiated, sparked further outrage from O’Leary, who demanded to know the basis for such a damaging assertion.
The conversation took a bizarre turn when Cross accused O’Leary of being a member of a “cult,” seemingly as a deflection from the criticism of her unfounded accusations. The entire segment underscored a stark contrast in perspectives and a willingness to make sweeping generalizations without evidence.
The incident raises questions about the standards of discourse on cable news and the responsibility of networks to challenge unsubstantiated claims, regardless of the speaker’s political leaning. It also highlights the potential for inflammatory rhetoric to damage the reputation of dedicated public servants.
