Donald Trump, a white man, just white-mansplained to Presidential Debate Moderator Lester Holt, a black man, that he is wrong about stop-and-frisk. "Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men," Holt told Trump as a fact-checking measure after Trump claimed that the policy "worked very well in New York." When Holt called him on the fact that that wasn't the case, here's how Trump (oh-so-appropriately) responded to the correction from Holt.
"No, you're wrong," Trump replied. "[The ruling was from] a judge who was a very against-police judge."
"The argument is that [stop-and-frisk] is a form of racial profiling," Holt replied.
Trump responded that when you have cities like Chicago with "thousands" of shootings, "You have to stop and frisk ... You need more police."
Well, the courts would beg to differ. Back in 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional. But this isn't the first time Trump has proposed bringing the unlawful policy back, repeating the lie that it is an effective measure he would propose for tackling crime.
"We did it in New York — it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive," Trump said on Sean Hannity's show on September 22.
Fact-checkers backed Holt up on this one ... as does a quick Google search.
And emotions ran understandably high.
Thank goodness for the truth.