There’s a particular strain of thinking that flourishes in certain political circles, where dots get “played out” until they form whatever picture you want to see. On Monday, CNN gave us a masterclass in how this works when Republican donor Hal Lambert appeared on “NewsNight” to defend President Trump’s attack on Pope Francis.
Trump had posted a controversial message condemning the pope for calling for peace amid tensions with Iran, labeling him “WEAK on Crime” and “terrible at Foreign Policy.” Lambert decided this wasn’t just Trump being Trump. No, it was something far more sinister: a coordinated political scheme involving former President Barack Obama, Obama’s former chief strategist David Axelrod, and the pontiff himself.
The dots Lambert wanted us to connect? Axelrod visited the pope on April 9. The pope is from Chicago. Obama is considering a visit. And suddenly, the pope is criticizing Trump. Therefore, conspiracy.
Host Abby Phillip noted the glaring problem with this theory: the pope had opposed U.S. and Israeli military aggression long before Axelrod ever showed up. When she pointed out “there are just a lot of flaws in this,” Lambert’s response was almost comical in its defiance: “No, no, no. There’s no flaws. There’s no flaws.”
The Art of Connecting Unrelated Things
Lambert, who co-founded the investment management firm Point Bridge Capital and sits on boards that market MAGA-branded investment products, insisted that the pope meeting with Axelrod—Obama’s “chief strategist”—while denying his own political motivations was simply too convenient to ignore.
But the logic doesn’t hold up. Fellow panelist Leigh McGowan pointed out that Vice President JD Vance met with Pope Francis last year, which Phillip noted came after the pope had been “extremely critical” of Trump’s immigration rhetoric. By Lambert’s own theory, shouldn’t that have triggered some Vatican plot in reverse?
The conspiracy spiraled further when Lambert criticized the pope for not specifically calling out Iran’s regime when the country killed tens of thousands of its own citizens. The pope’s calls for stopping violence across the board apparently don’t count as sufficient condemnation in this framework.
When Meetings Become Proof
What’s particularly telling is what Lambert didn’t do. The pope has met with numerous celebrities and public figures—actor Adam Scott, model Naomi Campbell, director Judd Apatow. Lambert mysteriously refrained from suggesting these encounters were part of some shadowy political operation. Perhaps, one might reasonably assume, because connecting a papal audience with a director to campaign strategy would strain credulity even further.
Yet that’s precisely what makes this moment worth examining. This wasn’t some fringe social media post that disappeared into the void. This was on cable news, where millions of people saw a credible-seeming business figure confidently assert a theory built entirely on proximity and assumption.
The social media response was swift. Lambert became the subject of ridicule, and rightfully so. But the real question isn’t whether one donor’s conspiracy theory is ridiculous. It’s how comfortable we’ve become presenting them as legitimate debate material in mainstream outlets.
When someone insists there are “no flaws” in a theory that relies on geographic proximity and meeting schedules as proof of coordinated political deception, we’re not really having a political disagreement anymore. We’re watching someone reshape reality to fit a predetermined conclusion, and we’re doing it live on television.
The pope has been consistent in his opposition to military conflict. Axelrod is a political operative. These things can both be true without requiring a shadow coordination plot. But in an era where conspiracy theories have genuine political currency, the simpler explanation often loses out to the one that feels more satisfying.
