Archives for category: Lies

Blogger G.F. Brandenburg discovered a very clever post by Bill Svelmoe advising Democrats how to handle the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy C. Barrett.

Don’t attack her personally. Don’t question her religious views. Don’t ask her how she will rule on abortion or Obamacare (nominees never answer questions about cases which they may hear.)

Ask her about Trump’s actions.

Here are a few of his ideas:

Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?

Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?

Then turn to the Hatch Act.

Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett’s response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president’s top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?

Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett’s opinion on those.

Then turn to Congressional Oversight.

Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?

I watched the debate in full with a sense of horror and disgust. Trump was a bully. He was rude and overbearing. Trump was obnoxious. He degrades the presidency. There was no fact-checking and Trump repeatedly lied.

It should have been X-rated so that young children and adolescents did not see Trump’s crude behavior and assume that’s how adults are supposed to behave. He is a role model of what NOT to do.

I probably won’t watch the remaining “debates,” because what’s the point? The viewer learns nothing and hears lies and sees crude behavior from Trump, who never learned to tell the truth or act properly.

Chris Wallace tried to moderate but he could not control Trump, who was acting like a spoiled brat. I wanted to turn it off but didn’t. It was a disgusting portrayal of the state of American politics. Trump refused to condemn white supremacy. When he called on his followers to go to the polls to make sure there was no cheating, I imagined militias with AK-47s at the polls.

Here is Dana Milbank in the Washington Post:

Halfway through Tuesday night’s first presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News raised his voice and took the extraordinary step of scolding President Trump.
“The country would be better served if we allowed both people to speak with fewer interruptions,” Wallace said. “I’m appealing to you, sir, to do that.”

Trump interrupted: “And him, too!” he said, referring to Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
“Well, frankly, you’ve been doing more interrupting,” Wallace said.

“He’s done plenty,” Trump said, interrupting again.

“Well, less than you have,” the moderator replied.

That was wry understatement. It wasn’t a debate in the traditional sense. Biden and Wallace were participating in a debate. Trump was shouting, hectoring, interrupting and generally making it impossible to have a discussion:

“Socialist!”

“Pocahontas!”

“Manifesto!”

“Socialized medicine!”

“Wrong!”

“There’s nothing smart about you, Joe!”

“China ate your lunch, Joe!”

When he did produce more than a taunt or an insult, Trump’s sentiments were either odd (“the forest floors are loaded up with trees”) or dark. He refused to condemn violence by white supremacists and hinted that he might rely upon their violence if he loses the election. He offered an ominous message to the white-nationalist group Proud Boys: “Stand back and stand by.”

Ahead of the debate, Trump had suggested that Biden be tested for performance-enhancing drugs that supposedly cure his supposed senility (Biden “doesn’t know he’s alive,” Trump often says). But on Tuesday night, Biden was calm and in control, while Trump was the one operating in altered reality: ranting, irrational and seemingly unaware of the conversation occurring in his midst.

Wallace kept trying, and failing, to rein in Trump: “Mr. President. Mr. President. Mr. President! . . . If I may ask a question sir. . . . Mr. President, I am the moderator of this debate, and I’d like you to let me ask my question.”

Biden answered Trump’s stream-of-consciousness invective with appeals to unity. When Trump went after Hunter Biden and Burisma, the former vice president, speaking directly to the camera, noted that he could go after Trump’s family, but “this is not about my family or his family. It’s about your family. . . . He doesn’t want to talk about what you need — you, the American people.”

When Trump called racial sensitivity training “absolutely insane” and part of a “radical revolution,” Biden responded: “We’re all Americans. The only way we’re going to bring this country together is bring everybody together. . . . We can take this on and we can defeat racism in America.”

Biden let his erratic opponent get under his skin a few times, calling him a “fool” and asking him to “just be quiet for a moment” and “shush for a minute,” and even this: “Will you shut up, man? This is so unpresidential. . . . Keep yapping, man.”

The Democratic nominee called Trump “the worst president America has ever had” and said “it’s hard to get any word in with this clown.” Biden caught himself. “Excuse me, this person.”
If you could hear him through the din, the challenger landed some solid blows, criticizing Trump’s dismissal of the covid-19 death toll by saying “it is what it is.” Said Biden: “It is what it is because you are who you are. . . . He said he didn’t tell us or give people a warning of it because he didn’t want to panic the American people. You don’t panic; he panicked.”

Biden told Trump to “get out of your bunker and get out of the sand trap on your golf course and go in the Oval Office and bring together the Democrats, Republicans and fund what needs to be done now to save lives.”

By way of parrying Biden, Trump offered falsehoods, claiming Anthony Fauci doesn’t approve of mask-wearing (“he said very strongly masks are not good”), claiming his rallies were only outdoors (they have been indoors, too) and said Biden errantly claimed to have attended the wrong university (a right-wing online claim that has been debunked).

But for all his heckling, shouting and nonsense talk, Trump made one thing perfectly clear: He’s getting ready to take his chaos and mayhem from the debate stage and use it to try to disrupt the election itself.

In the final segment, not long after Trump stood up for the Proud Boys, Wallace asked the candidates to “reassure the American people” that the “legitimate winner of this election” will be the next president.

Biden offered that reassurance, and he urged Americans to vote, because Trump “cannot stop you from being able to determine the outcome of this election.”

Trump, by contrast, went on a final rant about “crooked Hillary Clinton,” people “spying on my campaign,” and about how mail-in balloting is “a fraud and it’s a sham.” He told Wallace: “Don’t tell me about a free transition.”
“This is a horrible thing for our country,” Trump concluded. “No, this is not going to end well.”

The president, by his actions Tuesday night, made it abundantly clear that this is not a prediction. It’s a promise.

The New York Times has a full copy of Trump’s tax returns. No mention of how they got them. Part 2 is a dissection of how eagerly he exploited his name and monetized his brand, no matter how low he had to go, including selling laundry detergent.

It begins:

From the back seat of a stretch limousine heading to meet the first contestants for his new TV show “The Apprentice,” Donald J. Trump bragged that he was a billionaire who had overcome financial hardship.

“I used my brain, I used my negotiating skills and I worked it all out,” he told viewers. “Now, my company is bigger than it ever was and stronger than it ever was.”

It was all a hoax.

Months after that inaugural episode in January 2004, Mr. Trump filed his individual tax return reporting $89.9 million in net losses from his core businesses for the prior year. The red ink spilled from everywhere, even as American television audiences saw him as a savvy business mogul with the Midas touch.

Twelve years later, that image of the self-made, self-saved mogul, beamed into the national consciousness, would help fuel Mr. Trump’s improbable election to the White House.

But while the story of “The Apprentice” is by now well known, the president’s tax returns reveal another grand twist that has never been truly told — how the popularity of that fictional alter ego rescued him, providing a financial lifeline to reinvent himself yet again. And then how, in an echo of the boom-and-bust cycle that has defined his business career, he led himself toward the financial shoals he must navigate today.

Mr. Trump’s genius, it turned out, wasn’t running a company. It was making himself famous — Trump-scale famous — and monetizing that fame.

By analyzing the tax records, The New York Times was able to place a value on Mr. Trump’s celebrity. While the returns show that he earned some $197 million directly from “The Apprentice” over 16 years — roughly in line with what he has claimed — they also reveal that an additional $230 million flowed from the fame associated with it.

Tax records show that Donald Trump earned $197 million directly from “The Apprentice,” and $230 million from licensing and endorsement deals that followed. Bill Tompkins/Getty Images
The show’s big ratings meant that everyone wanted a piece of the Trump brand, and he grabbed at the opportunity to rent it out. There was $500,000 to pitch Double Stuf Oreos, another half-million to sell Domino’s Pizza and $850,000 to push laundry detergent.

There were seven-figure licensing deals with hotel builders, some with murky backgrounds, in former Soviet republics and other developing countries. And there were schemes that exploited misplaced trust in the TV version of Mr. Trump, who, off camera, peddled worthless get-rich-quick nostrums like “Donald Trump Way to Wealth” seminars that promised initiation into “the secrets and strategies that have made Donald Trump a billionaire.”

The first set of guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control warned that schools needed to take safety precautions to protect students and staff before reopening. Then in July, Trump and DeVos insisted that schools should reopen in full, even as Trump and his allies blocked passage of appropriations that provided the resources needed by schools to reopen safely. Trump’s highest priority was getting the economy open by getting parents back to work.

I wrote last July that the Trump administration pressured the CDC to revise its guidelines, emphasizing the importance of reopening and downplaying the safety guidelines. Getting re-elected meant more to Trump than the health of our nation’s students.

The New York Times tells the story:

Top White House officials pressured the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this summer to play down the risk of sending children back to school, a strikingly political intervention in one of the most sensitive public health debates of the pandemic, according to documents and interviews with current and former government officials.

As part of their behind-the-scenes effort, White House officials also tried to circumvent the C.D.C. in a search for alternate data showing that the pandemic was weakening and posed little danger to children.

The documents and interviews show how the White House spent weeks trying to press public health professionals to fall in line with President Trump’s election-year agenda of pushing to reopen schools and the economy as quickly as possible. The president and his team have remained defiant in their demand for schools to get back to normal, even as coronavirus cases have once again ticked up, in some cases linked to school and college reopenings.

The effort included Dr. Deborah L. Birx, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, and officials working for Vice President Mike Pence, who led the task force. It left officials at the C.D.C., long considered the world’s premier public health agency, alarmed at the degree of pressure from the White House.

One member of Mr. Pence’s staff said she was repeatedly asked by Marc Short, the vice president’s chief of staff, to get the C.D.C. to produce more reports and charts showing a decline in coronavirus cases among young people.

The staff member, Olivia Troye, one of Mr. Pence’s top aides on the task force, said she regretted being “complicit” in the effort. But she said she tried as much as possible to shield the C.D.C. from the White House pressure, which she saw as driven by the president’s determination to have schools open by the time voters cast ballots.

“You’re impacting people’s lives for whatever political agenda. You’re exchanging votes for lives, and I have a serious problem with that,” said Ms. Troye, who left the White House in August and has begun speaking out publicly against Mr. Trump.

According to Ms. Troye, Mr. Short dispatched other members of the vice president’s staff to circumvent the C.D.C. in search of data he thought might better support the White House’s position.

Once again, control of the Los Angeles Unified School Distict school board is up for grabs, and once again the billionaires hope to buy control so they can expand the number of charter schools. The latest financial disclosures show that Reed Hastings of Netflix has contributed $925,000 to try to defeat veteran educator Scott Schmerelson. Billionaire Jim Walton of the Walmart family added another $300,000. The charter lobby is flush with money to buy TV ads and flyers that smear Schmerelson and use vicious anti-Semitic tropes in their attack ads. The charter lobby is angry at Schmerelson for two reasons: 1. He fights fearlessly for the 80% of students in public schools. 2. He released the explosive fact that 80% of Los Angeles’ charter schools have vacancies, not waiting lists. His opponent Marilyn Koziatek has no experience in the public schools; she holds an administrative job in a charter school.

Download the .pdf here.

Note: Sara Roos of Los Angeles (blogger Red Queen in LA) prepared the graph of political expenditures based on public records.

CNN reporter Donnie O’Sullivan reports that the Trump campaign is releasing doctored videos that purport to show that Biden is senile or is an extremist. When the campaign is asked why they traffic in manipulated and false ads, they say it’s a joke. However, Trump’s followers are not in on the joke, and they believe what they see.

Somehow, I imagined that there was a federal elections commission to hold campaigns accountable for lies, but Trump must have killed it or filled it with loyalists to him.

At a Trump rally in Bemidji, Minnesota, last Friday, grievances against social media platforms Twitter and Facebook were a common refrain.

Many of the President’s supporters told CNN that they felt the platforms’ fact-checking processes were biased against conservative viewpoints. Others discussed social media posts that contained manipulated media as if they were real.

“Like when Joe Biden fell asleep during a live interview on television,” one supporter recalled, describing a video that went viral only a few weeks prior to the rally.

The video — which appears to show Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden sleeping as a TV news anchor repeats, “Wake up!” — was shared on Twitter by White House social media director Dan Scavino.

But the video was fake.

It was achieved by splicing together real footage of a 2011 interview between journalist Leyla Santiago, now of CNN, and entertainer and activist Harry Belafonte with footage of Biden looking down, his eyes appearing at least partially closed, to make it appear as if he were snoozing. An audio track of loud snoring was placed on the video to complete the effect.

When the video was fact-checked by news outlets, including CNN, and eventually labeled as “manipulated media” by Twitter, prominent Trump supporters complained that it was an obvious joke and a meme.

Open the link to see the video and other examples of lying by the Trump campaign.

For more examples of Trump ads that were lies about Biden, see here.

Trump needs to lie to defame Biden.
Biden can show actual clips of Trump at his rally to demonstrate his lies about the coronavirus.

CNN reports that Trump paid no income taxes at all for 10 of 15 years since 2000. The CNN report is based on a story published by the New York Times (behind a pay wall). The Times apparently received Trump’s tax returns from an insider.

Trump denied the story and said he would release his tax returns when the IRS finishes auditing them. He has said this for four years. Being under audit is no barrier to releasing your tax returns. Trump’s taxes from 2000-2008 are no longer under audit, but he won’t release them.

If every American followed Trump’s example and dodged paying their taxes, the federal government would be unable to function.

The Times’ report did not include his returns for 2018 and 2019.

The story by Russ Buettner, Susanne Craig and Mike McIntire begins:

The Times obtained Donald Trump’s tax information extending over more than two decades, revealing struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due.

Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

As the president wages a re-election campaign that polls say he is in danger of losing, his finances are under stress, beset by losses and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due that he has personally guaranteed. Also hanging over him is a decade-long audit battle with the Internal Revenue Service over the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund that he claimed, and received, after declaring huge losses. An adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million.

As the United States passed the 200,000 death milestone, Trump told a rally that the coronavirus affects “virtually nobody.”

200,000 nobodies.

This on the same day that CNN marked the death of a 28-year-old medical resident in Houston who caught the virus while working with those who had it.

Another nobody.

James Fallows wrote a fascinating article in The Atlantic about the media and its coverage of the election. Journalists are so accustomed to “both-sides-ism” that they find it almost impossible to acknowledge that Trump is lying. He lies habitually, incessantly, and most journalists can’t say that he is lying. He has his version of reality, and “some critics” disagree.

I hope the article is not behind a paywall because it’s too long to copy. And I don’t want to violate copyright law for “fair use.”

Here’s a snippet.

In pursuit of the ritual of balance, the networks offset coverage of Donald Trump’s ethical liabilities and character defects, which would have proved disqualifying in any other candidate for nearly any other job, with intense investigation of what they insisted were Hillary Clinton’s serious email problems. Six weeks before the election, Gallup published a prophetic analysis showing what Americans had heard about each candidate. For Trump, the words people most recognized from all the coverage were speech, immigration, and Mexico. For Clinton, one word dwarfed all others: EMAIL. The next two on the list, much less recognized, were lie and Foundation. (The Clinton Foundation, set up by Bill Clinton, was the object of sustained scrutiny for supposedly shady dealings that amount to an average fortnight’s revelations for the Trump empire.) One week before the election, The New York Times devoted the entire top half of its front page to stories about FBI Director James Comey’s reopening of an investigation into the emails. “New Emails Jolt Clinton Campaign in Race’s Last Days” was the headline on the front page’s lead story. “With 11 Days to Go, Trump Says Revelation ‘Changes Everything,’” read another front-page headline.

Just last week came a fresh reminder of the egregiousness of that coverage, often shorthanded as “But her emails!” On Wednesday, September 9, Bob Woodward’s tapes of Trump saying that when it came to the coronavirus, he “wanted to always play it down” came out, along with a whistleblower’s claim that the Department of Homeland Security was falsifying intelligence to downplay the risk of Russian election interference and violence from white supremacists. On the merits, either of those stories was far more important than Comey’s short-lived inquiry into what was always an overhyped scandal. But in this election season, each got a demure one-column headline on the Times’ front page. The Washington Post, by contrast, gave Woodward’s revelations banner treatment across its front page.

Who knows how the 2016 race might have turned out, and whether a man like Trump could have ended up in the position he did, if any of a hundred factors had gone a different way. But one important factor was the press’s reluctance to recognize what it was dealing with: a person nakedly using racial resentment as a tool; whose dishonesty and corruption dwarfed that of both Clintons combined, with most previous presidents’ thrown in as well; and whose knowledge about the vast organization he was about to control was inferior to that of any Capitol Hill staffer and most immigrants who had passed the (highly demanding) U.S. citizenship test.

In his account of life with Trump, Michael Cohen wrote that Trump won because he got so much free coverage by the media. The generally accepted figure is that he got $2 billion in free coverage because he was so entertaining, so unconventional, so outrageous. The media got higher ratings. And Trump promptly referred to the press as “the enemy of the people.”

A Florida teacher posted this comment. It raises the question of whether it is fair to attract people to become teachers with promises that are later canceled by a nasty, brutish legislature. The legislature passed a law called “the Best and Brightest” that awarded bonuses to new teachers based on the SAT scores they recorded years earlier. It constantly thinks about how to attract new teachers but does nothing to retain the experienced teachers it has. What this teacher describes is the perfidious work of Jeb Bush and his cronies:

I was never a money person. If I was I would never have become a teacher. I honestly believed that we were paid what they could afford to pay us. Seems stupid now but I was a kid. I was a fool. Twenty years ago I signed up to be a teacher. I wanted to be a teacher. I went to college for it. I knew I would never be able to support a family. It was ok, I wasn’t interested in having one. When I first became a teacher, I was shown a “step” system of pay. I saw that every year you’d make a little more. When you finally reached 20 or 25 years in the system the pay took huge leaps higher. Some years as much as a $10,000 increase if you can believe it. I thought I’d be rewarded for loyalty.

That “step” system has long been abandoned. Now we receive increases of around 1.3% a year. I thought the worst indignity came when I actually made less money than the year prior. The state of Florida forced us to contribute 3% to our retirement. Our yearly salary increase wasn’t even that much. This latest indignity is worse. Florida passed a new law raising the minimum teacher salary. Wonderful for new hires and attracting talent. Not so wonderful for those of us that have put the years in. Now, after 20 years of dutiful service I make $5,000 dollars more than a 21 year old, fresh out of college.

I am absolutely and totally morally devastated. The system seems to now be designed to have a perpetual series of inexperienced teachers. I need help. I need for my story to be heard. What do I do? What can I do? They don’t care about me. Now I don’t care about my job. When they showed me that “step” schedule 20 years ago, I believed it to be a nonverbal agreement about how much I would make, roughly, in the future. I was a fool. If I knew then I would never have become a teacher. I feel conned, duped, and lied to and I just can’t take it anymore.