New York Times Lies about Trump Lies

By Andy May

The New York Times published a list of Trump’s “lies,” told during the period January 21 through November 2017, on December 14, 2017 here. It contains 106 unique Trump statements. I’ve classified these statements, in as objective a way as possible, but obviously many of these judgements are subjective and others might classify them differently. To help others review my work, I prepared a spreadsheet database that can be downloaded here. The database contains the date, the “lie,” an explanation, one or two sources for more information and context, the category for the “lie,” an explanation for the category, the New York Times (NYT) category, and an explanation for the NYT category. Table 1 is an example table entry and Table 2 describes the categories.

Date Trump “lie” Discussion Source 1 Trump Cat Trump Explanation NYT Cat NYT Explanation
2/6 “And the previous administration allowed it to happen because we shouldn’t have been in Iraq, but we shouldn’t have gotten out the way we got out. It created a vacuum, ISIS was formed.” Trump’s opinion is shared by many, including Jeb Bush and Ben Carson. 0 An opinion shared by many 5 Data and reporting from 2015 show this is a very valid opinion, a clear NYT lie.

Table 1. The first column is the date, the second is the supposed lie from the New York Times list, the third is the discussion and context, the fourth is a reference, the fifth can be a second reference (blank in this entry), the sixth is the Trump category (zero means Trump is telling the truth), the seventh is the explanation for the Trump category, the eighth is the category for the New York Times claim the statement is a lie (5 means the NYT claim is a lie) and the last column is the explanation for the NYT category.

Figure 1. Source: John Pritchett and Vlad Tarko, the University of Chicago.

The example in Table 1 is a case where the New York Times claimed Trump lied, when he didn’t in my opinion and in the opinion of many others including Jeb Bush and Ben Carson. Legitimate differences of opinion are not lies, especially when supported by data. I show this example because 35 of the 106 NYT accusations of Trump “lies” fall in this category, it is the largest of the six groups listed in Table 2. This is also a perfect example of something very common in the New York Times list, what I call a “manufactured lie.” The New York Times will search for some aspect or view point of a statement that is contradicted by a fact, usually unrelated to the meaning of the statement and often a stretch of logic, then based on that unrelated fact call the statement a lie. In this case, the New York Times says ISIS was formed, from a group with another name, that was created in 2004. Therefore, they say Obama’s pull-out was unrelated to the creation of ISIS. This is obvious nonsense, the ISIS that we were fighting, until Trump squashed it, rose to power only after Obama’s pull-out, regardless of its origins. I refer the interested reader to the database where there are 35 excellent examples of this type of New York Times lie.

The sources provided in the database are the sources I found the most informative, they are not the only sources I checked. I do not necessarily agree with their conclusions but thought they contained the necessary documentation to show that Trump did or did not lie and to classify the statement. Often the source the New York Times references is one of the sources listed, do not expect all the listed sources to be sympathetic to Trump.

Categories used for the New York Times list of Trump’s lies and misleading statements
Categories Name Definition
0 True, perhaps with minor mistake or inaccuracy True or getting minor numbers or dates wrong, but the gist is right.
1 Misleading Slanting a news story by leaving out available pertinent data. Or oversimplifying a statement too much, hiding the complexity.
2 Advocacy Advocating for one point of view in a news story and ignoring or hiding available evidence for the opposing point of view
3 Misquoting Quoting a portion of a statement that clearly meant something else when the full statement is heard or a major mix up of the facts.
4 Misrepresentation Stating an opinion as if it were a fact, deceptive hair-splitting, manufacturing a lie from a true statement based on tricky semantics.
5 Lying Making a statement that simply is not true when clear evidence it is not true is easily available, implying intent to deceive.

Table 2

Table 3 summarizes the results of our investigation of the New York Times list. The columns are the categories I assigned to the New York Times explanation of why they think the Trump statements are lies. The rows are my evaluation of the Trump statement after researching it. I paid close attention to the full statement, so I knew the context and his meaning. The categories overlap to a certain extent and often a statement would fit into more than one category, generally I picked the higher category in that case. This is subjective, and many will probably not agree with my categorization of all the statements, but I did try to be as objective as possible. Categories 4 and 5 are dependent upon intent to deceive. Intent is impossible to discern. I would only categorize a statement or NYT opinion as a 4 or 5 if clear evidence existed at the time that the statement or opinion was false, and I had reason to believe either Trump or the New York Times knew it. A statement (or NYT judgement) can be a 4 if an opinion, even an “expert” opinion is presented as a fact and all experts do not share that opinion. Presenting a controversial opinion, regardless of the source, as a fact is a very common error in “professional” journalism today.

New York Times lies
Trump lies 0, True 1, Misleading 2, Advocacy 3, Misquoting 4, Misrep. 5, Lying Grand Total
0, True 5 2 2 21 35 65
1, Misleading 6 1 5 12
2, Advocacy 1 1 2
3, Misquoting 5 5
4, Misrepresentation 1 3 1 6 11
5, Lying 9 1 1 11
Grand Total 16 15 4 2 34 35 106

Table 3.

Table 3 clearly shows that, at least in my view, the New York Times lied about Trump’s lies more than he lied (NYT: 69; Trump: 22). In several cases, I found earlier articles in the New York Times that supported Trump’s statement. Some examples are given in Table 4. Regarding the example statement on March 4, the New York Times simply says there is “no evidence” of a wiretap. This is silly, especially since on January 20, 2017 they ran a front-page story suggesting that Trump headquarters had been wiretapped. The flimsy excuse that the wiretap may have been targeted at a foreign person makes no difference. Further, now we have the actual FISA warrants (redacted to be sure) that authorized the spying (OK, OK “paid informant”) on the Trump campaign. The NYT does some incredible verbal gymnastics to attempt to make some of Trump’s statements look like lies, but they fail miserably. The NYT says the Chinese stopped manipulating their currency “years ago” on April 29, but on April 14 they blast Trump because he “reversed his position” and won’t condemn China for currency manipulation. One wonders if there is any communication on the NYT newsroom floor.

Date Trump “lie” Discussion Source 1 Trump Cat Trump Expl. NYT Cat NYT Expl
3/4 “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” As we all know now, this is true, and evidence existed in 2017 as well. The New York Times presented evidence in their paper in January 2017. National Review 0 TRUE 5 Not only a lie from the NYT, but hypocritical, since they reported on the spying. Egregious hair-splitting.
4/29 “As you know, I’ve been a big critic of China, and I’ve been talking about currency manipulation for a long time. But I have to tell you that during the election, number one, they stopped.” NYT says they stopped years ago, not likely. They also argued the opposite, hypocritically, on 4/14/2017. The Chinese did stop during the campaign and for the first part of 2017, they started again late in 2017 and Trump jumped all over them then and now. The Times got this wrong and they clearly knew that, it was in their paper. Forbes 0 They stopped during the election. 5 They got this completely wrong and should have known.
4/29 “I think our side’s been proven very strongly. And everybody’s talking about it.” The NYT claims there is no evidence the Trump campaign phones were tapped. Everyone knows about the spying on the Trump campaign and the phone taps. We have the FISA warrants and sworn congressional testimony. The NYT reported the phones were tapped in a front-page story Jan. 20, 2017 on their front page. W.Times 0 TRUE 5 A knowing lie, the NYT reported about the wiretapping as early as Jan. 20, 2017

Table 4. Examples where the New York Times contradicts itself, apparently to “get” Trump.

Category 1 is meant to capture sloppy journalism, that is the reporter (or Trump) asserted something unsubstantiated and doesn’t discuss or mention readily available data or information that shows the opposite. We found 12 Trump statements in this category and 15 New York Times claims. There are many examples of “Misleading” in the database, Table 5 is one example.

Date Trump “lie” Discussion Trump Cat Trump Explanation NYT Cat NYT Expl
1/25 “You had millions of people that now aren’t insured anymore.” The Obamacare fiasco is a very complex subject and there are data out there to support almost any view, both Trump and the NYT are guilty of over-simplifying and offering opinions as fact. Roughly 7 to 8 million people had their health insurance canceled when Obamacare went into effect in 2014. 1 More accurate: millions lost their policies. 1 “1” is generous, 3 or 4 possible here.

Table 5. Example category 1 from the database.

Category 2 is advocating for or against a cause. Politicians, lawyers and businessmen can advocate for a cause, they are expected to, it is part of their job. They can legitimately present the facts that support their point of view and ignore or downplay contrary facts, but Trump has gone over-the-top doing this a couple of times. The New York Times was guilty of doing this four times. This is called bias, advocates are biased, but a newspaper of the stature of the New York Times is expected to be unbiased. It is expected to dig out both sides of an argument and present them fairly in news stories. Thus, we feel justified in using a higher standard when judging the NYT, versus Trump, when it comes to bias. Editorials are obviously biased and generally present only one side of an argument, so we have not included any statements from editorials in our list unless they are out-and-out lies (category 5). Table 6 presents an example of a category 2 statement by the NYT.

Date Trump “lie” Discussion Source 1 Trump Cat Trump Explanation NYT Cat NYT Explanation
6/1 “China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020.” The NYT says the deal doesn’t allow or disallow coal plants. This is a stupid technicality, when we know India and China are building or planning to build hundreds of coal-powered electric plants and submitted their plans including the plants. What Trump says is clearly true, our plan had no plants in it. IER 0 TRUE 2 Pure advocacy, no truth. A “manufactured” lie, Trump’s point sailed right over their heads.

Table 6. Example category 2 from the database.

Category 3 is not common in this list, which is a bit surprising. This is carefully selecting a portion of a person’s statement and presenting it in a news story with an artificially constructed meaning that is different from what the person said. Trump did this five times and the New York Times twice. See an example in Table 7.

Date Trump “lie” Discussion Source 1 Trump Cat Trump Explanation NYT Cat NYT Explanation
6/21 “You have a gang called MS-13. … We are moving them out of the country by the thousands, by the thousands.” 5,400 gang members were deported in 2017. They were not all MS-13 gang members, but they were from gangs. Trump’s full quote is not clear that he is saying MS-13 members are deported by the thousands, it sounds more like he is saying gang members. Independent 0 MS-13 does not connect with thousands deported 3 Politifact and NYT put words in Trump’s mouth by selectively quoting him.

Table 7. Example category 3 from the database.

Category 4 is very common. It is when the news article (or Trump) present an opinion, often by someone they have characterized as an “expert” and treat it as a fact. This is only acceptable when all other experts agree with the person quoted. If there are equally qualified people that disagree with the selected “expert” their opinions need to be stated in the news article or speech and both statements treated as what they are, opinions. Both the New York Times and Trump are guilty of “opinion shopping,” that is searching for someone they can call an expert and has the opinion they want. However, the New York Times is far worse than Trump and, in this list, did it 34 times, versus 11 for Trump. This type of misleading statement is very close to lie in our opinion. Table 8 is an example.

Date Trump “lie” Discussion Source 1 Trump Cat Trump Explanation NYT Cat NYT Explanation
3/22 “NATO, obsolete, because it doesn’t cover terrorism. They fixed that.” Trump is correct, NATO did not join the war on ISIS until they announced they would join in a non-combat role 25 May 2017. Trump has encouraged NATO to make a more active role in combating terrorism and is making some progress. NYT claims NATO has fought terrorism since 1980s, is true, but this was not the terrorism Trump was talking about. Independent 0 TRUE 4 This is generous, a 5 might be justified here.

Table 8. Example category 4 from the database.

Category 5, an out-and-out lie, is more common than you might think. The list has the New York Times telling 35 lies about Trump statements, but only contains 11 out-and-out lies by Trump. This is a statement, in a news article or in an editorial, that is clearly false and clear evidence existed at the time the article was published, or the speech was given, that it was false. Table 1 is an example of a New York Times lie. Table 9 is an example of a Trump lie.

Date Trump “lie” Discussion Source 1 Trump Cat Trump Expl NYT Cat NYT Expl
7/17 “We’ve signed more bills — and I’m talking about through the legislature — than any president, ever.” Trump is wrong here. The highest recent number is 228 signed by Eisenhower. politifact 5 False and he should have known 0 Trump’s 42 bills don’t come close to Eisenhower’s 228 or Kennedy’s 200

Table 9. Example Trump lie (5) from the database.

With roughly 22 exceptions, Trump’s 106 statements are plausible interpretations of the facts known at the time. But, of the 106 statements the New York Times calls lies, we only found eleven that were clear lies where clear evidence that they were wrong was obviously easily available. The New York Times does not categorize the statements in their Trump list, every misstatement is jumbled together and called an “outright lie.” Some of Trump’s statements are hyperbole, some are exaggerations, some are clearly his opinion and stated as such, some are obvious minor mistakes. Generally, the mistake is some hyperbolic statement, like he has the all-time record for being on the cover of Time magazine, an innocent mistake for sure since he was on the cover 11 times, but it can hardly be called a lie. The New York Times is not allowed such mistakes, they are a news organization, researching and reporting and explaining the truth is their job. So, we are holding the New York Times to a higher standard than President Trump and that is fair. They must get it right. Trump is a businessman, politician and candidate. He is a professional advocate, first for his business, then for himself as a candidate and finally for the country. The New York Times has become an advocate for the left, which is antithetical to their standards and ethics statement:

“The core purpose of The New York Times is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news and information. Producing content of the highest quality and integrity is the basis for our reputation and the means by which we fulfill the public trust and our customers’ expectations.”

After investigating the list of supposed Trump “lies,” I concluded that the New York Times violated the “highest quality and integrity” portion of their standards. It would be interesting to hear their arguments that they met this standard in light of the spreadsheet database I created. I checked each “Trump Lie” claim, both the Trump statement and the New York Times characterization of the statement. My results are similar to previous attempts by the Conservative Daily News and The Maven, but more complete. Sometimes the New York Times is correct and sometimes Trump is correct, usually they are both a little wrong and the statement is a matter of opinion. The New York Times clearly lied 35 times and Trump lied 11 times, but the facts needed to tell which is correct in the remaining 60 statements do not exist.

Trump is prone to hyperbole and careless wording when speaking but calling every mistake and inaccuracy a lie is over-the-top and just not true. We have used the category zero when a statement contains a minor numerical or date inaccuracy, but the gist of the statement is clearly correct. Figure 1 is a plot of the count of NYT reported lies by month from January 2017 through November 2017. These are the latest figures the NYT has published as of this writing. The count of categories 1 through 5 are plotted in blue and the count of the well-defined lies (4 and 5) are shown in orange. The zero category is ignored since these are either true or obvious minor mistakes.

Figure 2. A plot of the number of Trump “lies” per month for the period.


Trump had a bad month in February and July wasn’t great, but generally he has improved a lot since he took office. He had never been a politician before and was greeted with a firestorm upon his inauguration, so it isn’t surprising that he had a couple of bad months. The improvement is nice to see.

Conclusions and discussion

In the past, presidents and most elected officials only rarely challenged the press, even when the press was clearly wrong. An example is the claim that Gore said he “invented the internet.” He never said that, he just said correctly and accurately that he pushed its development from the Senate. Claiming he said that is a lie of type “3” in our list. That is misquoting or selective quoting to change a clearly intended meaning. Gore has not fought back very hard on this and the lie that Gore said he invented the internet cannot be dislodged now.

Thus, the press has held great power. They have a symbiotic relationship with elected officials and the government bureaucrats (the “Deep State”) they use as sources and as a result they do no research anymore and are captives and advocates for their sources. Their stories rarely come from hard scrabble research, generally they simply take something from a source they consider reliable, do a quick check of some obvious small things and publish it. They use their position, inherited from better times, to set the narrative. They attempt to establish the “truth” and there is no effective check or balance to that power. Now we have Trump’s twitter feed fighting back, ugly as his tweets can be they are a good thing. The terrified press acts like the school yard bully who finally got what has been coming to him.

We know that Trump’s twitter feed is not perfect, but at least regarding the statements in this list, it is more reliable than the New York Times. At one time the New York Times was very reliable and tried to be as objective a news source as possible. This is long gone now, and why I no longer subscribe to the paper. They have descended into blatant advocacy for the Democratic Party and the government bureaucracy, aka the “Deep State.”

The rest of the news media has chosen sides, one side advocates for President Trump and the Republicans and the other joins the New York Times and advocates for the deep state and the Democrats. This means we must pay attention to both camps and figure it out for ourselves, thus internet search engines and social media become important. I doubt professional, unbiased coverage will ever return to the heights seen in the period from 1960 to 1980, from now on it is up to us to sort it out.

When the list is studied in detail, the overt and obvious anti-Trump bias is shocking. The once-great New York Times now seems captive to the goal of destroying our elected President. Trump is the enemy, they attack him to the exclusion of truth, objectivity and common sense. Everything, gang violence, crime, terrorism, obvious corruption is secondary to “getting” Trump. They seem to have no pride, professionalism or self-esteem left, which is a shame.

The database of Trump statements the New York Times calls lies and the source for the tables and figures can be downloaded here.

Edited to make the tables fit on the page better.  I took the second source out of some of them.

439 thoughts on “New York Times Lies about Trump Lies

    • And if they ever get around to the Clintons they would have to publish the list in a 500 page special edition. No way Billy and Hillary’s lies could possibly fit in a standard edition. And Billy’s famous “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…” on national TV has to rank as the most blatant, bare faced and contemptible lie by any president ever.

      • And if American presidents are anything like our UK politicians, that is a huge, gigantic, elephantine, monstrous claim.
        It might even be true . . .


        • Auto, it is in certain bloodlines to lust for power and rulership. The New World inherited branches of those family trees.

      • It would be illuminating to see a comparison of how substantive lies are. Are there lies to enable causing harm or hiding harm? Most of Trump’s lies have been essentially little white lies. But I do believe it would be a bad idea for him to speak under oath.

        • Dave Smith:
          A perjury trap only requires that you
          say something wrong (even a wrong date),
          or contradict what someone else said
          under oath (which may or may not be true).

          For example Mr. Flynn pled guilty to lying
          to the FBI, although agents believed he was
          just mistaken about something, perhaps a date,
          rather than deliberately lying.

          If Trump were to talk to Mueller,
          and then contradicted what Flynn pled
          guilty to, Trump could be accused of perjury.

          Of course only a fool would allow
          Mueller and his 17 angry Democrats
          to question him — presidents are immune
          from prosecution, and subpoenas
          related to his job, while in office.

        • After Nixon turned over the “smoking gun tape” and impeachment or resignation seemed inevitable, we learned that Nixon’s chief of staff (Haig) had floated the idea of using the promise of a pardon to induce Nixon to resign. No deal was struck. To combat rumors that a deal had allowed Ford to become president, President Ford volunteered to publicly testify under oath to the House Judiciary Committee and answer all of their questions about the pardon. The controversy quickly disappeared from the news. Today, most historians believe the pardon helped turn the country’s attention to problems that had been ignored during the investigation, something that wouldn’t have happened if rumors about a deal for the presidency had continued.

          Do you really think Mueller is going to close an investigation into a national security issue without seeking to compel testimony from the President? Trump is a key witness to certain events: his conversations with Comey and those who attended the Natalie V meeting.

          • “Can you explain the nature of the “national security issue”?”

            Russian hacking into US-based servers and voting systems with the intent of altering the outcome of the US Presidential election.

          • 1) With such serious security issue, would anyone who isn’t a fool (or an actor portraying a fool) waste even one minute with

            – memes
            – trolls
            – posts on social media
            content on social media in RUSSIA
            – “obstruction” (a so-called crime)

            2) Can you please how hacking in voting system can influence the election results?

          • Simple asked: “Can you explain the nature of the “national security issue”?

            There is a strong bipartisan consensus that Russia is America’s enemy. Congress has approved four rounds of sanctions against Russia since Crimea. Putin’s vision of recreating a Russian empire incorporating at least all Russian speakers is in direct conflict with our NATO obligations. More than one hundred Russian mercenaries died trying to displace our allies and their US advisors from Syrian territory the captured from ISIS. More than 1000 internet trolls work at one IRA site in Saint Petersburg trying to sow dissension and elect Donald Trump. Professional Russian hackers invaded the computers of Trump’s opponents election systems in 23? states. (As a consequence, our IC has been legally and quietly monitoring the activities of Americans with close ties to Russia including Page, Flynn, Manafort, and possibly Trump himself, long before the Steele Dossier appeared.)

            Cooperating with an enemy to help elect a candidate more favorable to that enemy is arguably treasonous and certainly a national security issue. Russia clear was an enemy during the election

            Trump (and some of his supporters) don’t view Russia as an enemy. He views our allies are free-riders on our armed forces and unfair competitors in trade. Like Putin, he supports the illiberal right wing parties in our allies. He may view Russia as a potential ally in a showdown between Muslim and Christian civilizations. From that perspective, the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt and using it to impeach would be a coup (treason). Now the enemy is the IC.

            Is the bipartisan consensus about Russia being an enemy obsolete? Who decides? The president is the chief executive, but our system of checks and balances divides authority over all three branches government, with Congress possessing the ultimate authority.

          • “Professional Russian hackers invaded the computers of Trump’s opponents election systems in 23? states”

            Prove it.

            “he supports the illiberal right wing parties in our allies”

            Which parties? Are they more illiberal than the left parties?

            “Now the enemy is the IC.”

            No. The IC is the joke!

          • Frank wrote: “Professional Russian hackers invaded the computers of Trump’s opponents election systems in 23? states.

            Simple replied: “Prove it.”

            Mueller has indicted another group of Russian from these crimes. Is he prepared to prove it? He better being. The Russians have hired US attorneys to defend the first group of Russians Mueller changed and are demanding to see the evidence, which Mueller will be required to turnover. Needless to say, judges and bar associations aren’t kind to prosecutors who indict without evidence.

            The UKIP held a demonstration to welcome Trump one his recent visit. Trump is close friends with Farage. Trump’s ambassador to Germany (Grenell) gotten in trouble for publicly supporting the Alternative for Germany party and several other right wing parties. Trump is disdainful of both May and Merkel and has attacked her for admitting Muslim refugees. Trump has endorsed “Frexit” championed by Marie Le Pen and her National Front, praising her (but not endorsing her) immediately before the last election. Steve Bannon is based in Italy and working with the victorious right wing party there, as well as Hungary’s Orban, the Alliance for Germany and the National Front.

          • There may be a “strong bipartisan opinion” about Russia, but the only true enemy of the people of the United States is the government in DC, and they prove it, day in and day out. There is no reasonable reason for the government to be accumulating my emails, online comments, and tapping my phone, but it does. I am sure that I am not having the same done by Russia, though the government in DC, being so careless as it is with “security,” may well be making that information available through their security sieve. Still, of what true value would it be?

            As for Congress having the ultimate authority, you are wrong, Frank. In DC, the Supreme court has the ultimate authority – it has rewritten the Constitution on many occasions by its decisions and opinions. In “theory,” the Constitution gives the ultimate authority to the people, not to any branch of the government. Of course, that would require us to be educated and actually give a damn about the country instead of who was going to win the next super bowl, or that latest text or the cute video of the guy drowning in the pool with a safety hook hanging in view.

          • Tom O: I’m sorry to hear that you believe our government is “the only true enemy of the people”. The only solution to that problem is to look for an authoritarian strong man who will sweep away the “Deep State” and judges that re-write the Constitution. Then you will really have to worry about having your phone and email being tapped and the Internet censored and the last vestiges of academic freedom swept away. Sincerely, Frank.

            You wrote: “The Constitution gives ultimate authority to the people.” Actually, the founders of our country greatly feared the passions of mobs and the political parties they create, so they didn’t give ultimate authority to “the people”. Federal judges are appointed for life, to free them from the political passions of the moment – such as “lock her up”. Senators were originally appointed by State legislatures for six-year terms that would free them from the need for frequent elections. The passions of the moment were meant to influence the House of Representatives, who were only given two-years. Most notoriously, they created an Electoral College – a group of wise men – to pick the best person to be President, perhaps like a Board of Directors today selects the CEO of a company.

          • President Trump did not attend the Natalie V meeting, so his testimony would be hearsay. They already have access to the testimony of those who actually attended, including Natalia Veselnitskaya, who has admitted to being a Russian government informant. They also need to talk to Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS to find out why he met with Natalia both before and right after the Trump Tower meeting. I wouldn’t be surprised if the FBI was behind this attempt to try to entrap the Trump campaign. They did a similar thing to Roger Stone using a Russian FBI informant who called himself “Henry Greenberg.” He was a criminal who would not have been allowed into the country except for being given an FBI informant visa. Was the FBI using Russian informants to protect the Trump Campaign from the Russians, as they have said? Or were they using them to spy on the Trump campaign and entice them into colluding with Russians or giving the appearance of collusion? Since it is not believable that you would use Russian spies to protect someone from the Russians, the latter option is the most likely reason.

            Anyone who thinks Trump is a key witness is doing so without any evidence. It is only because you want to believe he met with Russians and conspired to commit a crime. But wishful thinking does not justify an investigation or an interview with the President. Now, if Mueller has uncovered evidence that no one else knows about, then Trump may want to meet with him to explain himself. But if not, there is no upside to talking with Mueller. He would be desperately looking for a possible process crime, or anything else, to justify his expensive and fruitless investigation.

          • Louis writes: “Anyone who thinks Trump is a key witness is doing so without any evidence. It is only because you want to believe he met with Russians.”

            No, I don’t know what Trump did. I’m putting myself in Mueller’s shoes. Mueller’s charter is to INVESTIGATE Russian interference with our election. You don’t need EVIDENCE before you can INVESTIGATE; you INVESTIGATE to obtain EVIDENCE.

            Now, Mueller does need to have some reason to believe Trump can provide useful evidence.

            Russians came to a meeting promising dirt on HRC. Did they really show up without dirt? Trump’s family says Trump wasn’t told about the meeting, but Cohen claims that Trump knew about the meeting. We don’t know what Manafort might say in the future or what others may have said that hasn’t reached the public. Only Trump can definitively tell Mueller what he heard about the meeting (if anything) and how he chose to respond. Then there is Trump’s role in crafting the story his son told investigators, which may or may not be true.

            The same principle applies to his interactions with Comey, but in this case Trump can tell us what he was thinking at the time.

            The same thing applies to Trump’s knowledge of the activities of his foreign policy advisors. What did Trump learn from Papadopoulos about the Russian hacking of the DNC before the hacked material was released.

            The upside of voluntarily talking with Mueller is that Trump can negotiate an interview on favorable terms. Otherwise, Mueller can convene a Grand Jury and subpoena Trump to: 1) testify (without an attorney present) OR 2) decline to testify on the grounds that answering might incriminate him OR 3) appeal Mueller’s subpoena to the Supreme Court – and probably lose as Nixon did when his tapes were subpoenaed OR 4) before appealing, fire Mueller and those who refuse to fire Mueller (which is the President’s right) The fact that Trump won’t agree to an interview suggests to the investigators that Trump has something to hide. None of these options appear to be very attractive.

          • The fact that you would think only people who have something to hide would decline to meet with investigators shows how naive you are, or deliberately obtuse.

          • Simpson was questions by House investigators and his testimony was released by Senator Feinstein and is online. As best I remember, he answered your questions as followed:

            Natalie V was in the US for a court appearance in the Prevezon case (involving with embezzlement of taxes from Hermitage Capital). AG Lynch probably arranged for a special visa so she could attend. Simpson and Natalie attended business dinners with the legal teams in NY and then DC (with the Trump Tower meeting occurring between.) Simpson claims he said little to Natalie V, since she doesn’t speak English and he doesn’t speak Russian.

            However, I was shocked to learn that Simpson isn’t a major player in DC. (This is my subjective opinion.) He’s just a former WSJ reporter trying to earn a living mostly by researching public sources of information for lawsuits and an occasional political campaign (for either party) and occasional for other news organization. He is retained and directed by attorneys, not their clients. For Prevezon, he identified as many companies owned by Browder as possible, found a house in Colorado owned by one of those companies and personally served Browder with subpoena. He is unlikely to be a central figure in a conspiracy linking the DNC to Steele. I’d prefer a conspiracy with someone like Strzok or Brennan recruiting Steele and arranging for Fusion GPS to be their cover story. In such a grand conspiracy, however, the Steele Dossier and the FBI investigation it spawned would have been all over the news in October 2016, not January 2017.

            Simpson never disclosed who employed him to research Trump because he had signed a non-disclosure agreement. Perkins-Cole? Daniel Jones? According to Simpson, Steele took his findings to the FBI despite his NDA with Fusion GPS, saying professional ethics were involved. As best I can tell, Simpson received little direction from his employers (he already knew what kind of dirt they wanted on Trump) and Simpson gave little direction to Steele.

            Apparently, Nellie and Bruce Ohr were unknown to those who questioned Simpson at this time and Simpson didn’t mention them by name. Andy McCarthy has a piece that confirms some of what I’ve written, but not the opinions


      • The Clintons lie so often it’s hard
        to know when they are telling the truth.

        Obama didn’t lie as much, but
        he had one BIG LIE
        that affected me and the wife:

        “You can keep your plan — you can keep your doctor.”
        Mr. O’Bummer,
        former US President.

        I knew it was a lie instantly.

        Especially after my medical insurance
        price per month tripled
        between December 31, 2013 and January 1, 2014,
        when I started my first ObamaCare policy …
        which took two hours on the phone to sign up,
        because the website had crashed!

      • Bill, I do remember seeing a “Clinton Lie of the Day” site in 98/99. They detailed one for every day, either Clinton or wife or VP or Cabinet Member. Most were backed up by the same person, explaining / admitting their lie. This did not include the ever present “I Don’t Recall”, which they saved for court cases.

        Wish I had saved a copy.

    • I thought NYT was ALREADY list of lies.
      That, and anti-American hate-speech.
      BTW – anyone got a load of their new editorials editor?

  1. Bias and prejudice are the ‘stock in trade’ for the New York Times and similar main stream media.
    Their motto should be “All the News That Fits Our Political Narrative!”

  2. Politics on WUWT. Okay here goes.

    Trump is a lout and hardly worth defending as a decent human being. But at least he is our lout. And he makes the left go quite insane exposing their hypocrisy and out right evil. I define the left as most Democrat leadership, media and Hollywood. The left is out to destroy this country and it needs to be stopped. And if that means Trump I am all in because the GOP is afraid to fight back. If the GOP loses this election and the white house in 2020 it will be out right war on conservatives and their principles with the left in control of the government. The evil done under Obama will be amplified by the left in the future if they gain control. We need conservative judges at all levels. The left uses the judicial system to force their views on this country. Trump and GOP is our last hope. And I have long given up on the spineless GOP.

    It is going to be a war, time to buckle up boys and girls.

    • Go Home. We can argue about Trump’s “loutishness quotient”, but that is unimportant. The rest of your statement is important, and I agree 100 percent. The war on conservatives has already started; Trump winning the election gives us a reprieve, but the massive attack will continue, and I worry about the future of our children.

      • Statements like this by abqben are the most worrying things about the current political situation.

        From a few thousand miles away, the US is an amazingly strong country. The political differences between GOP and Dems are relatively small compared to the huge differences with politics elsewhere in the world.

        Yet some people believe that the other side winning an election would be a disaster, to such an extent that the future of the children of the country is at risk.

        That kind of thinking can easily lead to a belief that preventing a bad outcome is a vital task. That democracy should be destroyed if it leads to the other party taking over for a few years.

        • Have you noticed the difference between eight years of Obama socialism and 18 months of Trump conservatism?

          Well, we have, and we don’t want to go back to socialism, which is where we will go if a Democrat is elected president.

          We don’t want to end up like Europe with socialist politicians that are so divorced from reality that they are putting the survival of their own nations at risk with their socilaist policies.

          If a Democrat is elected president it *will* be a disaster. All the fixes Trump has put in place will go away and we will start heading down the road to ruin like we were doing when Obama was in Office.

          No thanks. I’m going to the voting booth and voting against these Democrats.

          • What got Barack Obama elected was Mitt Romney. What almost got Mitt Romney elected was Barack Obama.

            What got Donald Trump elected was Hillary Clinton. What almost got Hillary Clinton elected was Donald Trump.

          • [Michael 2] What got Barack Obama elected was Mitt Romney. What almost got Mitt Romney elected was Barack Obama.

            What got Donald Trump elected was Hillary Clinton. What almost got Hillary Clinton elected was Donald Trump.

            This is brilliant, you could build a doctoral thesis from it. To become its own textbook even. I’d buy it. Each of the four base assumptions is a jump-off point, but you’d need a click baity title for the textbook like “Dementias and Dimensions: Studies In Modern Political Perception”

          • I could be wrong, but IMO in 2008, Obama had it sewed up by the time of the CA primary. But I don’t know for whom Willis voted in the 2008 primary.

            IMO, he voted for Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016. Please correct me, Willis, if wrong.

          • Got stuck in his magic self-heating steel greenhouse on voting day, fried by back radiation……

        • In fact, the stated objective of the left is to destroy everything American. One method they are using is to flood the borders with illegal aliens of all stripes. They turn their cities into sanctuary cities in defiance of constitutional law. Over 70 percent of Americans want the borders closed and a drastic slowdown in immigration. They want jobs that can feed a family, lower taxes, and less government regulations. Above all they want to save American culture and Christian values. That is why Trump won in a landslide. They also want nothing to do with globalism.

          How can you possibly say our political differences are small? The election of Hillary would have led to a 2nd revolution. Most of the citizens I know think there will still be a revolution at some point. Polls bear this assertion out country wide.

        • If you are from afar then I can understand why your vision is clouded about what goes on in the states politically. The left under Obama has flouted justice and weaponized the Government to destroy conservative ideals. And the media is complicit in this which is the part that scares me the most. How can conservatives fight back if the media is against you every step of the way. It is hard to have a voice when you are demonized by the media every step of the way. What the Government has been doing to Trump is a travesty and completely promoted by the media. With a fair and honest media like we had 30 years ago, I could be fine with the fight for ideas. But the deck is stacked against conservatives. And I do not expect you to understand that from afar.

        • Never in my life have I witnessed such an unrelenting attack on a sitting president for anything and everything that he does. There is no appeasing the Left. The only thing that allows a society like ours to function is if the electorate accepts that, with a two party system, there has to be a loser; however, the losing side has to cooperate and make the best of what they see as a bad thing. That is not happening this time and the Left is destroying our society. They are lacking wisdom and are willing to sacrifice the country in the name of social justice. What is even worse, the Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column, using their influence to undermine the legitimate leadership. The left accuses the president of being a traitor, but it is the Left who are acting traitorous.

          • “Clyde Spencer

            Never in my life have I witnessed such an unrelenting attack on a sitting president for anything and everything that he does.”

            Neither have I and I do not live in America. The Australian media pick up and post every little thing that he does and show him in a bad light. Every word. Every tweet. I feel the Australian media need to concentrate on Australian politics and leave Trump alone. The American public voted for him! Get over it!

          • “What is even worse, the Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column, using their influence to undermine the legitimate leadership. The left accuses the president of being a traitor, but it is the Left who are acting traitorous.”

            Exactly right.

            The Russians wanted more than anything to disrupt American society and politics with their meddling in the last election and the American Left is helping them do this job.

      • “I worry about the future of our children.” I worry about the future of our Constitution but I have great faith in our children.

    • “Trump is a lout and hardly worth defending as a decent human being.”

      Please see my post below (Aug 5 1:54pm) for some context on his ‘loutiness.’

    • Your lout has a lot of friends in Australia. We could use a Trump here, we have spineless leadership that is putting our country in danger. At the next election the left will be back in power, voted in by the useful fools. Celebrate Trump, he’s far better than anything we have here.

      • Hear, hear….what a miserable bunch of political hacks are running our great country …..the fact that it is still intact, although wounded, is testament to its inherent strength ….if we could have someone who didn’t have politics as their end goal but rather the betterment of the people, such as Trump, we could be in an incredible place …the guy has not just shaken up the US, he’s shaken up The Political World …..good on him ..

    • Trump is fighter. He may fight dirty, but the other side started it. And there is no way Donald Trump can ever be as dirty as the other side.

      • Have to agree. He has played in the dirty world of construction in NY, NJ and FL. But whatever corruption has been involved in that business was private.

        The Clintons’ corruption has been at public expense, to include ripping off donors to Haitian earthquake relief.

        • Keep your eye on the Clinton Foundation. In practice it has been almost the very definition of a money laundering enterprise. Russians wanted to buy into the United States uranium market, all it took was a $100 million donation to “The Clinton Foundation” and voila! the State Department suddenly found itself in support of selling Uranium One, at fire sale prices, to the Russians. And that’s just one example of many.

          • Red94, quite right. The Clinton Foundation is the largest money-laundering operation in human history. The biggest drug-cartels/syndicates/Swiss banks are chump-change compared to the amount of money being laundered thru the Clintons. Obama thru his new foundation is building yet another laundering operation. The marxists can’t have too many such operations. Follow the money.

          • Red & beng: Agreed, I also noticed when Sen. Feinstein’s top aid left his job to “carry on the Russia investigation” by picking up Fusion GPS contract, he raised $50m from the left, almost overnight. The left raises/spends no money in direct help to poor people, but the money flows easy when deconstructing western civ. is on the agenda. The progressive press will not report on this open corruption.

          • Enron and BCCI were bigger.
            Nuclear proliferation CIA companies, and the AQ Khan network are/were the biggest game in town,

    • Hardly a lout in my opinion – one of the lads. Doesn’t take any BS from anyone and plays with a straight bat (that’s cricket if you are interested…)

    • The President is not a lout, or anything like it. He is a hard nosed business man used to getting his own way, a ruthlessness so necessary for his own success and oh so essential to try and undo the harm done to America. His private life is characterised by much generosity, since becoming President we have seen this trait in his dealing with ordinary folk who have finally found someone who shows them some regard. I wish the UK had someone of that calibre instead of what we now have, two of the worst leaders this nation has ever seen, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn.

    • ”’Trump is a lout and hardly worth defending as a decent human being.”’

      Good job he has more respect for you isn’t it you nugget.

      Its all theatre, how anyone can be dumb enough to ”believe” it is anything other than a ”persona” a showman is beyond me.

  3. It’s a social phenomena. There is a self-appointed group of elitists who refuse to accept the results of the last election. Most of them are college educated and are liberal arts majors. Many of them have never held any kind of real job and are out of touch with the real America. They live in an their own bubble world, impervious to any facts, arguments or opinions that conflict with their world view. They are especially prevalent in universities, the mass media, and along the west coast and Massachusetts. And in their extreme intolerance they are similar to the book burners’.

    It’s not that they just disagree with some ideas. Its that they are incapable of comprehending that they might be wrong. The people who burned the witches in the 1600’s were not evil people – they were just incapable of questioning their beliefs and incapable of realizing that they might be wrong.

    These self-appointed elites have decided that they are superior to President Trump. President Trump is not one of them like Obama was.

    • “Journalists” know that they are practically the only job that cannot be moved to China or elsewhere. Because they are not producers of anything valuable. Not charged with providing information about the world.

      They are in charge with the playing of music on a sinking ship. You don’t don’t that with imported musicians.

      • “Journalists” know that they are practically the only job that cannot be moved to China or elsewhere.

        Not necessiarly so. The local ‘fishwrapper’ laid off half it’s news staff and relies entirely on the Washington Post for other than local news.

      • Back in the days when “journalists” did actual investigations, that was probably true.
        However, modern journalists mostly interview each other and a small number of select celebrities. This can be done from anywhere in the world.

    • I was just thinking of the 1600s. It was after watching the most recent video of the umpteenth version some Antifa zealots attacking innocents who were targeted for no other reason than their beliefs. All in the name of their supposed core mission of fighting fascism. Go figure. Then I watched on video, in a country not identified here, a woman being accosted by strangers for not wearing certain headwear.

      They all have a commonality, absolutist belief systems and total intolerance for other views. The behavior of 400 years ago parallels nicely with that of 1,000 years ago and they both showed up in a modern version 80 years ago, with the salute and all.

      In America at least, fascism has shown up, but under the guise of liberalism. That is the core element of political correctness.

      • Political Correctness = Correct Thinking.

        Wiki: – Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

        Sure sounds like a duck and acts like a duck.

        • Fascism sound to to me to be the same Socialist. Both want dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce. There can not be social justice without individual justice, there can not social freedom without individual freedom. This is what our Founding Fathers understood. It all boils down to the individual as lay out in our Declaration and Bill Of Rights.

  4. I wonder how this would shake out regarding the NYT and its statements supporting “global warming/climate change”?

    I suspect they would have way more false information than true.

    • Their issue entitled “Losing Earth” should have been subtitled “(one subscription at a time)”.

  5. This is a rather fascinating article about Donald Trump. It was published by the New York Times in 1984. And it’s positively glowing with praise for DJT! This is obviously before the NYT developed Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    It was written by William E Geist … not to be confused with his son, Willie Geist from MSNBC, who also has TDS.

    “It is often pointed out that Mr. Trump is prone to exageration in describing his projects. Oh, he lies a great deal, says Philip Johnson with a laugh. But it’s sheer exuberance, exaggeration. It’s never about anything important. He’s straight as an arrow in his business dealings.”

    This is quite long, but a good read.

        • So what? My ‘real name’ has nothing to do with it.

          I don’t use my ‘real name’ because there are so many dangerous people on the internet … and jerks, like you.

          • Seems like your real name does has something to do with it. You’re paranoid. What are these “dangerous people going to do to you?

          • TeaPartyGeeze: Tea party – you are correct. I have the same problem with posting. Can’t find out how to reregister either…..

          • I’ve been using the same name for over 10 years now. Why is it suddenly an issue? Who’s to say that your real name is ‘Gary Ashe?’ Anybody can lie … and frequently do. And who cares, anyway?

            Would it be helpful to know that I’m a single woman living alone … with a cat? I prefer not to tempt fate. There are loonies out there and I prefer they leave me alone. Is that alright with y’all?

            Why don’t you go after Michael 2? Or Brian R? Or SMC? (Just to grab the 1st 3 names below this.) That’s not their real names either … or did you think they were?

        • “you might have a legit complaint”

          Or not. I’ll find some other reason to discount your opinion (well, not me, but imagining possible outcomes of your compliance with someone else’s request).

    • If I’m not mistaken The Donald was a Democrat back then. NYT had no real reason to hate him. Now that Trump is a Republican the NYT doesn’t think he can do anything good.

      I firmly believe that Trump could personally give everyone in the US some amount of money and the liberal press would say how terrible it was.

      • I don’t think Republican or Democrat had anything to do with this article.
        It was about Donald Trump the businessman, very little politics.
        Of course, I could be wrong .. but I don’t think so. (Channeling my inner MONK!)

      • Trump is a RINO. He reminds me of a democrat from the Kennedy era. Of course, Reagan was a democrat before he became a republican, too. Having said that, I’m very happy Trump is the President and not the Clintons. Trump is actually trying to get stuff done. Billary would just have made an even bigger mess than Obummer.

      • Trump could cure cancer and CNN would spin it as Trump’s new War on Cancer Foundations. Soon followed by militant feminists calling on all real women to refuse the treatment on account of it being a product of the patriarchy.

      • Trump is an Independent, Repub’s were not his party, just his vehicle.

        There are 4 parties in play.

        Democrat clinton polosi etc far left
        Democrat Alt- left.

        Repub RINO’s never trumpers……. left
        Rupub’s America firsters.,,,,,Patriot Trumpers. right.

        4 is yuge and winning bigly,………….
        Cos yanks are lovin the ”does what it says on the tin” innit.

  6. AM, thanks for this painstaking effort. There is a simpler overarching analytic framework.
    Trump detractors (here NYT) understand his words literally, and do not hear them figuratively.
    Trump supporters do not hear his words literally, but understand them figuratively.
    ‘Build the wall’ is exhibit A.

    • “‘Build the wall’ is exhibit A.” Sure Rud, except that “build the wall”, among other things, is Trump code for anti-Hispanic nationalism.

      When Trump carelessly (to be generous) recites “facts”, what is his figurative message? He’s actually just making it up as he goes along. Let’s not dignify it by calling some kind of metaphor.

      • SC, you are just wrong. Borders define a nation. Illegal aliens from Mexico and central america weaken our nation greatly. There is nothing wrong with nationalism (America First), especially considering the globalist alternatives. Nothing against Hispanics here legally. Everything against anyone from anywhere here illegally.

        • Latino citizens and legal residents understand that they have the most to gain from limiting illegal immigration and enforcing our laws.

          My wife is a legal immigrant from South America. The paper work was daunting. ICE checks up on us.

          • I don’t understand why this is.

            Is it because they then have jurisdiction everywhere? There’s nowhere to run to?

            or perhaps because it causes the most harm to a society, which gives them the right to interfere and control?

          • That’s real funny, out loud funny.

            Ever tried getting out of those ”open borders” communist ideals, they build walls and electric fences to keep their populations from fleeing.

          • Once you get out past the border towns, Mexico is rough on anyone, US citizen included, who try to enter illegally.

          • Unless you are passing through on the way to the US. Possibly in a caravan of thousands. Then they are happy to let you through

      • “is Trump code for anti-Hispanic nationalism.”

        god I’m sick to death of hearing this liberal crap…..illegal is illegal
        …if the country on our southern border was populated with some far right racist culture…you would be the first one out there on your hands and knees laying block….

        The truth is….we have a very dangerous backward 3rd world country on our southern border….drug wars, killing people every day, cutting their heads off, burning them alive, raping, and child trafficking….no different that ISIS..

        …and liberals promoting this open border crap are the direct threat to the security of this country

        • And it’s not just Mexicans and South Americans trying to get in the U.S. illegally, but people from every country on the globe.

          It is suicidal to allow people into the country before they are vetted properly. You don’t know who you are getting otherwise.

          • no Tom, it’s only about Mexicans….notice it’s a anti-Hispanic thing
            Liberals don’t include blacks asians saudis, etc

            I miss the war on Christmas, that was going along fine until they realized Mexicans celebrate Christmas

      • Oh please! Code words and dog whistles! That’s the left’s version of “I don’t like you so I’m gonna accuse you of being a bigot even though I have no proof that you are a bigot.”

        This wouldn’t be an issue if Congress did its damn job, and if the left didn’t keep giving more and more ‘rights’ and benefits to illegal immigrants. The fact that the bulk of illegals are coming over the Mexican-American border is incidental. Nobody, including Trump, hates Mexicans or ‘brown people.’ That’s just stupid. We hate the situation of being unable to control the number of people coming in or determining who may be a threat to national security and public safety.

        • now the left wants to give illegals the right to vote…
          …might as well hand out our ballots in Paris

          let anyone anywhere vote in our elections

          (anyone that doesn’t think illegal immigration is about democrat votes, read what I posted again)

          • I must admit, I thought of it too late, but if I had thought of it earlier, I would have done a postal vote from Australia for Trump.

            Next time, we’ll see if my postal votes gets returned to me or if it gets counted 🙂

          • you should do it,………………. Trust me, Trump by a landslide,…

            Because We ALL want our own now you have one.

        • The Left use the courts to pass law, why they fund their NGO’s so well.
          They cannot get their nonsense past congress, that is why obarmy had ”a phone and pen”. exec orders and courts, that is what got you to where you are today.

      • A leftist rant by SC? It is funny, when Trump won, you heard many on the left saying they would be moving to Canada. None said they would move to Mexico. Why is that? Why are they not called for being anti-Hispanic?

        Most of the million folks we naturalize into the US each year are from the Americas. Most folks are fine with legal immigration. Control the border and control legal immigration, what is wrong with that as an ideal? Most Americans would agree with that and that is why Trump won.

      • It’s all about sovereignty and respect for laws. If we bordered 80 countries and only 1 was Mexico, it would be about all 80 nationalities and obeying immigration laws.

      • Spalding is a typical liberal. Words mean what he wants them to mean, regardless of what other people think.
        For example, if you are against illegal immigration, that is proof that you are an anti-hispanic nationalist.
        If you think that the EPA regulates too much, that is proof that you want rivers to burn.
        And so on.

        Be a liberal, it beats thinking for yourself.

    • Excellent point, Rud.

      The New York Times and other leftist news organization take what Trump says and then misinterprets it or distorts it in their reporting and then when their reporting does not match reality, they then claim Trump lied.

      I’ll bet you about 95 percent of those so-called lies are in that category.

      • To your average leftist, “I disagree with you” and “You lie” are equivalent statements.

  7. The problem is Trump lies repeatedly, over big things and small. And if he doesn’t like, he makes things up.

    Two examples of unnecessary but repeated lies: Claiming that his father was born in Germany when Fred Trump was born in the Bronx. This wasn’t a single mis-spoken statement, he repeated it throghout his European trip. It seems he would rather repeat a lie than admit a mistake.
    Lying about not passing a healthcare because a ‘Senator was in hospital. Another lie repeated even after being pointed out it was incorrect.

    on and on and on. At some point , there will be a serious emergency, and he will ask the American people or even the World to put their trust in him. When that happens, the his history of exaggeration and out-right lie-telling will actually matter.

    • What I can’t understand is how people can criticize one politician for lying, and not all the others. Politicians lie and deceive–it’s their stock in trade.

      It would be nice if it wasn’t that way, but it is. Wake up and face reality.

      • “What I can’t understand is how people can criticize one politician for lying, and not all the others. ”
        So you are saying because all politicians lie occasionally that Trumps tidal wave of lies is fine? Sorry that is BS. If politicians lie they should be called on it. If they make an Olympic sport of it like Trump, they should be gone.

      • Well the Left thinks it owns lying, and it’s their “precious”.
        So, it’s a property dispute.

    • I suspect he was talking about his grandfather, Frederick, who was born in Germany (Bavaria), not his father Fred.

      I definitely don’t understand your comment about “a healthcare …” Did you mean a healthcare bill? The healthcare bill was defeated by Sen John McCain’s thumb down, and Trump has mentioned that abomination repeatedly … along with the fact that McCain campaigned on repealing Obamacare and he betrayed his constituents and the citizens of this country due solely to his personal hatred of Trump.

      Also, see my post at 1:54pm.

      • Both of Trump’s dad’s parents were born in Germany. His mom was born in Scotland. Two of his three wives are immigrants.

        Four of Trump’s five kids have only one grandparent born in the US, and that guy’s parents were immigrants. So all their great-grandparents were not born here, same as Trump’s grandparents.

        • I suspect a good portion of the wold would say the same. “My grandparents weren’t born in this country”.

    • And yet, strangely, he manages to get all the important things right: work to protect our borders and stem illegal immigration, pressure the enemies of the free world instead of coddling them, strengthen relationships with our natural allies instead of spurning them, reduce unnecessary regulations and tax burdens on companies so they can do what they do best: offer goods and services and employ people, unravel the massive mistake of Obamacare and ease its ridiculous rules to help reduce health insurance costs and allow more choice, recognize the efforts of everyday working people instead of antagonize them with elitist dogma about “clinging to their guns and religion”, etc. Never mind two stellar Supreme Court nominees and excellent cabinet appointments. Oh yeah, and draining the swamp of elitist bureaucrats who are actively ruining American government with their narcissistic, intolerant “progressive” ideas which are just soft oppression. No wonder Trump rallies are sold out events. He exhudes optimism and hope, something his predecessor only paid lip service to.

      • stinkerp said:

        “strengthen relationships with our natural allies instead of spurning them”
        Which allies are you referring to with that statement?

        “unravel the massive mistake of Obamacare and ease its ridiculous rules to help reduce health insurance costs and allow more choice”
        Right. The US spends 2X (as a % of GDP) what other OECD countries spend – all of whom have single payer health care. But let’s double down on what has already been proven a failure when it comes to cost effective health care delivery.

        “excellent cabinet appointments” – Right. That explains why 57% of Trump’s top White House staff have been forced out or resigned during Trump’s first 18 months.

        • One constant with the left, they can’t let go of a good lie.
          You can’t compare health care costs directly, because many countries hide much of their health care spending under different programs.
          You can’t compare health care results directly because all countries define health differently.
          Finally, before you can even begin to compare either costs or results you have to recognize the fact that no two countries have the same population. Different population groups equal different problems.

          Then again, your average leftist is pretty stupid, they can’t handle the complexity of the real world.

          • “You can’t compare health care costs directly, because many countries hide much of their health care spending under different programs.
            You can’t compare health care results directly because all countries define health differently.
            Finally, before you can even begin to compare either costs or results you have to recognize the fact that no two countries have the same population. Different population groups equal different problems.”

            Prove it. The usual MarkW statements with zero supporting information. Zero.

            The US spends far more than other countries do on health care, both on a per person basis and % of GDP. Everyone else that has single payer spends between 8 and 12% of GDP on health care, while the US spends 17%. Somehow, according to MarkW, ALL the other countries hide portions of their health care spending under other categories.

            Your population comment makes zero sense, the US has the largest population by far compared to OECD countries, so should get economies of scale.

      • God bless Donald J Trump.
        And keep him safe for another 6 yrs, then Pence for 8 yrs another good man.

    • AndyL, Yes, he lies and has lied. Some are documented in this post. The point is, the New York Times has told more lies. Obama lied and both Clintons lied. Be skeptical, check things out. At least Trump seems to be doing a good job, he has that going for him.

      • It used to be axiomatic that politicians would lie most of the time.

        But now ONE provable lie in the brexit vote (the others are actually lies of the remain side, notably regarding the Turks) is an excuse to redo a vote…

      • No the point is your -somehow own- perception of truth:
        listen to what DJT said at CIA on the Crwod he draw at the mall and the judgement of DJT tend then to 5 and NYT to 0 and not 4/4.
        And your statemnt “NYT claims NATO has fought terrorism since 1980s, is true, but this was not the terrorism Trump was talking about.” is ridiculing your tremendeous effort. When trump lies he had different things in mind according your interpretation. But the parents of the european and canadian NATO soldiers who died in Afghanistan were slapped in the face by DYT’s statemnet. “So sad”.
        And you give him a 0 for this: Harry Potter wold have said: Riddikulus. I do not need HP to LOL on this.

        • In the statement the NYT quoted Trump said audience, not crowd. Trump was clearly referring to ISIS in regard to terrorism.

    • I don’t recall Trump ever talking about where his father was born. You imply it was all over the news.

      The “one Senator” Trump is referring to is John McCain who campaigned for years to do away with Obamacare and then when it came time to vote, McCain flipped and voted against dismantiling Obamacare, which killed the effort.

      Some people, like myself, think McCain made that vote just to spite Trump. He apparently didn’t care that Obamacare was bankrupting people, as long as he can thwart Trump.

      Trump did manage to kill the Obamacare mandate that required people to pay a big tax penalty if they didn’t buy Obamacare despite McCain, which was the most onerous of the Obamacare rules.

      Trump is now redoing the health care system one tweak at a time, despite the pushback from McCain and the Democrats.

      And I might as well add that John McCain was apparently neck deep in the Hillary Clinton/Russian Dirty Dossier criminal enterprise, as McCain obtained a copy of the Dossier before it went public. I don’t imagine McCain will be testifying before Congress on the matter but that’s ok, because we are going to get to the truth eventually, if the Republicans manage to hold the Congress, and McCain had a role in this. It will be interesting to see what exact role he did play.

      McCain served his country honorably in Vietnam, but he has turned into a bitter man who holds a grudge tightly. Too bad, for all of us.

    • Hillary Clinton lied about income inequality exploding after Bush cut taxes. It was a lie. The number of persons earning $1 million+ went from 66,000 to 240,000 under her husband while increasing from 240,000 to 320,000 under Bush. The top 5% of households went from 17.5% of income to 21% under Clinton to 22% under Bush. Her staff could have easily checked the IRS archives and Census data. They all lie in some form. More than others.

    • “The problem is…”

      There is no “the problem”. Your problems are probably not my problems, what you consider important I might not (and vice versa). That’s not to say your opinions are without value; for they are what you believe them to be. But you do not speak for the “American people” and neither do I.

    • Twitter is about to get some Congressional scrutiny. All of the Thought Police like Twitter and Facebook and Google, are getting ready to be put under the microscope.

      At least as long as Republicans hold the Congress. You better get out there and vote, Republicans! 🙂

    • I’m waiting from the “fact check” from Snopes explaining that Twitter isn’t biased at all, which is established by their own claim to be neutral.

  8. What the author does here, in many cases, is to substitute his opinion, or the opinion of a more “friendly” member of the press, for that of the New York Times. He has done a lot of work trying to prove that Trump is not a liar – a tall order. He also cherry picks by selecting some of Trump’s less outrageous statements.

    Andy May is obviously a Trump fan and is certainly entitled to his opinion. But to get in the middle of a fight between Trump and the NYT would appear to be a fool’s errand.

    Politicians “lie” all the time. It’s part of life. I wish this blog would stay away from stuff like this.

    • The post is on media bias, a subject that has been discussed on this web site for years. I most definitely did not try and prove Trump is not a liar, I documented 22 actual lies he told in the post. I did no cherry-pick anything, I researched all of the “lies” in the New York Times list, every one. That is not cherry picking. All of them are in the file, download it.

      This was an interesting way to explore the bias in the New York Times.

      • Exactly Andy. The war to me is against media bias. This country will survive if the media is fair and balanced.

        I have never seen two politicians attacked more than Sarah Palin and Donald Trump by the media. I can live with that if it is legitimate and not petty.

        It is funny how the NY Times (Washington Post, MM) are keeping running tabs on Trump lies. Where was the running total for Obama’s lies over the last 8 years. Non-existent. He was a God to them and could do no wrong.

    • “What the author does here, in many cases, is to substitute his opinion, or the opinion of a more “friendly” member of the press, for that of the New York Times.”

      Well, in my opinion, the author’s opinion is just as good as the opinion of a New York Times reporter and/or editor, and probably better, because the author doesn’t have Trump Derangement Syndrom like the loons at the New York Times.

      Face it: Alarmist Climate Change is political and has to be fought on a political basis.

      • “Alarmist Climate Change is political and has to be fought on a political basis.” Of course.

        All of this is political or, at the very least, just one person or another’s opinion. The author may not have Trump Derangement Syndrome, but he certainly has the opposite, or Trump Infatuation Syndrome. Obviously people here think the latter is more appropriate that the former, and once again that’s opinion.

        Once you get into politics or the climate wars, where does one go to get the straight truth? Here you find skeptic opinion. and that’s why I comment here. But virtually everything written here is pure opinion though it’s often dressed up with factoids. Let’s not flatter ourselves.

        That’s the thing about blogs. But we aggravate it when we get into stuff like “who’s more truthful, Donald Trump or the New york Times.” It’s a waste of time.

        • “Once you get into politics or the climate wars, where does one go to get the straight truth?”

          Well, everyone has to figure that out for themselves. The only way to find the truth is to look at as many sources as you can find on both sides of the issue and then hope you have enough common sense and awareness and understanding to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

      • Spalding is a lot like the global warming activists who proclaim that only scientists that they agree with have a right to talk about global warming.

    • How can listing every quote that was in the article in question qualify as cherry picking?

      If Trump is stating an opinion, that’s a fact, not an opinion.

      If there are a lot of people who agree with Trump, that supports the claim that Trump is not lying.

      Your worship of the NYT is duly noted.

  9. From the article: “At one time the New York Times was very reliable and tried to be as objective a news source as possible.”

    When? Not since at least the Vietnam war have they been an objective news source.

    • It was the standard for objective journalism until sometime in the 1980s when it started going south. By 2000 to 2005 it was in the toilet. I subscribed until around 2012, way too long.

      • “It was the standard for objective journalism”

        That’s a matter of opinion only.

        It should be noted that there was no conservative journalism to speak of for all that time so naturally all the leftwing news outlets would consider the New York Times the paper of record, but that’s just a biased opinion.

        The New York Times has been pushing a leftist agenda since the Vietnam war. I wasn’t paying much attention to the biases in the news before the Vietnam war, but I saw the bias first-hand while serving in Vietnam, and I have been paying attention ever since and have not been impressed with the New York Times political reporting. They are not a neutral arbiter of the truth.

        • Since well before the Viet Nam War. Wasn’t the NYT pushing for the Reds to win out in the civil war following the Bolshevik Revolution? As I heard it, the NYT and one American general put a stop to any aid to the Whites, and in fact advocated supporting the Reds. If anyone knows where to find factual references, I’d love to see them, I’m repeating from memory from a class I took 35 years ago.

        • The New York Times ripped Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and now Trump at every opportunity. They rip Trump more because Trump gives them more opportunities because he fights back against their lies. That’s the only difference between now and the past.

    • The NYT was not reliable or objective in the 1930s, when its correspondent Walter Duranty covered up Stalin’s genocide in the Ukraine.

  10. Sorry, although many would stipulate the NYT is often very biased and that Trump is a frenetic liar, I don’t see where this post is of any relevance to this website.

      • Silly me, I thought the context here was supposed to be climate, not politics. We already know NYT is biased on climate and certainly on politics. I come here for climate news and opinion. If I want politics I go to National Review or the Federalist among many.

        • If that’s what you thought, then it’s pretty obvious you never read the “About” statement regarding this blog.

        • Silly you, I also go to NR for politics, but it’s not the exclusive source for media bias. One reason this site is necessary is because NYT and other media severely biased on climate, NR can’t cover it all. One way to expose NYT bias on climate is to expose it on other fronts. Like alot of NR readers, I have no love for DJT, but Mr. May did a great job of straight analysis of NYT’s TDS. Hardly cause for complaint or tell us how silly you are.

        • Nate, if you see an article or thread that you don’t care for, then skip it and read some other article. Lord knows there are enough articles to keep one busy on this website! 🙂

    • I want to encourage you to be a bit more open-minded. DJT is the first president in decades who takes down the blown-up rules of his predecessors, e.g. EPA, “Waters of the US” etc.
      That man actually shows attention to matters of climate and environment. His concise statement about “clean water and clean air” deserves support, his climate skepticism as well.

      • And the first notable politician to question vaccines, the “no go zone” of the establishment , the so called “science” establishment (the worthless academies) and even the so called “conservatives” and even “libertarians” (who are just big business shills).

    • “I don’t see where this post is of any relevance to this website.”

      And yet you got all the way down here in the comments!

    • The relevance is 3-fold:
      1. The article is about media bias (& political bias) which is also prevalent in climate science.
      2. This is Anthony Watt’s website and he can, and frequently does, post articles unrelated to climate science.
      3. Nobody forced you to read it. If you don’t care for the topic, skip it and move on.

  11. I like to think of WUWT as a forum for the dissemination of ideas about science. Please don’t turn it into a political blog; there are plenty of opportunities for that elsewhere.

    • It’s an article about political and media bias which is often discussed on this website and is inextricably intertwined with climate science.

    • There are few areas of science more polluted by politics than climate.

      Politics used to be the reflection of the “mainstream” in newspapers.

    • “I like to think of WUWT as a forum for the dissemination of ideas about science.”

      That it is. The NYT involves itself in science and so does WUWT. Oh, but you were thinking there’s no politics IN science. Remove politically motivated science journalism; there goes Scientific American (poof!), Science News (poof!) and so on.

  12. Confusing. In your article you say your analysis shows Trump lied (cat 5) 22 times… or maybe 11. In your table, you say 11.

    Now I see the 22 is Cat 4+5. Maybe you can explicitly say that every time you use the 22? To say “lie” is 22 but not use that in the table seems misleading 🙂

    • Sorry to be unclear, but I do say in the text that I consider both 4 and 5 to be deliberate lies. However, 4 can also be an opinion stated as a fact. Still a lie, but perhaps not a knowing one. 5 is very bad because I have some evidence that it is a knowing lie.

  13. I thought this blog was supposed to be about science and climate. I don’t come here to read about the reality TV star that grabs women’s genitals, and pays porn stars $150,000 for a one night stand.

    • Who are you referring to? Trump? Do you have any evidence Trump ever grabbed a woman against her will (which is what you are implying)? I didn’t think so. So you are just repeating the lies the news media has been telling. Real objective.

      • Well his first wife swore under oath that he had raped her. Does that count as evidence?

      • That’s a repeat of Trump’s own words. Laughing at Trump’s misogynistic statements is what got Billy Bush fired.

        • Reminder: WORDS ARE NOT ACTIONS! He said one could do such things, not that he had done such things.

          Trump is a braggadocios street fighter who will play to his audience. If he thinks “locker room talk” will get him in with the crowd, he will spew it gladly. He also has a bad history as a womanizer, but I didn’t vote for him to escort my daughters but rather to fix things in Washington.

    • “I thought this blog was supposed to be about science and climate.”

      Third mention using almost exactly the same language. Sock puppet or paid shill?

      “I don’t come here to read about the reality TV star that grabs women’s genitals”

      And yet here you are tricking me into reading those very words on your post!

      Probably a shill. I trust his one night stand was excellent.

  14. Patriotism is supporting your country all the time – and your government when it deserves it.
    This is attributed to Mark Twain.
    DJT handles things in a way no traditional politician has ever thought of. He is the wind of change, in a pretty special way. I am afraid that the NYT hasn’t realized it yet.

  15. Media lied, politicians lied, in other news water is wet. We this short of articles? Open threads are more interesting.

    • Me too. I enlarged the print to 150% which fixed it … sorta. Then some of the graphs were too wide and I had to move the screen over to see the right side.

    • It does on my monitor also. It didn’t on my web site (also WordPress) and I’m not sure how to fix it.

    • I’m on a 25″ monitor and it does as well, using Chrome.

      It’s the website layout that contributes to it, the wide empty bands on the sides don’t give when it comes to the text in the center. Expanding my browser window to full screen makes no difference.

    • I tried to fix the tables by taking out the second source and trimming the text. They look better now.

  16. The media and all these libs are out of their F’in minds…
    Publish a list of Trump lies…and are so stupid don’t even realize that even if just 1 on their list is not a lie…it makes people not believe any of it

    Trumps says they lie…and the idiots double down on it

    …jobs are at record high, economy is booming, etc Trump’s winning

    Now it’s a war against white people…..the very people that have worked, paid their taxes..and supported all these government hand out programs the libs love so much

    • “Now it’s a war against white people…..the very people that have worked, paid their taxes..and supported all these government hand out programs the libs love so much”

      That’s disingenuous. People of all races work, pay their taxes, and support gov’t.

  17. Why is there another partisan post on a blog that is purpotedly about “global warming and climate change”?

    You can’t repeatedly and overtly politicize the debate by being a pro-Trump cheerleader, then claim it’s because it is being politicized.

    • Science departed climate change with IPCC AR3 full acceptance of Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick temperature presentation, the Hockey Stick.

      Michael Crichton, the Harvard trained MD formidible science intellect and modern literary giant, wrote very clearly about the politicization of AGW/climate change in his book State of Fear in 2003.

      The Left in western societies has fully embraced climate change as fact, when it is truly a pagan religion for them. China, Russia, India understand this climate charade. They know it is the gas-lighting of western societies with the CO2 CAGW lie. And gas lighting depends on maintaining the lie and stopping contrary evidence from getting through.

      So climate change is politics. And climate change scientists are destroying science with outright political advocacy as an infection into other disciplines.

    • Get past your partisan crap…it’s the New York Times lying again
      …the NYT is the world’s #1 global warming promoter

      …and every time they open their crack they are fair game

    • “Why is there another partisan post on a blog”

      Fourth nearly identical complaint. WUWT has many posts every day. Feel free to not read this one.

    • Reporting on politicization is an act of politicization.

      The leftists really get bent out of shape when the spotlight is on them.

  18. The election of Trump shocked them (them being the NYT and the Democratic Party base) to the core. They didn’t see it coming. They in fact had confidently projected for months after the party conventions in summer 2016 that Hillary was going to beat Trump handily.

    The NYT knows it cannot recover from this deep level of exposed incompetence and bias in both polling and in getting the story straight by hard journalism and digging.
    Thus everything they do now has been to de-legitimize the election of Trump.

    They feel if they can de-legitimize Trump, that will compensate for their clear failure to accurately predict that Trump had a reasonable chance of beating Hillary in the EC vote tally.

    • The NYT editorial board now includes Korean-American Sarah Jeong, a young lady who hates all men, whites, Christians and, as an atheist, possibly other religions as well. IOW, 70 to 90% of humanity.

      She wants to “cancel” white people. The NYT would promptly show her the door had she tweeted that she wanted to cancel black people.

      She claims to be a tech journalist, but has apparently failed to notice that electronic computers, the Internet and most major apps were invented by white men and most of the rest by Asian men. One wonders why she chose to become a citizen of the “racist” USA.

        • Typical liberal. Can’t deal with the facts, so you accuse others of racism.
          I notice you have nothing to say about the young women’s obvious racism and sexism. Instead you whine that her own race is mentioned.

        • Her ancestry is relevant since she hates people of European ancestry. Possibly North African, SW Asian, Central Asian and northern Indian, too, depending upon her definition of “white”.

          I’m so anti-Korean that I volunteered to fight for the freedom of the RoK from its tyrannical, despotic neighbors.

        • Spalding Craft: You are wrong, you can make this stuff up. You just did. You made up “anti-Korean” from whole cloth. Don’t worry, though, took the readers here just a few posts to realize how “made up” you are.

        • The complaint is about bigotry, racism and hatred. It has nothing to do with being anti-Korean. I’m guessing he would say the same about anyone of any nationality or racial or ethnic group who spewed hatred like this woman does.

      • We are talking about the behavior of politicians.
        I can understand why you want to sweep the Clintons under the rug.

      • Spalding Craft

        Why is Hillary still talking about Hillary? She lost the election 2 years ago.

        She’s made an entire career out of her election loss. She wrote a book about it and went on a world-wide book-signing tour. She makes speeches, does interviews, and now makes appearances on TV shows … talking mostly about all the people she blames for losing to Donald Trump. Perhaps we would stop talking about her if she stopped talking about her.

        • I’d be more inclined to stop talking about her if she were to ever be punished for any of the laws she has broken.

          • Hope springs eternal. But, the history of either of the Clintons facing justice is dismal. I can’t help thinking they know where the bodies are buried and no one dares touch them. It’s the only explanation I have for it.

            In the meantime, it’s Trump and his associates & supporters that’s being dragged through the mud.

            EDIT: Actually, we all know why they are ‘untouchable.’ It’s part of the deep state … the swamp … democrat holdovers buried deep in the bureaucracy. Hillary got 90.9% of the votes in DC, Trump got 4.1%. Those are the odds he is up against.

  19. Although I am not a great fan of Mr Trump , he is certainly unique among modern politicians. I cant think of anyone who has set off with such single minded purpose and effectiveness to do what he said he was going to do before election. Methinks the NYT focuses on their interpretation of his words because a focus on results would be a little awkward.

  20. To the extent that Trump was a Democrat for most of his life before he ran on the Republican ticket for potus, he naturally has the instinct and tactics for political brawling. (Ever since Nixon, many Republicans have become wussy victims of the Stockholm Syndrome.) Now that the democrats have met a republican with democrat political fighting skills, they don’t know how to combat him. (The previous time they became similarly deranged was under Bush-43 when he set forth a democrat-sounding policy for a “kinder, gentler nation.”) There’s nothing like meeting the ‘enemy’ and finding out that it is yourself.

    • I still wonder if he’s surreptitiously (or maybe blatantly) trying to sabotage the Republican party for future elections. Just wondering, probably wrong.

        • Very good point. Republicans are their own worst enemies many times. One thing that gets them in the most trouble is they want the Leftwing News Media to love them and this keeps them from taking some of the actions needed to keep this country safe and strong.

          Here’s a hint Republicans: The Leftwing News Media will never love you because they are leftists. Get over it and get your job done and don’t worry about what the MSM will say about you. Like Trump does. 🙂

  21. Let’s face it, it’s really just ‘click-bait’, similar to so many other “10 best things that something or other”
    Even if interested in the title, I don’t trust the NYT enough to even bother reading such a list. Most of the MSM is no better and many are worse.

    Their time has passed. The NYT will probably still exist in 10 or 20 years time, but nobody knows what it will look like or what it will actually do.

    • I don’t have a very high opinion of Trump personally either. But, he’s better than Clinton and the New York Times. And he does get results. Life is about choices.

      • Clinton and the NYT don’t lie like Trump. Sorry that is just nonsense. The Russian meeting is exposing what a liar he is.
        First ….There were no meetings
        Second … ok there was a meeting, but it was about adoptions.
        Third…. There was a meeting about dirt on Clinton, but we didn’t get any.
        Coming…. Ok there was a meeting and yes I knew about it, and we did get dirt, but collusion is not a crime.

        The guy couldn’t lie straight in bed.

        • “Clinton and the NYT don’t lie like Trump.”
          Did you not read the article? Spoiler Alert: It documents the NYT lying more than Trump, using the NYT’s own list.
          Or did you hear that statement on your foil hat, and didn’t bother reading the article?

        • “The guy couldn’t lie straight in bed.”

          Maybe; what’s your truth score? What’s HRC’s truth score?

          • They are better liars? Of course, even the media noted what a good liar Bill Clinton was.
            The difference was they approved of Clinton’s lies.

          • Bill Clinton is an unusually good liar. Hillary is no slouch, herself.


            “Bill Clinton is our great living exemplar of Sam Goldwyn’s great epigram: If you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made. . .”

            “[Bill] Clinton’s an unusually good liar,” his fellow Democrat (and Hillary endorser) Bob Kerrey said of the president back around the time the First Lady was visiting postwar Bosnia.”

            end excerpts

        • Simon, you are illustrating the latest lie told by the New York Times and the other echo-chamber leftwing news media outlets.

          You and they are claiming that Trump never said the meeting between Don Jr. and the Russian lawyer was about getting dirt on Hillary and they are claiming Trump lied about this because he said in his latest tweet that it was about getting dirt on Hillary.

          And then on Fox News Channel this morning they show a video clip of Trump saying just that: That Don Jr. had been promised dirt on Hillary to get the meeting. Trump said this in a news conferance with the leader of France, Macron, about a year ago.

          So Trump tweets this same statement over the weekend and the New York Times and their slavish followers in the leftwing media immediately declare that Trump lied about this and that this puts Trump in legal jeopardy. This is, of course, Leftwing Wishful Thinking.

          As Trump said over a year ago and in his recent tweet: It is not illegal to be given dirt on a political opponent. People do it all the time including Hillary, who not only seeks out dirt on political opponents but makes it up (Dirty Dossier) if she can’t find any.

          And Trump reinterated that he was not aware of Don Jr.’s meeting with the Russian lawyer before it took place.

          Curiously enough, that female Russian lawyer met with people at Fusion GPS (the Dirty Dossier Creators) both before and after she met with Don Jr. It looks kind of like a Clinton Mafia setup to me.

          Bottom line: The New York Times lies all the time and they are doing it again today with this issue.

      • “And he does get results. Life is about choices.”
        So you choose a man who:
        (constantly) lies to his people,
        cheats on his wife,
        supports his son working with a foreign enemy to alter the outcome of a democratic election
        … because he gave you a tax cut and pulls out of an international climate agreement. Wow thats a high bar you got for your morals.

        • 1) Since when is a Russian lawyer a “foreign enemy”?

          2) What the hell is an election?
          – Is that a measurement or data set or database that could be altered?
          – Is it a computer system that can be hacked?
          – Is a wallet that can be stolen?

          Is an election a measurement-database-computer system-wallet?

          • “1) Since when is a Russian lawyer a “foreign enemy”?”
            When they are a Russian agent.
            “2) What the hell is an election?”
            It’s what democratic countries have. They are meant to be fair.

      • Do you count the lies? Or do you rate the lies?

        Who cares about lies about a porn star?

  22. The NYT isn’t a newspaper; it’s a print shop for the DNC. To wit:

    1) Back when the NYT was a newspaper they had an editor named Abe Rosenthal. One day he learned that a new hire had, in her previous job, reported on someone who she was romantically involved in. Since this is a violation of journalism 101 ethics, he called her into his office and asked her if this was true. When she said yes, he terminated her. The NYT currently employs a reporter named Ali Watkins who has made the exact same violation of journalism ethics. Abe would have terminated her, but that was when the NYT was a newspaper.

    2) Some time ago, Maureen Down, a syndicated columnist for the NYT, got herself immortalized in the dictionary by misquoting George W Bush. He said, “Over two-thirds of Al Qaeda’s senior leadership has been killed or captured. In either case, they’re not a problem any more.” Dowd left out the words, “in either case” in her quote, changing the meaning. Changing the meaning of a quote by removing some words is now known as Dowdification. The newspapers who carry Dowd’s column printed a correction, something like, “Dowd’s column yesterday elided a quote from George W Bush. The full quote is …” That’s standard for a newspaper, yet the NYT didn’t do it.

    3) In 1998, Gloria Steinem wrote a column defending Bill Clinton’s abuse of women. That column is now embarrassing as it defended behavior that’s no longer politically correct. The column is easy to find on the internet, but you won’t find it on the NYT website. They disappeared it.

    4) During the 2016 primary campaign, the NYT printed a story that Marco Rubio had gotten numerous speeding tickets. It’s true, but the pushback was that this had been discovered by a democratic opposition researcher, and that the NYT had just operated as a print shop for the DNC. They denied it, claiming that they had followed up. Unfortunately for the NYT, the police record every access to the database of the speeding tickets, and it had only been accessed once – by the oppo researcher.


      • “The preceding was excerpted and adapted from a previously published Op-Ed article”. Adjustments.

          • The original used to be gone. There are copies in other forms all over the internet (e.g., scans of the print version) for a reason. I’d guess they were goaded into restoring it. Anyway, kudos to them for at least bowing to the pressure.

            I’m guessing you checked out the other three and confirmed them.

  23. Andy,
    I’m curious about your methodology here. take your first apparent charge of NYT Lying. The Trump claim was:
    “Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory”
    Which you assert is TRUE, and hencde the NYT lied. But you give no evidence that it is true. You cite a rant from Andrew McCarthy in Nation Review, but that is actually about the earlier FBI surveillance of Carter Page, not tapping wires, not in Trump Tower, not “just before the victory”, and no connection made with Obama. Then you cite Snopes, which examines your question
    “Did the New York Times Contradict Their 20 January 2017 Report About Wiretapping?”
    But it labels it FALSE, pointing out that the NYT report was actually about the wiretapping of Russian communications.

    So what is your evidence that
    “Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory” ?

    • The DoJ was forced to admit that the Obama Administration wiretapped Manafort and Page, at a minimum. Last I read, it wasn’t clear whether Manafort’s office in Trump Tower was included in the FISA warrant.

      Conversations picked up coincidentally from such wiretaps are fair game.

          • “No, he wasn’t.”

            False. Manafort resigned in mid August 2016. Regarding the Trump Tower wiretaps, Trump tweeted: “I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!”

          • ““I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!””

            I would say the jury is still out on this one being a lie. The Deep State is fighting the release of pertinent documents, but if Republicans retain control of Congress, then I think that eventually we will find out whether Obama had Trump’s “wires tapped”.

            Trump is supposely considering declassifying about 20 pages of the FISA warrant used to get a warrent to spy on the Trump campaign.

            Maybe we will see who was doing what to whom in a few weeks.

            Bottom line: Trump’s claim of being “wiretapped” has not been disproven. We don’t have enough information yet. We do know some of Trumps supporters were wiretapped.

            This Obama administration assault on Democracy is going to turn out to be the biggest political scandal in American history. The Obama administration and Hillary have a lot to answer for.

            Trump should declassify every pertinent document connected with the Obama administration who used (and are using) the power of the federal government to attack their political opponents, like a dictator would do.

            Trump will be free to act as soon as the Mueller investigation is over. Up until now he has hesitated to do anything that would look like he is obstructing the investigation. But the investigation won’t last forever.

      • I guess capturing all political phone discussions of a political opponent is fair game, as long as he can order a pizza without the intel community knowing it.

      • “… wiretapped Manafort and Page…”

        Why wouldn’t they – they’re both crooks who were in bed with the Russians and Ukrainians.

        And so much for Andy Mays claim that Trump’s statement was not a lie.

    • Then there’s the voter fraud. Well what do you know seems the investigating team says there was none.
      And the doctor says I’m in perfect health…except Trump wrote the report.
      I mean we are all gong to laugh about this in 10 years…….

      • Trump’s hand picked team to investigate voter fraud disbanded recently. No report written, no conclusions drawn, they met a couple times total. They didn’t find anything, so shut down.

          • False. Rs refused to release many of the documents they studied. Why? Because the documents showed that there was no voter fraud. Kris Kobach, the “voter fraud” champion, was schooled by a judge for his out and out lies.

    • Andy,
      Another one alluded to by another commenter, Trump said:
      “A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.”

      You noted that this was false – he had been on 11 times, and Nixon had been on 55 times (and of course others more than 11). NYT gave this a 4 rating
      “Stating an opinion as if it were a fact…”

      You excused Trump, saying
      “Mistake, he was clearly guessing”
      and gave NYT a 4. But how does Trump’s statement not fit NYT’s rating exactly?

      • Nick, His only mistake was saying 14-15 times versus 11. His “I think” at the beginning of the statement means he is guessing, so I didn’t count it as a lie. If he clearly indicates it is a guess, I didn’t think it should count.

        • And compare that to every statement made by Obama about climate change, that’s a lot of Obama lies, even if he thought they might be true. But by completely discounting skeptic arguments, you could call them lies.

        • Andy,
          “I didn’t count it as a lie”
          Neither did NYT. It is clearly a wildly wrong statement; they gave it a 4, “opinion stated as fact”. But for that, you’ve characterised NYT’s as a 4, which you count as a lie.

          In fact, Trump clearly takes a lot of interest in appearances on the Time cover, since he had a fake one made to hang in his golf club. So it’s unlikely that he hadn’t been doing some counting.

          • Nick, the categories are mine for both the NYT and Trump. As I say in the post the NYT lumped everything in as a lie, they made no attempt to grade the statements.

          • Nick, as you say he had fake ones made, so perhaps he was inadvertantly including them in this his count? 😉

      • Nick, when someone says “I think” they are clearly pointing out that it is their opinion and not “Stating an opinion as if it were a fact”. As Andy points out “I think” means he is guessing and he’s signposting that, otherwise he’d leave off the “I think”.

        • Nick, I included many references I disagreed with, usually because they contained information I used in my assessment of the statement. Often the opinions in the sources are contradicted by evidence they present, this is especially true of snopes and Politifact.

    • Nick, The FISA warrants issued based mostly on the discredited Steele Dossier, were for wiretaps and other surveilance. We can assume that if they got a warrant they followed through. This is in the Nunes report.

      • The dossier has not been discredited. The FISA warrant application states clearly that some information come from opposition research. Nunes out and out lied when he said that information was not included in the warrant application.

        • There is a vague footnote alluding to what you say, it is not clear. And, yes the dossier is discredited. The only informtion in it that is true is stuff you can get from google, the rest is fiction planted by the GRU, through Steele. Nunes did not lie to my knowledge.

      • Andy,
        “which authorized the electronic surveilance of Carter Page”

        The Nunes memo did not authorise surveillance. It talks about a FISA warrant on Carter Page. This has nothing to do with a claim that “Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory”. And your Snopes cite did not support your claim in any way. So where is the evidence that Trump’s claim is TRUE?

        • Sorry, Nick, left out a key phrase. I fixed it. The Trump campaign was spied on, Sec. Rice admitted unmasking wiretaps of them, the FISA warrant allowed electronic survielance of Page and was renewed 3 times. What more proof do you need? Seems obvious to me.

          • “What more proof do you need?”
            You just don’t make the connection. Trump made a very specific claim. Again:
            “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”
            Saying that there was a FISA application to surveil Carter Page does not match this claim at all. After all, remember what the campaign said of him back in September 2016:

            “Mr. Page is not an advisor and has made no contribution to the campaign,” the campaign’s communications director Jason Miller said in an email to The Hill. “I’ve never spoken to him, and wouldn’t recognize him if he were sitting next to me.”

            Presented with a statement from a campaign spokesperson in August that characterized Page as an “informal adviser,” albeit one who “does not speak for Mr. Trump or the campaign,” Miller doubled down.

            “He’s never been a part of our campaign. Period,” he said.

            Another spokesman, Steven Cheung, said Page “has no role” in the campaign.“”

            Another lie?

          • Mr. Stokes: “Another lie” Don’t be so hard on yourself, most here only describe you as disingenuous.

            As you’re good at finding stuff, I’m sure you are aware that Carter Page was one of several names Trump dropped (Papadapolous one other) as his “foreign affairs” team in April ’16. If the FBI was investigating “Trump campaign for colluding with Russians” and C. Page was the subject of a FISA warrant obtained for that investigation, the FBI was telling the FISA Court that Page was connected with the campaign. This is true regardless of what Trump said or his people later said. You don’t need to believe Nunes or anyone else- that was how the BI moved on it.

            I will grant you this- either Trump lied when he dropped Page’s name (unlikely), or his people lied as you quote above (likely). Since I consider Trump a non-credible source, I don’t worry about that, I worry about the FBI’s blatant impropriety in abusing the FISA Court (supposed to be used for foreign actors, only surveil American citizen when they have evidence of the collusion, not fishing like here). I say Trump lies, but he lies less (and on less important stuff) than NYT.

            But here’s the big pill for Dems to swallow (as I understand it, Mr. Stokes is not a Dem): IF a Dem president can do this, i.e. get FISA warrant where the opposing party candidate’s “advisor” has “contacts” with “Russian (or Chinese, or Iranian) agents”, then E. Warren and K. Harris should be ready for their campaigns to be “surveilled”. There’s clear precedent. That’s why I believe this must be stopped by exposing the Obama Admin and FBI abuse of FISA Court- it’s the only way of cutting off the “precedent”.

    • Mr. Stokes: What you call a rant was solid reporting by McCarthy, prosecutor-style delivery of facts in a series of articles on the secret-court abuse by Obama’s FBI. I encourage all here to read his work at NRO and decide for yourself. McCarthy and a WSJ writer named Kim Strassel did great work, proved to my satisfaction: FISA warrant authorized FBI to “surveil” Page by wiretap and read campaign emails, and they did. It was obtained ahead of the election and renewed 3 times, right on through the election and swearing in. Some conversations in Trump Tower. McCarthy included an allusion to the earlier contact of Page by the FBI, but that was not “earlier surveillance of Carter Page”- it was 2013 FBI investigation of Russians IN WHICH CARTER PAGE CO-OPERATED! McCarthy was giving another problem (among many) with warrant- if Page co-operated before, why secretly tap an American citizen in FOREIGN Surveillance Court? Anyway, read for yourself, and see what our host and a few others mean by “disingenuous”.

    • Andy, it would be great if you actually quoted the statements from the NYT. They’re very short. Why should people only get to see your interpretation of what they said when you could easily include their own words.

      Take the first example:
      Trump said: (at least he actually gets quoted!)

      “And the previous administration allowed it to happen because we shouldn’t have been in Iraq, but we shouldn’t have gotten out the way we got out. It created a vacuum, ISIS was formed.”

      “the last column is the explanation for the NYT category.”

      Your explanation of the NYT statement, which doesn’t actually let the reader know what their specific objection is:

      “Data and reporting from 2015 show this is a very valid opinion, a clear NYT lie.”

      What the NYT actually said:

      “(The group’s origins date to 2004.)”

      US and other foreign troop numbers didn’t really go down until mid 2009.

      Graph of troop numbers over time in Iraq:

      The establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq was declared in 2006.

      ISIS didn’t just spring into existence out of a vacuum when the troops started to leave, or when they declared their worldwide caliphate in 2014. They really got going when they joined al-Qaeda in 2004 and merged with other groups, leading up to the declaration of the Islamic State of Iraq.

      Have a look at this:

      The name has changed, and they have merged with other groups, but they didn’t just appear out of nowhere when the troops left. They may have taken advantage of the vacuum, but it isn’t what led to their creation. They already existed.

      Exactly what is in dispute here?

      • Also, a depressingly large number of your determinations say things like “we all know”, “it is widely known” or “(insert source here) says”.

        • And how about this one:

          “We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban. But we had a bad court. Got a bad decision.”

          Your response:

          “Totally opinion, no one knows how it would have gone without the media uproar.”

          Eh? Whether or not he had a smooth rollout of his travel ban doesn’t change because we don’t know how things might have gone if other factors were different.

          And he blamed the courts, not the media.

          Overall, there is a lot of bald assertion and appeal to authority in your analysis of the different claims.

  24. Trump’s style is to throw out a barrage of statements. Something will resonate with sympathetic listeners and something will antagonize the unsympathetic. It’s a tactic he uses to gain the advantage in negotiations. He knows where he’s going, but listeners are mesmerized as they try to follow. It works because listeners don’t process the actual words. Instead they turn them into what they want to hear. Daniel Kahneman, psychologist and Nobel Prize winner, explains it in his book, Thinking Fast and Slow. The tactic is brilliant. The words are vehicles for Trump, not lies per se. The NY Times thinks they’re on to something while they’re really being duped. Kind of funny when you can see what’s going on.

    • LOL
      Trump the Destructor.
      But destruction is good for News, and NYT should really be paying a large commission to Trump.
      He is saving their butts.
      So, trump is right again and the NYT continue to be ungrateful twits.

    • “It works because listeners don’t process the actual words. Instead they turn them into what they want to hear.”

      It is likely all successful politicians do this. Barack Obama spoke of taking away the car keys from Republicans and HRC spoke of “basket of deplorables”. Their fans loved it.

  25. Don’t waste too much time trying to convince Trump is not a habitual liar.
    Just take the first three:
    “JAN. 21 “I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.) JAN. 21 “A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.) JAN. 23 “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There’s no evidence of illegal voting.) ” Lies, big and small

    and the list goes on. Being a Swede, I know one occasion when he was just swinging wildly, saying whatever to achieve some effect. The man is an habitual liar, and it has worked for him, so far.

    That has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change or the fear thereof.
    You should get over the notion that republicans are right about the science and democrats wrong.
    Science, if it is real, doesn’t have any political bias and neither should you, when it comes to science.
    I would never vote for someone like T, even if the idea was to bring about some major change in politics.
    And I think his knowledge about science is, shall we say – shallow. Although he might think of himself as a nuclear phycisist.
    I have friends across the political spectrum (well maybe not on the extremes) and they have all sorts of opinions regarding climate and science. Like it should be.

    Let’s get back to the science, shall we.

    • Illegals voted in 2016, and have done so for decades. There is not just evidence. It’s a fact.

      • “Illegals voted in 2016, and have done so for decades. There is not just evidence. It’s a fact.”

        Sure, that explains why Trump’s commission charged with investigating voter fraud disbanded without proving anything.

        • There is as much opposition to the idea illegals could vote than to the idea vaccines could be mostly harmful.

          • Huh? What does that have to do with the commission disbanding. Trump is President. There is nothing that could force a commission he formed to disband.

    • “Science, if it is real, doesn’t have any political bias and neither should you, when it comes to science.”

      Real science doesn’t. the so-called science of imminent ice age global warming climate change on the other hands has been nothing but politically biased since Hansen and his leftwing friends shut off the AC and opened the windows the night before the congressional hearings in order to make a show of how hot it was.

  26. In Table 3, where did the figures in “…the New York Times lied about Trump’s lies more than he lied (NYT: 69; Trump: 22)” come from…?

  27. As my Grandfather said to be after visiting a small town where politicians were campaign and patting me on my head: “Son, never ever trust what any politicians says, watch what their [backsides] are doing.” So I never listened very much to any politician’s rhetoric. Then I got involved in and around government and learned to read between the lines and what was going on sort of deep background. Why things were really happening.

    For me Trump’s problem is that for a lot of people he is just too in your face and if anything as been too honest when he could have quietly gone about his business. Therein lies a major problem. The Deep State and the allies in the news media would have been telling us even more lies about what is supposedly going on. I sat in government meetings where I knew everyone at the table. The next day the media reported what happened in the meeting in some detail, none of which was true. They had talked to some source in our agency that claimed to have been in the meeting who wasn’t invited deliberately for just such behavior.

    Even though I have had several friends in the news media I have never trusted the news media for good reason from my experience dealing with them for years. My trust go less and less throughout the years. My friends in the media also taught me to be skeptical and how news stories were actually decided. I was misquoted, malquoted, and taken totally out of context more than I was ever quoted correctly. I had one reporter at a major newspaper who quoted me anytime he had a marine science article to write. Problem was we had not spoken in over a year. He would make up a quote and put my name to it and print it. His editor never questioned him even after people wrote into complain.

    While the news media has always been a bit loose with the facts, it has gotten progressively worse in the past several decades. It got dramatically worse after Woodward and Bernstein and Watergate.

    • My first run in with the press was actually in high school. I was involved in an incident involving the student council. When I read about the incident later in the school paper, I couldn’t even recognize it.
      Beyond that, the fact that the so called reporter was the leader of one of the sides was never even mentioned in the report.
      When I talked to the paper’s advisor, he wasn’t at all concerned.

      The so called reporter later went on to a career in journalism.

      • A friend of mine was once interviewed by the local TV station about a recently enacted tax bill. And while she was well knowledgeable about the bill and quite clear on what she thought about it, they only aired one very small sound bite from the rather lengthy discussion she had about it that made it sounds like the exact opposite of what she actually had to say about the bill.

        sadly that’s not unusual for the news media be it national or local news.

  28. The establishment and left would like to overrule BREXIT and Trump election as well as expand the European Union to control the world.
    Progressives today make the Clintons of the 90s look like right with whack jobs.
    There is no conversation possible with progressive because they avoid acknowledging anything that disturbs their trot further left.

  29. Today’s email blast from the New York Times is tragically comical:

    I’m Lara Takenaga, a journalist here, and I feel honored to be in touch daily with Times readers as a member of the Reader Center. Independent, original journalism is at the heart of everything The Times does.

    Here’s a selection of some of our best recent journalism:
    Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

    What arrogance. Not independent, not original, and certainly did not stop the climate from changing (but don’t feel bad about it; no one has ever stopped the climate from changing).

  30. Trump did not squash ISIS. Russia did after 3 years of Obama allowing ISIS a free hand in Syria.

    Though the claim Trump squashed ISIS was an error, not a lie 😉

      • And did not defeat it. They fought it only when it threatened the Assad regime.

        Assad and Putin created ISIS by releasing radicalized Syrian political prisoners and letting Russian Islamic militants travel in their thousands to Syria and Iraq, in a cynical effort to give the Syrian opposition a bad name and to encourage infighting.

        • ==============
          BAGHDAD, July 18 — For more than a year, the leader of one the most notorious insurgent groups in Iraq was said to be a mysterious Iraqi called Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.

          As the titular head of the Islamic State in Iraq, Mr. Baghdadi issued incendiary pronouncements. Despite claims by an Iraqi Interior Ministry official in May that Mr. Baghdadi had been killed, he appeared to have persevered unscathed.

          On Wednesday, the chief United States military spokesman here, Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, provided a new explanation for Mr. Baghdadi’s ability to escape attack: he never existed.


          declassified U.S. military confession – we created ISIS:

          Never let the truth get in the way of your militaristic disinformation campaign, “Theo” – or whatever you’re calling yourself today.

      • If the tables are HTML. You need to set the table width to a percentage instead of an absolute value. But they might be CSS instead, which is a little more complicated.

        • I just checked the page source and that looks to be the case. Here is one of the relevant lines:

          <table style=”border-collapse: collapse; width: 505px;” border=”0″>

          Where it says “width:505px” should probably change that to 100% or maybe 95% so there is a bit of a gap against the sidebar.

          All of the width values are absolute instead of percentage.

  31. Andy: A total mess. Take this statement: ““Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

    Did Obama order the tapping of Trump’s phone? No.

    Did the Obama administration order the tapping of Trump’s phone? FISA warrants are approved by Comey and then a FISA judge. Neither is a part of the “Obama Administration”. Unlike typical political appointees, the head of the FBI is appointed to a 10-year term, and Comey certainly demonstrated his independence. If one insists that Comey was a member of the Obama administration, he was also a member of the Trump administration when Trump made this claim. Trump spent far more time talking privately with Comey than Obama did.

    Whose wires were tapped? Carter Page had resigned before his FISA warrant was issued. Six months later we learned that a FISA warrant was issued for Manafort AFTER the election. Perhaps Manafort’s place in Trump Tower was tapped, but we still don’t know where Manafort’s surveillance was conducted. The FBI has publicly stated that Trump was not tapped. Comey told Trump that he wasn’t a target of the investigation, so he shouldn’t have been a target for tapping.

    Just before Trump made these remarks, there were a variety of reports about a possible wiretap on a server in Trump Tower that was connected to two Russian banks. I don’t know how this story has evolved since early 2017, but it likely promoted Trump’s comments. We also know that the Trump transition suddenly moved out of Trump Tower in November, possibly because they had been warned about surveillance.

    There may be some elements of truth in this statement, but it is easy to judge this a lie because it stated that Obama did it. Neither you nor the NYT should be trying to summarize such complicated subjects with a single word (truth or lie) or number rating.

    • We know the Trump tower was bugged because conversations were found by the Congressional committee in classified reports. The Obama AG “unmask” them.

      • Andy,
        “We know the Trump tower was bugged”
        There is nothing there that supports “Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory”. In fact, your link says:

        ” The ethics inquiry came in the aftermath of his bombshell comments that Obama administration officials had improperly unmasked the names of Trump associates, a revelation that Trump used as cover for his unsubstantiated claim that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped during the election to spy on him. The Justice Department said in a court filing Friday that the DOJ and the FBI have no evidence to support Trump’s claims.”

        • Nick, You are making a distinction without a difference. Based on Russian lies about Trump, bought by Steele from the GRU with funds from the Clinton campaign, warrants for bugging and surveiling Trump campaign officials were requested, obtained and executed. Then Rice unmask the Trump campaign end of conversations recorded from foreign intercepts.

          You are doing the NYT type of parsing to “manufacture” a lie. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ….

          • Distinction without a difference?

            Andy, if I told you that the government was tapping MY wires, and when you asked if they had got a FISA warrant to listen in on MY phone line I told you that it was actually someone I called who’s phone line was tapped, would you say I told the truth in the first part or not? Is there really no distinction between who’s lines were actually tapped.

            Imagine this.

            Prosecutor: “Your honor, we have been tapping the phone line of a drug dealer named X. The defendant, Y, called him up and placed an order”

            Y: “You can’t use that evidence! The government was tapping my wires, and doing so without a warrant!”

      • Andy: Thanks for the kind reply to an intemperate comment. Susan Rice’s testimony occurred well after the Trump’s remarks. There is no reason to believe Trump knew about this incident at the time, otherwise he would have replied to his critics with this EVIDENCE.

        Furthermore, foreign officials, such as the Crown Prince from the UAE, were the ones being subjected to routine surveillance, not the Americans they met. When such surveillance picks up words spoken by Americans, their names are removed before the intelligence is distributed to users like Rice. That is why she had to request unmasking to find out who Zayed was meeting. Michael Flynn was overhead talking to the Russian ambassador because the Russian ambassador was being surveilled, not Flynn. Electronic surveillance of Americans requires a warrant, and I am not aware of one being issued for Flynn.

        As I pointed out above and showed again, these are not simple black-and-white issues. It is also worth pointing out that the term “lie’ implies an intent to deceive. Trump made similar statements several times, so his comments weren’t accidentally wrong. Who informed or misinformed Trump about this issue? Breitbart? Or Citing a source as evidence (which you did, thank you) puts the blame for misinformation on your source.

        IMO, FWIW, the “truth” for Mr. Trump often appears to be whatever Trump needs it to be at the moment. When he sued a reporter for libel for under-reporting his wealth, Trump testified that his net worth varied from day to day depending on how he felt (about the intangible value of the Trump brand). Unfortunately, Trump doesn’t trust the Deep State to tell him the truth about rumors of surveillance that reach him, he doesn’t ask his staff to research the credibility of these rumors (that might reduce their utility), and he wants to discredit those investigating his campaign. There are some hints in Comey’s book about the (un)willingness of Trump’s staff to step forward and correct Trump’s mis-statements.

        • Frank, you make no sense. Trump is not an individual, he was a candidate and now he is President. He has access to classified material, why would he get material from Breitbart? You admit Flynn was spied on without a warrant, probably true, certainly wrong. He probably knew about Susan Rice and her unmasking long before we did, that was wrong also. The FBI using campaign dirt to get a warrant and that was wrong. Your strong bias affects your judgement and sense of right and wrong. If you dislike Trump fine, but the illegitimate spying on his campaign by the FBI, NSA, and CIA was still wrong.

          • David: President Trump is a fairly undisciplined leader, who in his 70’s hasn’t changed his free-wheeling style simply because he is now president. You may remember that one of Kelly’s first tasks as Chief of Staff was to try to imposed some order on the information flow to the President. Many of Trump’s early morning tweets reflect what he just heard on Fox News or Breitbart. Trump has been disdainful of the Presidential Daily Brief, which he has read aloud to him, when he bothers to listen. I doubt he trusts anything from the IC, which is out to get him. Kelly wanted all documents being given to the President vetted for accuracy, and he has attempted to stop favored officials from dropping in with one-sided or inaccurate information. Worst of all were old cronies from New York who would call and get Trump reved up about some right-wing issue. Kelley managed to cut off those calls, but now they call his wife and Trump returns their calls.

            Anyway, here are some links, which you may or may not find believable.



          • Andy: No, I don’t admit that Flynn or anyone else was “spied” upon illegally or improperly. Before the election, there was a robust bipartisan consensus that Russia was our enemy. Crimea was the first forcible annexation of territory in Europe since 1945. Putin’s desire to reunite all Russian speakers in a new Russian empire is in direct conflict with our NATO obligation. Our Syrian allies and their American advisors killed more than one hundred Russian mercenaries when they recently tried to move in on territory captured from ISIS. They hacked into election computers into something like 23 states. Congress has passed four rounds of sanctions against Russia by overwhelming majorities. Russia is our enemy, but we are not at war.

            Under these conditions, the IC’s job is to monitor through legal means the activities of influential Americans with close ties to Russia. Call it “spying” if you insist, but I won’t – there was nothing wrong with it. Paul Manafort and Carter Page were under surveillance approved by warrants long before Trump even announce he was a candidate. The IC collected information about Micheal Flynn’s (a former head of the DIA) and Carter’s speeches in Russia and activities at international forums. They used intelligence offices operating out of every US embassy and an informal network of trusted contacts like Halper and Steele to assist them.

            Then candidate Trump comes along and picks many of these “Russian sympathizers” to be advisors for his campaign! There was no conspiracy to entrap Trump into an investigation; Trump walked into the middle of an ongoing process. Some people think the monitoring of these potential Russian sympathizers proves there were a grand conspiracy against Trump from early in his campaign. Absurd, such conspirators would certainly have made sure Americans knew – before they voted – about Steele Dossier and the criminal investigation it (and DNC hacking and Papadopoulos) had spawned. The deliberate mischaracterization of what happened is destroying the credibility of critical government institutions.

          • “They hacked into election computers into something like 23 states”

            How do we know that? Who can we trust about hacking?

    • Notice Frank’s technique: Compare “Obama had” to “Obama ordered”. Could he have “had it done” without barking it as an order? He may not have directly ordered it (then again, maybe he did, how do you know he didn’t?), but that’s different than having it done. By altering the wording, Frank has determined the outcome. Frank, do you work for NYT? ‘Cause you’re qualified.

      • Paul: Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. Words can be interpreted in many ways, which is why I objected to both the NYT and Andy trying to reduce these statements down to truth, lie, or a number.

        Some people would interpret Trump’s remarks to mean Obama ordered tapping. So I dealt with that interpretation first.

        Then I moved on to the possibility that the policies of the Obama administration caused Trump to be tapped, which would make Obama responsible even if he didn’t personally order it. That interpretation fails because the Obama administration doesn’t make policy for the FBI (an independent agency) or the FISA court (part of the judicial system.

        I tried to deal with ALL of the possible interpretations of Trump’s comment that could be true. To do so required replacing ambiguous words (like “had) with all possible explicit words (like “ordered” or “caused”).

        IMO, the NYT’s constant stream of one-sided anti-Trump stories (like this one) is more likely to get Trump re-elected than educate readers about the major changes Trump is making. However, the constant stream of negative stories is probably necessary for the paper’s financial survival.

        • IMO, the NYT’s constant stream of one-sided anti-Trump stories (like this one) is more likely to get Trump re-elected than educate readers about the major changes Trump is making. 

          I certainly agree with this! Trump is very fast and loose with the truth, but being fast and loose with the truth about him is not the way to win the debate before the people or help the country. Well said.

  32. “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

    You’re suggesting that this is actually true? That is a very strange interpretation. You seem to suggest that because the FBI “tapped” some calls this makes it true. Peculiar.

    Trump’s lie is not whether or not the FBI monitored Trump tower (they may have very good reason for doing so). The lie is that Obama ordered it.

    The subject of the sentence is Obama and the object is “my wires in Trump Tower”. The verb is “had tapped” in wierd Trump speak. So the meaning is roughly “Obama did this to me”.

    You can’t just take a bit of a sentence and say it is true. Duh.

    • “(they may have very good reason for doing so)”

      Take the role of the infamous “Steele dossier,” which was paid for by the Clinton campaign and conducted by a firm that specializes in peddling campaign dirt.

      Once the origins of the Steele dossier became known, Democrats and the press insisted that it played little or no role in convincing federal judges to approve wiretaps on Carter Page.

      For good reason, too. The idea that the FBI would use political propaganda paid for by one presidential campaign to launch a high-level investigation against the other in the middle of an election is horrifying.

      • “The idea that the FBI would use political propaganda paid for by one presidential campaign to launch a high-level investigation against the other in the middle of an election is horrifying.”

        It looks like that is just what has happened.

    • Tony, here’s a clue for you. People often say “Obama” or “Trump” or “Bush” when what they are really talking about is their *administrations*. (particularly in character limited forms of communications such as tweets). Same as when people use the phase “The White House says”. The White House is a building, it is incapable of speech, therefore it doesn’t say anything, but the administration in the white house is and does so when people say “The White House says” by your logic that’s a lie, but by most peoples understanding it’s short hand for the current administration and doesn’t literally mean the building is talking. Same here, “Obama had” is short hand for “The Obama Administration had”.

      • I do understand that. However, the Trump lie is still a lie. The use of “Obama had” implies direction from the top of the administration. It implies political direction. Whilst all organisations of the state might technically be in the “Obama administration” whilst he was in office, it is meaningless as there is supposed to be a separation of powers.

        So saying “Obama had” has a completely different meaning to “FBI had”. One says inaapropriate political interference in law enforcement matters (just like Trumps tries to do) whilst the other is just the normal wheels of law enforcement turning.

        Do you understand?

        • I understand that you clearly didn’t understand a word that was said despite your starting your post with the words “I do understand that”.

          Saying “Obama had” was short hand. You claim to understand that but then go on and on undercutting that claim. In short you lied about understanding.

          • Tony, Language is complex and words mean many things based on the context of their use (there’s a reason why dictionaries list multiple meanings for words, you know) , clearly you don’t comprehend that very well. sad.

  33. Well it is interesting and should be widely published, although naturally it won’t be. However, this is not something unusual or limited to the NYT nor even Donald Trump or politics specifically. This to me is clearly the SOP for the MSM, and not just in the USA. It is rampant throughout global news and blog media in general and includes such ‘august’ publishers as the BBC in the UK and the ABC in Australia.

    Perhaps there is someone or some organisation with the necessary resources to do this research across a wide spectrum of both ‘news’ and outlets and publish the results. Any reputable school of journalism should be straining at the bit to do so, but then again, these folk who misrepresent, misconstrue, obfuscate and blatantly lie will have learned to do it somewhere. So perhaps a first step would be to send this analysis to such schools as a test.

  34. While it is possible to quibble about details, President Trump lies habitually if not compulsively about big things and small. Where other politicians spin facts, Trump disregards them.

    • …President Trump lies habitually if not compulsively…”

      Trump questions who is really behind anti-Semitic threats and vandalism
      –“sometimes it’s the reverse”
      WP, March1, 2017

      Dual U.S.-Israeli citizen charged with making threatening calls to Jewish Community Centers
      WP, April 21, 2017

      President Trump lies habitually if not compulsively…” but sometimes it’s the reverse.

    • Richard, He does lie, I documented many lies. But, the point is, so do NYT, Politifact and snopes. Just trying to point out we all need to be skeptical and do our own research.

        • What about it? “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”

          When the NYT lies in order to point out the speck in Trump’s eye, they are revealing the huge plank in their own (as this article pointed out they lied *more* than Trump did when you actually look into the context and details behind their list of “Trump lies”) That you would rather focus on the speck and ignore the plank makes you just as much a hypocrite as the NYT.

        • Richard, Right back at you. The article is about the New York Times lying about Trump’s lies. You are saying “What about” Trump’s lies.

    • No classified email on my unsecured email server => spin?
      I thought “(C)” was for alphabetization => spin?

      • Once again, I hear people try to change the subject by talking about Hillary. We’re talking about Trump here. Do you think he’s a liar or what? No whataboutery please.

        • Actually, we’re talking about the NYT talking (and lying) about Trump. Do you think the NYT is a liar or what? no whataboutery please.

        • As an outsider who didn’t want to see HC elected but who didn’t take much interest in Trump’s statements and policies before his election, I have to admit that I’ve been quite astonished at the character of the man the US electorate picked as their president.

          After 18 months of listening and watching it’s my view that he’s all of the following to a greater than average degree: amoral, narcissistic, egotistic, mentally undisciplined, ignorant of both national and international affairs, ignorant of history, a bully, probably racist, a habitual liar, unconcerned with accuracy in matters of detail, devious, easily gulled, desperate to be re-elected (the one factor that drives him to meet his electoral commitments), needs to be liked and especially to be praised, given to self praise and general boasting about his accomplishments, a chapter 11 abuser, deliberately divisive, devoid of humility, lacking in sound judgement, self serving, disloyal, lacks focus, has a child’s attention span, and it seems likely that Putin has some kind of hold over him or a member of his family. If he has a political vision it is devoid of a moral dimension. He doesn’t inspire; he stirs up outrage and division. It’s been suggested that he’s a fan of Ayn Rand (though I”d be astonished if he’s ever read anything by her) but he probably doesn’t appreciate that he represents just about everything she despised.

      • Spin is about presenting facts in a favourable light. “I was late for my meeting with the Queen because our flight was delayed and traffic was bad.” (It sounds credible, but neither argument applies to POTUS, and you should build delays into your itinerary.)

        Lying disregards facts. “I was not late for my meeting with the Queen. She was.” (You were, she wasn’t.)

  35. David Crowder Louder with Crowder just did a show on the fact checking Washington Post and President Trump. There were blatant false statements by the fact checkers. To call it bias would be an understatement.

  36. Thanks for due diligence research. I wish a mouthpiece as loud as the NYT would feature such as this, perhaps a newspaper of record for the truthful conservative right.

    I am afraid TWT has succumbed to economic pressures to promote click-bait as news.

  37. Again I wish WUWT would stick to discussing climate and weather and avoid becoming a Trumpian echo chamber.

    It’s instructive to focus on Trump’s lies that are the most egregious or inciting hatred or damaging to democracy and international relations. Please do not reinterpret or soften the statements away from their obvious intended interpretation.

    1) He claimed millions of illegal aliens voted in the election. — there is no credible evidence of any significant voter fraud. He made it up.

    2) He said the EU is one of the biggest foes of the US. — No in fact they are one of our biggest trading partners and allies.

    3) He said Mexico sends rapists to the US. — no they don’t. Most mexicans entering the US are hard working decent people seeking a better life.

    4) He said reports that he called British PM May “weak” were “fake news” in spite of the fact that anyone with an internet connection can *listen to him saying it*

    5) He said many times there was “no collusion” between his campaign and Russian disinformation efforts. Now he admits collusion but says “it’s not a crime”.

    6) He said Russia was opposed to his election *immediately after Putin admitted he wanted Trump to win*.

    7) He said that allegations of Russian disinformation interference in US politics is a “hoax” at the same time as his own administration is warning of dangerous interference

    8) He said that the special counsel investigation is a “fake news” “witch hunt” even though they are clearly uncovering evidence and making progress (see 5).

    9) He said nobody has been tougher on Russia even though he has consistently opposed efforts to punish Russia for violations of all sorts–and-where-hes-backed-do.html

    10) He said the media is “the enemy of the people” …

    I give up.

      • The NYT says he’s making progress, therefore Trump is days away from being jailed.
        That’s what all true leftists believe.

        • Yes, and they (NYT, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the usual suspects) have been claiming that imminent jailing/impeachment of Trump since the day the investigation started. When it’s not all Russia Russia Russia with them it’s all Stormy, Stormy, Stormy. Whatever happened to actually reporting on the news?

    • Aaron, if you really want WUWT to stick to climate and weather, you would have given up at “1”.

    • Ah yes, the typical left wing whine.
      Only his interpretation can be considered legitimate.

      1) Evidence exists that there were many illegal votes in the past election. Were there millions? Hard to tell, the Democrats fight tooth and nail to make impossible to tell who is or isn’t a legal voter.

      2) The fact that the EU trades with us doesn’t prove that they don’t oppose us in many areas we consider important.

      3) While Mexico may not have a direct policy of shipping rapists to the US, there are more than a few rapists in each year’s class of illegal aliens.

      4) As usual, leftists feel free to interpret words anyway they care to.

      5) As usual, leftists feel free to interpret words anyway they care to.

      6) And Putin never lies, but Trump always does.

      7) Poor troll can’t tell the difference between two years and present.

      8) As usual, leftists feel free to interpret events anyway they care to.

      9) Not familiar with this latest attack.

      10) Trump’s on solid ground here.

    • “He said the media is “the enemy of the people”

      No, Trump said Fake News, the Lies told by the Leftwing News Media, is the Enemy of the People. Trump is right.

      There is a difference between “media” and a “lying media”. The Lying Media is dangerous to America. The media that tell the truth are a benefit to America. Trump is calling out the liars.

      • The funny thing is, by twisting Trumps words to blanketly apply to themselves, the leftwing News media is admitting that they are fake news.

  38. “The New York Times lies”
    — not necessary to write “lies”,
    because they print all the leftist
    “news” that they decide
    leftists need to know.

    And according to leftist rule 9a
    “news” does not have to be true
    — consider the wild speculation
    in just about every scary
    climate change claim
    printed by the New york Times !

    On the other hand, Trump’s “exaggerations”
    and “errors” have reached a point where
    he is annoying me, and I’m very tolerant
    of politicians (I expect them to lie and mislead).

    They are not really “lies” unless Trump
    knows they are not true, and with Trump,
    he always sounds like he believes what he says
    (perhaps the mark of a master salesman?).

    I wrote a brief article
    about Trump’s “Alternative Facts”
    posted in my politics blog two days ago, here:

    I also wrote an article about
    the false / premature claims
    of a ‘Trump economic boom”,
    mainly by his fans on Fox News,
    posted on my economics blog today, here:

    Trump is a master salesman,
    and master salesmen
    are master BS’ers, IMHO !

    Trump recently speculated
    about 8% or 9% economic growth
    coming under his watch
    after he wins the ‘trade war’.

    That claim is ridiculous — here’s what he is facing:
    (A) U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
    projects that the U.S. labor force will grow
    just 0.2% annually over the coming 7 years.

    (B) Over the past decade, productivity growth
    has declined from a post-war average of 2%
    to a growth rate of just 1.2% annually,
    with growth of just 0.6% annually
    over the past 5 years.

    Real GDP growth comes from
    growth of (A) and (B)
    (more people working, and
    workers getting more productive).

    Trump has both trends
    working against him,
    so an average of 3% growth
    over his first four years
    would be a success, IMHO.
    (+2.7% average Real GDP growth so far,
    in Trump’s first six quarters)

    My climate change blog:

  39. I don’t know if anyone else has brought this fact forward but, it seems that the ‘mainstream media’ has a great deal of difficulty in admitting they are/were wrong. Once they made a pronouncement ie ‘Hillary will win” they cannot figure out that the facts got in the way.
    I first noted this, in spades, after the OJ Simpson murder trial: just before the end the media and pundits were declaring that he would be found guilty. when the jury determined otherwise it was like a slap in the face. ‘They’ have not admitted the fact of the not guilty verdict to this day. OJ himself has been hounded mercilessly apparently simply because he was determined to be not guilty. [Please note that I did NOT say he didn’t do it, only that he is ‘Not Guilty’ as determined by the jury]
    Many of the NYT pronouncements fall into this category – ie Trumps statements are interpreted by the Times to fit their predetermined narrative of his supposed faults.

  40. In an email conversation with one of my brothers, I investigated some of the New York Times’ accusations of lying, made against Donald Trump. Also some from the Washington Post.

    Like you, Andy, I found that the New York Times was itself lying. Likewise the Washington Post, but I’ll confine myself here to the material on the NYT.

    The New York Times rendition is especially clear on trying to promote DT as unfit to be president. They published a story, here, complete with a graph, that says BO told only 19 lies during his entire eight years as president, while DT has already told 103 lies in just ten months.

    The NYT apparently missed the lie he told on September 9 2009 in an otherwise admirable talk, video here, he gave to students at Wakefield HS in Arlington VA. In minute 9:12 he says, “My father left my family when I was 2 years old.” In fact his father left when BO was, at most, a few weeks old, story here. That story describes several other apparent biographical lies BO told before he was president.

    Although mentioning the Affordable Care Act, (Obamacare), the New York Times didn’t see fit to mention that the Act was founded on a lie.

    It was written to conceal the fact that it was a tax. Forbes story here, Washington Post here, Washington Times here.

    The fact that The Affordable Care Act was a hidden tax also means that BO deliberately violated the Constitutional separation of powers. Only Congress has legal authority to tax.

    That lie, which is a direct betrayal of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, is alone more serious than all of DT’s lies combined.

    Other sites detailing lies that the New York Time apparently overlooked:

    This listing alone exceeds the list of 18 from the New York Times:

    Summary: The New York Times was outstandingly dishonest in its representation of BO’s culpability.

    An internet search reveals far more lies from BO than allowed by DT’s critics. Readily available evidence shows that DT’s lies are not more serious and probably not more plentiful than BO’s lies.

    In the Affordable Care Act, BO lied about its hidden tax. In this, BO also violated the Constitutional limits of his power.

    This is a lie that the New York Times completely ignored in compiling its exhaustive list of BO’s economies of truth.

  41. The spreadsheet is beautiful. Thank you very much! I plan to use and distribute it from the link you provided. I get very tired of hearing “Trump lies” when the echo of “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” and many others are still in my ears.

  42. “This means we must pay attention to both camps and figure it out for ourselves, thus internet search engines and social media become important. ”

    The big search and social media companies also have chosen sides, enhancing search results which support their political preferences and suppressing unwanted information or opinions. So, little help there.

  43. I think the descent into media activism is probably about money-sensationalism sells. Groupish behaviour appeals. But then you could ask why it wasn’t like this before? Probably -media regulations and standards , and those who set them-changed. Not really sure how to solve it, but the media doesn’t seem to be what it was.

  44. Looking at the NYT list of “lies,” it is apparent that some of them might have been mistakes. However, some things he said often enough that (unless no one bothered to correct him and he is oblivious to the media, which seems unlikely) could only be construed as lies. Although it seems like overkill to count each time he said such things as a single “lie,” it reveals that he is willing to repeat things even though he knows it’s wrong. Taking credit for the savings in planes is a good example.

    Some of the examples given in this article of how NYT got it wrong seem misguided.

    From the first table: “It created a vacuum, ISIS was formed.” This is not just an opinion, as Andy asserts, it is a statement of fact: because of the way the U.S. pulled out of Iraq, ISIS was formed. But this is not true. The group has changed its names a few times, but that doesn’t mean it abruptly formed in response to the U.S. pullout – it had been around for years before then.

    If Andy thinks this is just opinion, he needs to define what he calls “opinion.”

    “Trump is correct, NATO did not join the war on ISIS until they announced they would join in a non-combat role 25 May 2017. … NYT claims NATO has fought terrorism since 1980s, is true, but this was not the terrorism Trump was talking about.” What “terrorism” is Trump talking about and how does Andy know? Who says that NATO has not been combating it? The Independent doesn’t – the article is only about ISIS, and ISIS is not the only terrorist group around. I don’t actually know what NATO has or has not been doing, but the evidence Andy provides to support his claim is weak.

    Trump said staying in the Paris agreement would mean we are not allowed to build coal-fired plants. Andy said, ‘The NYT says the deal doesn’t allow or disallow coal plants. This is a stupid technicality” Um, does the “deal” disallow the U.S. to build coal-fired plants, or not? NO. So what’s the stupid technicality here? Whether China and India are allowed to build them is irrelevant to this point.

    ““Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” Andy answered, “As we all know now, this is true, and evidence existed in 2017 as well. The New York Times presented evidence in their paper in January 2017.”

    What? WHO says Obama had Trump’s wires tapped? In what NYT article is that asserted (provide link!)? Wire-tapping focused on other individuals is NOT the same as tapping Trump’s wires, even if Trump was recorded. Andy needs to provide reliable evidence for a claim like this, not “As we all know…”

    These are just a few examples. I don’t think Andy is as objective as he could be.

    “The NYT does some incredible verbal gymnastics to attempt to make some of Trump’s statements look like lies, but they fail miserably. ”

    I think Andy is doing some interpretive gymnastics himself. He chooses to focus on part of Trump’s statements and ignores the rest. For instance, China may have returned to currency manipulation after the election (according to some sources), but that doesn’t mean they stopped during the election. I wasn’t able to find the NYT article from 4/17/17 – a link would be nice. It is sometimes impossible to verify Andy’s interpretation with the information provided.

    The column “Trump Explanation” seems more like Andy’s explanation. It is not quotes from Trump that illuminate his words – often he never did retract or explain them. It is disingenuous to state that “You have a gang called MS-13. … We are moving them out of the country by the thousands, by the thousands” actually means “MS-13 does not connect with thousands deported”, or that “Politifact and NYT put words in Trump’s mouth by selectively quoting him” without providing the full quote or context. What the Independent says about gang deportation is NOT an explanation for Trump’s words.

    “But, of the 106 statements the New York Times calls lies, we only found eleven that were clear lies where clear evidence that they were wrong was obviously easily available.” This is revealing! Eleven?! Even a casual glance shows what an underestimate this is.

    “Generally, the mistake is some hyperbolic statement, like he has the all-time record for being on the cover of Time magazine, an innocent mistake for sure since he was on the cover 11 times, but it can hardly be called a lie.” OK, so that’s not a lie, but it’s more than an “innocent mistake” since it reflects Trump’s character and his willingness to make up “facts.” Andy: “So, we are holding the New York Times to a higher standard than President Trump and that is fair.” “Fair”??? Why should the NYT be held to a higher standard than the president of our nation? Why should Trump be allowed to get away with misleading the public about important matters? He has the ear of not only the whole nation, but the whole world, and sloppy errors that he doesn’t correct (but instead repeats) do far more damage to America’s international credibility than sloppy journalism. It also affects domestic views, since many are willing to believe the president even when he lies or errs, despite what the media say. He has, after all, demonized the media, crying “FAKE NEWS” even when it’s not and asserting that the media are the enemy of the nation – and THAT is anti-democratic.

    Policy aside, it is very hard for me to understand why Trump supporters are willing to overlook so much in Trump’s behavior that points to a lack of integrity. The fall-back position seems to be to point fingers at others’ lack of integrity – but how does that make Trump any better? If one is going to object to the poor behavior of presidents, they should all be judged by the same criteria. To do otherwise is hypocrisy. Complaining about the hypocrisy of the media is only meaningful if one refuses to engage in hypocrisy oneself.

    (BTW, Politifact has a list of Obama’s lies, but that includes things he said before elected, and those said by his campaign. There are other lists of his lies, but I haven’t found a thorough one. “The Washington Post’s Fact Checker unveiled a tally of Trump’s false and misleading statements since taking office, pegging the number at 3,001” as of May 2018 – but that list apparently doesn’t call them “lies” (I haven’t seen it).

Comments are closed.