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. Npr.org 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.

Advertisements

436
Leave a Reply

54 Comment threads
382 Thread replies
3 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
115 Comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Tregonsee

Did the NYT ever compile such a list for his predecessor? It wouldn’t be pretty.

Bill Murphy

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

Pop Piasa

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

David A Smith

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.

simple-touriste

Even with something provably true, the Dems would scream perjury, and obstruction, Maxime Waters would say in peach.

Louis Hunt

What would Maxine Waters say while dressed in peach?

Frank

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.

simple-touriste

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

Chris

“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.

simple-touriste

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?

Frank

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.

simple-touriste

“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

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.

Tom O

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.

Frank

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.

Louis Hunt

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.

Frank

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.

Frank

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

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/steele-dossier-fusion-gps-glenn-simpson-trump-russia-investigation/

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!

Another Paul

You mean the $2.1 billion ACA website?

DD More

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.

FTM

“And now we’ve switched from the Patriot Act to a wire carrying current.”

Joel Snider

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

J Mac

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!”

_Jim

This isn’t the Holocaust Denying NYT is it?

Michael 2

It’s the “rockets cannot fly in space because there’s no air to push against” NYT 🙂

All the news that’s fit to spin.

Gary Ashe

Fixed.
“All the News That Fit Our Political Views”

MarkW

Only the news we believe you need to know.

john
john

Speaking of lies, this one is going viral in the liberal press…The advisor is not telling a tale at all. The WTG is an induction generator and starts the blades spinning when the windspeed is at a set point, say 10 mph (cut in speed). I’ve seen similar (high visibility) turbines spinning in no wind, such as the one at the IBEW building in Boston next to I-93. I’m sure UMPI did it too on occasion …until it burned.

I’ve worked on these types of turbines and yes, you can manually start the induction motor to make the blades spin…

MSM needs to do some real investigative research before espousing lies.

John

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maine/articles/2018-07-25/lepage-adviser-repeats-tall-tale-about-umpi-wind-turbine

czechlist

I read that some of the generators are so massive that if they remain static for too long the bearings will flatten and they require “assistance” to begin to turn in low wind conditions.
True?

john

Eric Worral has penned an article about the persistent bearing problems here at WUWT. Great info there.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/26/bearings-the-achilles-heel-of-wind-turbines/

Most large turbines allow the blades (rotors) to rotate VERY slowly (brakes are not locked up) in low/no wind conditions as to prevent blade warping. Whether the rotor movement is done by the wind alone, or via energizing an induction type generator would vary by unit type and mfr/operator procedures.

WTG’s usually need a ‘start’ with their induction generators in low wind conditions to get the massive blades turning…

Vestas V90-3MW. The Vestas V90-3MW is a three bladed upwind wind turbine generator that uses pitch control and a doubly fed induction generator (50 Hz version).

…About induction generators….

Induction generators also work as motors.

https://www.electricaleasy.com/2014/12/induction-generator-working.html?m=1

czechlist

Thx, John.
I saw my 95 year old mom start a ceiling fan with a broom recently. It reminded me of the turbines. It took 30 minutes to clean out all of the dust and lubricate it. Starts great now – but not a solution for the turbines.

john

Anytime. This is what failing bearing in a WTG sounds like:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IUe0S7y1rNw

CAUSE AND CONTRIBUTING FACTORS OF FAILURE OF GEARED WIND TURBINES, Part 1
https://sites.google.com/site/metropolitanforensics/cause-and-contributing-factors-of-failure-of-wind-turbines

Mike McMillan

A seriously in-depth and informative article. Thanks.

Patrick MJD

It’s called brinelling and does wear out bearings quick smart.

Long

LePage Energy Adviser Reacts to the AP’s Fake News About Univ of Maine Wind Turbine

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lepage-energy-adviser-reacts-to-the-ap-s-fake-news-about-umpi-win

Go Home

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.

abqben

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.

AndyL

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.

Tom Abbott

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.

joelobryan

Regarding whether the Democrats have really descended into socialism or not, Willis Eschenbach wrote on his blog a nice piece on this about 10 days ago that should be widely read.

https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/the-fatal-lure-of-democratic-socialism/

Theo

And yet Willis voted for Obama.

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.

Hocus Locus

[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”

Jimmy Haigh

Maybe Willis is a slow learner… Did he vote for Hillary?

Theo

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.

Mike McMillan

He’s a little confused on adiabatic lapse rate, too.

Gary Ashe

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

Jimmy Haigh

Yes – an excellent post.

Ernest Bush

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.

Chris

Which polls say there will be a revolution?

Go Home

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.

Clyde Spencer

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.

Patrick MJD

“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!

Tom Abbott

“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.

old construction worker

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

TeaPartyGeezer

“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.’

Wallaby Geoff

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.

Koala Gerry

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 ..

Steve Keppel-Jones

We need a Trump in Canada too. I think the Brits also need one.

simple-touriste

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.

Theo

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.

Red94ViperRT10

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.

beng135

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.

paul courtney

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.

Gary Ashe

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

Gary Ashe

145 million,………. from russian interests alone.

Jimmy Haigh

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…)

Barry Sheridan

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.

MarkW

He’s loud and sometimes crude. Which just means he’s a typical New Yorker.

paul courtney

MarkW: I see one down vote. Either somebody from NY read it, or it’s Chris again complaining that you don’t have a cite.

MarkW

Most of the New Yorkers that I’ve talked to have been proud of their reputation.

Gary Ashe

Not anymore 1+-1 = 0.

Fastyr Mei.

Gary Ashe

”’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.

Marty

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.

simple-touriste

“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.

Richard Patton

“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.

Theo

Print is being killed by electron bombardment.

MarkW

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.

cerescokid

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.

Greg Cavanagh

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.

old construction worker

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.

MarkW

Fascism has always been about liberalism.

JohnWho

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.

toorightmate

The NYT uses some strange tactics in their race to the bottom.

Pop Piasa

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

TeaPartyGeezer

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/08/magazine/the-expanding-empire-of-donald-trump.html?pagewanted=all

TeaPartyGeezer

Why did I have to sign in to post this?
I haven’t had to sign in for years!

Spalding Craft

So what. Use your real name and you might have a legit complaint

TeaPartyGeezer

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.

Spalding Craft

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?

TeaPartyGeezer

Criminy!

Red94ViperRT10

If dangerous people really are after him, is he still paranoid? JA

Brett Keane

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

MarkW

I’ve been stalked as well as lost jobs based on what I have written on the net.

Gary Ashe

Coward.

TeaPartyGeezer

I beg your pardon?

Gary Ashe

Beg away son,……

man with no name.

TeaPartyGeezer

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?

Gary Ashe

That was to tgp, the above post,…….not you Mark.

Michael 2

“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).

Brian R

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.

TeaPartyGeezer

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!)

SMC

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.

drednicolson

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.

Gary Ashe

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.

Rud Istvan

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.

Spalding Craft

“‘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.

Rud Istvan

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.

Theo

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.

Khwarizmi

Hey gabro/chimp/Felix/Theo
– why do you keep changing your name?

Spalding Craft

Maybe dangerous people are after him.

SMC

A stateless (open borders) society is a communist ideal.

Greg Cavanagh

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?

Gary Ashe

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.

MarkW

Mexico is pretty rough on Guatemalans who try to enter illegally.

Joe Crawford

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

Latitude

“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

Tom Abbott

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.

Latitude

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

TeaPartyGeezer

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.

Latitude

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)

Greg Cavanagh

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 🙂

Gary Ashe

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

Because We ALL want our own now you have one.

Gary Ashe

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.

Go Home

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.

cerescokid

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.

hunter

You are so far off in your deciphering.

MarkW

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.

Tom Abbott

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.

MarkW

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

AndyL

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.

Simon

“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.

MarkW

This is funny coming from someone who defends the lies of politicians he likes.

gbaikie

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

TeaPartyGeezer

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.

Theo

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.

Greg Cavanagh

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

Brett Keane

Theo – So, we now have trolls here making up lies! How surprising.

stinkerp

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.

Chris

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.

MarkW

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.

Chris

“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.
https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm

simple-touriste

France has single payer now?

Gary Ashe

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

Tom Abbott

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.

SMC

McCain isn’t likely to finish out his term.

Gary Ashe

God works in mysterious ways.

”McCain isn’t likely to finish out his term.”

Gary Ashe

Mc Stain.

Chris

He’s a great American. He actually has a spine, unlike many.

cerescokid

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.

Michael 2

“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.

J Mac

It isn’t ‘just’ the New York Times…
Twitter suspended conservative Candace Owens today for illustrating the racist tweets from extreme liberal Sarah Jeong, the NYT’s recent editorial hire. Sarah Jeongs racists tweets have not been censured on Twitter but a conservative who used them to illustrate Jeong’s bigotry was censured……
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/05/twitter-suspends-candace-owens-account-for-mimicking-sarah-jeongs-racism/

Tom Abbott

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! 🙂

simple-touriste

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.

Spalding Craft

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.

Tom Abbott

“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.

Spalding Craft

“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.

Tom Abbott

“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.

MarkW

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.

drednicolson

Concern troll is concerned.

MarkW

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.

Tom Abbott

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.

Theo

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

Nate McClure

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.

Non Nomen

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.

simple-touriste

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).

simple-touriste

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-fail

“This immunization program has been predicated on assumptions on top of assumptions. Unless we have these discussions, we’ll never have improved vaccine options. And I don’t think it’s antivaccine to want your vaccine program to be the best that it can be,” she adds.

“assumptions on top of assumptions”… like climate?

Michael 2

“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!

Nate McClure

comment line is at the top

TeaPartyGeezer

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.

Malcolm Robinson

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.

TeaPartyGeezer

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

simple-touriste

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

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

drednicolson

Concern troll is concerned.

Michael 2

“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.

kramer

Malcom:

” It is important that people know about the science of climate change because it is not only a scientific issue but a social and political issue.”

http://pulitzercenter.org/sites/default/files/communicating_science.pdf

MrPete

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 🙂

simple-touriste

NATO wouldn’t attack oil convoy from ISIS. Why is the question.

Sweet Old Bob

Maybe ….someone didn’t want to be blamed for the “oil spill ” ?

simple-touriste

NATO is going green?

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.

Tom Abbott

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.

Not only are his own words evidence, but Summer Zevos’s lawsuit it still ongoing.

MarkW

You’ve never actually read those words, have you.

Percy Jackson

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

MarkW

Where’s the police report?

Chris

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

OweninGA

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.

MarkW

Chris is not concerned with the truth, just advancing his sides agenda.

Chris

Sure, MarkW, that’s why 10 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct.

Curious George

Dave, you are 100% right. Please don’t let anybody force you to come here.

drednicolson

Relevance troll is irrelevant.

Michael 2

“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.

Non Nomen

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.

Lurker Pete

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

drednicolson

Relevance troll is irrelevant.

zemlik

on my not very large monitor the table[s] overlays the stuff on the right side

Tom Abbott

me, too.

TeaPartyGeezer

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.

Clyde Spencer

zemlik,
There is a formatting issue even on my 27″ wide monitor.

Non Nomen

There are many parts of this political world that deserve being reformatted…

Geoff Sherrington

Clyde,
Likewise, the edge is clipped off my 3.4 metre wide 3D high res hologram display. Geoff.

Jeff Alberts

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.

Spalding Craft

Try Chrome. FIxed it for me.

Jeff Alberts

I am on chrome too, and it wasn’t fixed until Andy made some changes.

Latitude

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

Jeff Alberts

“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.

RyanS

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.

simple-touriste

“pro-Trump cheerleader”

Since when?

Spalding Craft

Since always.

simple-touriste

When has WUWT defended Trump’s legitimate criticism of the demented vaccine schedule?

MarkW

To the left, anything less than abject hatred is worship.
And anything less than total worship is abject hatred.

joelobryan

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.

Latitude

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

drednicolson

Relevance troll is irrelevant.

Spalding Craft

You’re a bore, and that’s worse.

MarkW

Yet he still manages to get under your skin.

Michael 2

“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.

Spalding Craft

And the fourth nearly identical response.

MarkW

And the third nearly identical response to his response.

MarkW

Reporting on politicization is an act of politicization.

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

joelobryan

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.

Theo

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.

Bulldust

So what you’re saying is she’ll fit right in at the NYT.

Jeff Alberts

I thought Scots invented everything.

MarkW

I thought the Russians did?

Spalding Craft

Oh cool. Now we have an anti-Korean rant.

You can’t make this stuff up.

MarkW

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.

Theo

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.

paul courtney

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.

Tom Abbott

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.

Spalding Craft

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

simple-touriste

What about her emails? They lost elections, too?

MarkW

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

TeaPartyGeezer

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.

MarkW

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.

TeaPartyGeezer

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.

yarpos

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.

noaaprogrammer

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.

Jeff Alberts

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

simple-touriste

The Republicans should be able to sabotage themselves. They never needed any help.

Tom Abbott

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. 🙂

Tom Abbott

Yeah, you’re wrong about that one.

michael hart

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.

It isn’t just the NYT who has noticed Trump’s habit. Here is Neil Cavuto on Fox:

Spalding Craft

Nick I thought you of all people could stay out of this.

MarkW

He’s like the UnderMiner. There’s nothing beneath him.

paul courtney

Spalding: Why would you think that? Did your “handlers” tell you that only you were on this string?

Frederick Michael

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.

QED

” you won’t find it on the NYT website. They disappeared it.”

I can. It’s here.

Curious George

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

OK, the original is in their archive here. They didn’t disappear it; they featured it in their 40th anniversary collection.

Frederick Michael

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.

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” ?

Theo

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.

He said, specifically, just before the victory. Manafort was long gone from Trump Tower by then.

Theo

No, he wasn’t.

Chris

“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!”

Tom Abbott

““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.

simple-touriste

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.

Spalding Craft

“… 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.

simple-touriste

Dems are crooks are in bed with anyone who wants. They should be tapped?

Simon

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…….

Chris

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.

simple-touriste

Dems obstructed, as usual

Chris

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.

simple-touriste

By a “so called judge”?

Spalding Craft

10 years? It’s laughable now.

MarkW

Funny how leftists are only concerned about voter fraud when they aren’t benefiting from it.

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?

John Endicott

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”.

Michael 2

I do not consider Snopes reliable when it comes to political questions.

Andy cited Snopes as support for his claim.