Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
May: Two lies in one
Trump has been lying about Veterans Choice since 2018, falsely claiming he was the one who got it passed. His rendition on May 30, along with a similar claim in March, might have been the most egregious.
"I disagree with John McCain on the way he handled the vets, because I said you got to get Choice. He was never able to get Choice. I got Choice," Trump told reporters.
This was a double lie. In addition to taking his usual unearned credit for a program that President Barack Obama signed into law in 2014, Trump used his non-accomplishment as a cudgel against a deceased foe whose accomplishment it really was. McCain, in fact, was a key author of the Choice bill.
What Trump signed in 2018 was the VA MISSION Act, a law that expanded and modified the Choice program. The full name of the VA MISSION Act honors McCain: it is the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM
Saturday, January 18, 2020
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
April: "Windmills" and cancer
Trump, who has tilted at windmills for more than a decade, made perhaps his strangest claim on the subject at a National Republican Congressional Committee fundraiser on April 2.
"Wind. If you -- if you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75% in value. And they say the noise causes cancer," he said.
There might indeed be a "they" Trump has heard saying that wind turbines -- which he habitually calls "windmills" -- cause cancer. That should not mean the President should pass on their false claim to the country. But Trump is not only a serial liar but a serial sharer of inaccurate information he has heard from a motley collection of dubious sources -- "many people," "some people," "they" -- and not bothered to verify.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM
April: "Windmills" and cancer
Trump, who has tilted at windmills for more than a decade, made perhaps his strangest claim on the subject at a National Republican Congressional Committee fundraiser on April 2.
"Wind. If you -- if you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75% in value. And they say the noise causes cancer," he said.
There might indeed be a "they" Trump has heard saying that wind turbines -- which he habitually calls "windmills" -- cause cancer. That should not mean the President should pass on their false claim to the country. But Trump is not only a serial liar but a serial sharer of inaccurate information he has heard from a motley collection of dubious sources -- "many people," "some people," "they" -- and not bothered to verify.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
March: Revisionist history on "Russia, if you're listening"
Nearly three years after Trump made his infamous "Russia, if you're listening" campaign request for help obtaining deleted Hillary Clinton emails, he announced a new explanation.
He had been just kidding. The media had failed to report that he had been just kidding.
"Because with the fake news -- if you tell a joke, if you're sarcastic, if you're having fun with the audience, if you're on live television with millions of people and 25,000 people in an arena, and if you say something like, 'Russia, please, if you can, get us Hillary Clinton's emails. Please, Russia, please. Please get us the emails. Please!'... So everybody is having a good time. I'm laughing, we're all having fun. And then that fake CNN and others say, 'He asked Russia to go get the emails. Horrible.' ...These people are sick," he told the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 2.
No, Trump didn't make the request before 25,000 people at a rollicking arena event. No, he wasn't laughing at the time.
Trump made his plea at a 2016 press conference, with a straight face. He offered no indication that he was anything less than serious.
This was up-is-down fake history, one of Trump's periodic efforts to rewrite a reality we were all able to witness.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM
March: Revisionist history on "Russia, if you're listening"
Nearly three years after Trump made his infamous "Russia, if you're listening" campaign request for help obtaining deleted Hillary Clinton emails, he announced a new explanation.
He had been just kidding. The media had failed to report that he had been just kidding.
"Because with the fake news -- if you tell a joke, if you're sarcastic, if you're having fun with the audience, if you're on live television with millions of people and 25,000 people in an arena, and if you say something like, 'Russia, please, if you can, get us Hillary Clinton's emails. Please, Russia, please. Please get us the emails. Please!'... So everybody is having a good time. I'm laughing, we're all having fun. And then that fake CNN and others say, 'He asked Russia to go get the emails. Horrible.' ...These people are sick," he told the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 2.
No, Trump didn't make the request before 25,000 people at a rollicking arena event. No, he wasn't laughing at the time.
Trump made his plea at a 2016 press conference, with a straight face. He offered no indication that he was anything less than serious.
This was up-is-down fake history, one of Trump's periodic efforts to rewrite a reality we were all able to witness.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
February: Imaginary voter fraud
Trump has depicted himself as a crusader against election fraud. What happened in February was telling.
On February 21, North Carolina's elections board ordered a new congressional election in the state's ninth district because of an actual case of apparent election fraud -- allegedly perpetrated by a Republican operative who was indicted the following week. On February 22, Trump was asked for his thoughts and he quickly pivoted to imaginary election fraud in another state.
"Well, I condemn any election fraud," he said. "And when I look at what's happened in California with the votes, when I look at what happened -- as you know, there was just a case where they found a million fraudulent votes..."
Trump's lying is rarely challenged in real time. This time, a reporter did try to object to the fiction about California. Trump responded with a favorite tactic: an aggressive "Excuse me, excuse me" interjection, then more dishonesty.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:01 AM
February: Imaginary voter fraud
Trump has depicted himself as a crusader against election fraud. What happened in February was telling.
On February 21, North Carolina's elections board ordered a new congressional election in the state's ninth district because of an actual case of apparent election fraud -- allegedly perpetrated by a Republican operative who was indicted the following week. On February 22, Trump was asked for his thoughts and he quickly pivoted to imaginary election fraud in another state.
"Well, I condemn any election fraud," he said. "And when I look at what's happened in California with the votes, when I look at what happened -- as you know, there was just a case where they found a million fraudulent votes..."
Trump's lying is rarely challenged in real time. This time, a reporter did try to object to the fiction about California. Trump responded with a favorite tactic: an aggressive "Excuse me, excuse me" interjection, then more dishonesty.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:01 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
January: Duct tape and the border
Trump has long seemed to relish reciting lurid stories about the horrors of illegal immigration. During a barrage of immigration-related false claims in January, as he sought public support for the government shutdown over funding for his border wall, he came up with a vivid new tale about the logistics of human trafficking.
"And they'll have women taped -- their mouths with duct tape, with electrical tape. They tape their face, their hair, their hands behind their back, their legs. They put them in the backseat of cars and vans, and they go -- they don't come in through your port of entry because you'd see them. You couldn't do that," he said during a January 14 speech to the American Farm Bureau Federation. "They come in through our border, where we don't have any barriers or walls."
While it's possible some women are being made to suffer such kidnapping horrors, the policy premise of Trump's "duct tape" novellas -- that trafficking victims are never transported through legal ports of entry, only through the unprotected desert -- is not at all true.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:01 AM
January: Duct tape and the border
Trump has long seemed to relish reciting lurid stories about the horrors of illegal immigration. During a barrage of immigration-related false claims in January, as he sought public support for the government shutdown over funding for his border wall, he came up with a vivid new tale about the logistics of human trafficking.
"And they'll have women taped -- their mouths with duct tape, with electrical tape. They tape their face, their hair, their hands behind their back, their legs. They put them in the backseat of cars and vans, and they go -- they don't come in through your port of entry because you'd see them. You couldn't do that," he said during a January 14 speech to the American Farm Bureau Federation. "They come in through our border, where we don't have any barriers or walls."
While it's possible some women are being made to suffer such kidnapping horrors, the policy premise of Trump's "duct tape" novellas -- that trafficking victims are never transported through legal ports of entry, only through the unprotected desert -- is not at all true.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:01 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Erin Burnett: Trump has a pattern of lying about w...":
A month-by-month look at Donald Trump's top lies of 2019
defining feature of the Donald Trump presidency is the bombardment of lies -- Trump's unceasing campaign to convince people of things that aren't true.
Trump made more than 2,700 false claims this year. (We're still calculating the final total.) Some of them were innocent slips, some of them little exaggerations. But a large number of them were whoppers: deliberate, significant attempts to deceive and manipulate.
The breadth of the dishonesty was as striking as the frequency. Trump was inaccurate this year about every conceivable topic, from his dealings with Ukraine to the size of his crowds to, literally, the time of day.
He told too many lies for us to confidently pick a single most notable lie of the year. So we've picked our 12 most notable, one for every month. (We're defining notable as some combination of egregious, important and bizarre.)
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:00 AM
A month-by-month look at Donald Trump's top lies of 2019
defining feature of the Donald Trump presidency is the bombardment of lies -- Trump's unceasing campaign to convince people of things that aren't true.
Trump made more than 2,700 false claims this year. (We're still calculating the final total.) Some of them were innocent slips, some of them little exaggerations. But a large number of them were whoppers: deliberate, significant attempts to deceive and manipulate.
The breadth of the dishonesty was as striking as the frequency. Trump was inaccurate this year about every conceivable topic, from his dealings with Ukraine to the size of his crowds to, literally, the time of day.
He told too many lies for us to confidently pick a single most notable lie of the year. So we've picked our 12 most notable, one for every month. (We're defining notable as some combination of egregious, important and bizarre.)
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 7:00 AM
[Erin Burnett] New comment on Sen.Martha McSally saying that reporters like Raju....
Erin Burnett has left a new comment on your post "Sen.Martha McSally saying that reporters like Raju...":
McSally Slams CNN, but Gets Pressed on Fox News
McSally made some impeachment news of her own Thursday when she rejected a question from CNN reporter Manu Raju and called him a "liberal hack." The conservative Arizona senator even tweeted a video of their exchange, in which Raju attempted to ask her in a hallway whether the Senate should consider new evidence in the impeachment trial. The encounter has led to lots of reaction:
Doubling down: Wolf Blitzer of CNN said McSally owed Raju an apology for her "awful" behavior, reports Fox News. But McSally rejected that in an appearance on the Ingraham Angle on Fox. "You know, these CNN reporters, many of them around the capital, they are so biased," she said, per Mediaite. "They are so in cahoots with the Democrats, they so can't stand the president, and they run around trying to chase Republicans and asked trapping questions. I'm a fighter pilot. I called it like it is."
Not answering: Host Laura Ingraham was sympathetic to that point, but she pressed McSally to answer Raju's question. "You can call me a conservative hack, but do you want witnesses, yes or no?" Ingraham asked. She posed the question multiple times ("Pretty easy question, don't you think, senator?") but McSally would not answer directly. "We are going to get to that," she said. "I'm not going to tell everybody what all my votes are gonna be." Eventually, McSally said that if Democrats were allowed to call witnesses, then Trump's legal team should get to call some of their own, per Business Insider.
From the left: At the Washington Post, Greg Sargent is incredulous at the initial exchange. "Note that it is now seen as 'liberal' to merely ask a Republican senator whether she feels any obligation to consider the full set of facts before exercising her constitutional duty to vote on whether articles of impeachment—passed by the elected representatives in the other chamber of Congress—merit removal," he writes.
From the right: The exchange "reflects three years of mounting frustration with an overtly partisan media, exemplified by CNN, which has dropped any pretense of fairness and become an organ of the Democratic Party," writes David Harsanyi at the New York Post. He complains that "virtually all questions posed by political reporters these days are framed to support the narratives and assumptions of one political party, the Democrats."
Calculated? In a piece headlined "The McSally Maneuver" at the Bulwark, a critical Tim Miller writes that McSally's impeachment options are limited. Sure, she could buck her party and vote to hear new witnesses, he writes. "Alternately, she can refuse to engage this impeachment on the merits, reject all additional information that could embarrass Trump, (and) flip the bird to the 'fake news media.'" He points out that her Senate seat is vulnerable, and Republicans already are fundraising for her off this incident. "So which door did you think she was going to pick?"
Please, CNN: Brad Slager at the conservative RedState mocks CNN's "full meltdown" over the matter. "It is becoming increasingly obvious that the very worst thing that can possibly happen to a contemporary journalist—at least those working for the cable networks—is that someone dares insult their ego." He poses a question of his own to the network: "Is it considered unbecoming by you that Manu Raju's question was essentially a direct talking point of the Democrats this week?"
The race: In November, McSally is facing Democrat Mark Kelly, a former astronaut who is the husband of former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. He currently has a slim lead in the polls, per Real Clear Politics.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 3:12 AM
McSally Slams CNN, but Gets Pressed on Fox News
McSally made some impeachment news of her own Thursday when she rejected a question from CNN reporter Manu Raju and called him a "liberal hack." The conservative Arizona senator even tweeted a video of their exchange, in which Raju attempted to ask her in a hallway whether the Senate should consider new evidence in the impeachment trial. The encounter has led to lots of reaction:
Doubling down: Wolf Blitzer of CNN said McSally owed Raju an apology for her "awful" behavior, reports Fox News. But McSally rejected that in an appearance on the Ingraham Angle on Fox. "You know, these CNN reporters, many of them around the capital, they are so biased," she said, per Mediaite. "They are so in cahoots with the Democrats, they so can't stand the president, and they run around trying to chase Republicans and asked trapping questions. I'm a fighter pilot. I called it like it is."
Not answering: Host Laura Ingraham was sympathetic to that point, but she pressed McSally to answer Raju's question. "You can call me a conservative hack, but do you want witnesses, yes or no?" Ingraham asked. She posed the question multiple times ("Pretty easy question, don't you think, senator?") but McSally would not answer directly. "We are going to get to that," she said. "I'm not going to tell everybody what all my votes are gonna be." Eventually, McSally said that if Democrats were allowed to call witnesses, then Trump's legal team should get to call some of their own, per Business Insider.
From the left: At the Washington Post, Greg Sargent is incredulous at the initial exchange. "Note that it is now seen as 'liberal' to merely ask a Republican senator whether she feels any obligation to consider the full set of facts before exercising her constitutional duty to vote on whether articles of impeachment—passed by the elected representatives in the other chamber of Congress—merit removal," he writes.
From the right: The exchange "reflects three years of mounting frustration with an overtly partisan media, exemplified by CNN, which has dropped any pretense of fairness and become an organ of the Democratic Party," writes David Harsanyi at the New York Post. He complains that "virtually all questions posed by political reporters these days are framed to support the narratives and assumptions of one political party, the Democrats."
Calculated? In a piece headlined "The McSally Maneuver" at the Bulwark, a critical Tim Miller writes that McSally's impeachment options are limited. Sure, she could buck her party and vote to hear new witnesses, he writes. "Alternately, she can refuse to engage this impeachment on the merits, reject all additional information that could embarrass Trump, (and) flip the bird to the 'fake news media.'" He points out that her Senate seat is vulnerable, and Republicans already are fundraising for her off this incident. "So which door did you think she was going to pick?"
Please, CNN: Brad Slager at the conservative RedState mocks CNN's "full meltdown" over the matter. "It is becoming increasingly obvious that the very worst thing that can possibly happen to a contemporary journalist—at least those working for the cable networks—is that someone dares insult their ego." He poses a question of his own to the network: "Is it considered unbecoming by you that Manu Raju's question was essentially a direct talking point of the Democrats this week?"
The race: In November, McSally is facing Democrat Mark Kelly, a former astronaut who is the husband of former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. He currently has a slim lead in the polls, per Real Clear Politics.
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Erin Burnett to Erin Burnett at January 18, 2020 at 3:12 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)