If I never had occasion to write another ethics post about Donald Trump again, I would be thrilled. Unfortunately, he won’t shut up or disappear, and the Axis of Unethical Conduct (the “resistance,” the Democratic Party and the increasingly outrageous news media), recently joined by the justice system, won’t stop their misconduct.
Today the New York Times again disgraced themselves and their now shattered reputation for accuracy and fairness beyond what even I have come to expect. Signaling that Trump cannot expect anything approaching objective coverage and analysis of his various trials, the Times today offers a “fact check” headlined, “Fact-Checking the Breadth of Trump’s Election Lies: The former president faces multiple charges related to his lies about the 2020 election. Here’s a look at some of his most repeated falsehoods.”
I decided to factcheck the fact check, suspecting what I would find but in the end stunned by how openly the Times failed to deliver on what it promised. It’s astoundingly deceitful, and aimed at readers who just want to see Trump punished because they hate his guts. I won’t fisk the whole thing, but here’s more than enough to show you what the Times has become:
- “…In public, he made more than 800 inaccurate claims about the election from the time the polls began closing on Nov. 3, 2020, to the end of his presidency, according to a database compiled by The Washington Post.”
Wait a minute: the headline says these were all lies, not “inaccurate claims.” This game has been going on during the entire 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck. So the justice system is now criminalizing “inaccurate claims”? Shouldn’t the Times be covering that? Meanwhile, the Times using the absurd WaPo “Trump lies” database as authority tell you all you need to know, or should. I’ve actually slogged through the thing; I wrote about it. The vast majority of the “lies” listed aren’t lies, but here the Times uses the same unethical definition as the Post: exaggerations, hyperbole, generalities, mistakes, puffery, misstatements, unfounded and uninformed opinions, and anything the Left disagrees with are “lies.”
-
“What Mr. Trump Said: “Last night I was leading, often solidly, in many key States, in almost all instances Democrat run & controlled. Then, one by one, they started to magically disappear as surprise ballot dumps were counted. VERY STRANGE, and the ‘pollsters’ got it completely & historically wrong!”
— On Twitter on Nov. 4False. Dozens of times before and after the 2020 election, Mr. Trump described the legitimate vote-counting process as suspicious. For months, officials across the country had warned that tallying ballots may take days or even weeks to complete, given the prevalence of absentee voting that year. Studies and experts predicted that on election night, Mr. Trump could lead in key states, but that lead could slowly erode as officials continued to count mail-in ballots. That’s precisely what happened. Mr. Trump’s early leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia narrowed and then reversed. But the same thing also happened to Joseph R. Biden Jr., who initially led early vote tallies in North Carolina and Ohio only to eventually lose the final count. And in Florida, the candidate in the lead changed four times as more ballots were counted and before Mr. Trump ultimately prevailed.”
Where’s the lie? “Magically”? “Strange”? The fact that it was predicted that Trump would be leading in early returns doesn’t make his assertion that he saw late flips on the leaderboard in Democratic states on election night a lie.
-
What Mr. Trump Said: “It’s amazing how those mail-in ballots are so one-sided, too. I know that it’s supposed to be to the advantage of the Democrats, but in all cases, they’re so one-sided.”
— Nov. 5 news conference.
This lacks evidence. Many studies have found little evidence that mail-in ballots help one party over another. Of the nine states where more than half of voters cast their ballots by mail in the 2016 presidential election, Mr. Trump won four. Several Republican states like Iowa, Missouri and Alabama expanded mail-in ballots in the 2020 election.”
It’s a lie because it lacks evidence? Theories are lies, in the Times’ style book? Beliefs are lies? Opinions are lies? When Donald Trump is the speaker and the Times is the referee, I guess so.
I’ll stop with my favorite; read the rest if your head is less explosive than mine…
-
“What Mr. Trump Said
“We used to have what was called Election Day. Now we have election days, weeks and months, and lots of bad things happened during this ridiculous period of time.”
— In a Dec. 2 speech at the White HouseFalse. The 2020 election was certainly not the first presidential election where results were not immediately ascertained. The first federal elections were held in 1788, but there was no single day until Congress passed a law in 1845 that set aside the Tuesday after the first Monday of November for elections. Slow vote counting and limits in communication then meant that days, weeks or even months passed before voters learned who had won in several elections in the 19th century. In the modern day, close elections dragged out to the next morning in 1960 and 1976. And famously, it took more than a month for the 2000 election to be resolved, when the Supreme Court ended a recount in Florida that December and effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush.”
A nice and nasty little bonus there: the Times takes an unwarranted opportunity to repeat a thoroughly debunked but beloved lie of the Left, that the Supreme Court “effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush” by ending a chaotic recount that was fatally flawed from the start. A subsequent reporter-run hand count of the ballots showed that by most standards Bush would have won, meaning that nothing was “handed to him.” But I digress: Trump didn’t say that we never had vote counts extend beyond Election Day. He was clearly criticizing early voting and voting by mail. His statement isn’t false, it’s true.
And this is the newspaper that still claims to be the gold standard of American journalism. That’s the biggest lie of all. Not only is “evidence lacking,” articles like this one prove exactly the opposite.
Ethics Alarms 
Sometimes we make the mistake of forgetting what a trenchant and accurate term Trump Derangement Syndrome is. It appears to be terminal. And its victims are completely oblivious to its symptoms.
And it’s endemic.
Jack, did it occur to you that making these statements could be crimes?
Probably not. And if it was, I’m not sure it matters.
I’ve seen arguments that I think are relatively solid that Trump will have a first amendment defense that has a good chance of prevailing before even arguing the merits of the case itself. The window on what constitutes “illegal statements” is narrower than I think coffin-nailers think it is.
But… Do we actually want this to be the new standard?
And it’s absolutely a new standard, despite all the “muh norms”ing from Democrats over the Trump years, they seem ready, willing and able to trample norms in their crusade to punish him for the high crime of stealing the election from Her Royal Highness, Queen of New York and California, Hillary Clinton. Democrats don’t think like this… But Democrats like Stacy Abrams and Hillary Clinton probably did worse in their election denialist claims. The riots were smaller, but Hillary supporters did riot Jan 20, 2017.
In wonder if there is a plausible RICO case against Hillary Clinton.
I’m not convinced there’s a good legal argument on the Trump case, I’d be even less inclined for Clinton.
But let’s say there was. Is that really where we want to go?
Because what this looks like to me is that these prosecutors are hoping to interrupt the election cycle, but they’re really praying for the right jury. You get enough of these cases and it’ll make his ability to run next to impossible. Trump is already talking about using campaign contributions for his legal defenses. But you get the right jury in place, the right set of people that just think that he needs to go to jail because he did *something*, maybe not what he’s being charged with, but *something*, and maybe he does get a conviction. Maybe he does go to jail.
I don’t think that goes well.
This is not where we want to go.
But if we are dragged across the line, we must play as the rules are, not as we wish the rules were.
By the way, do you remember the indictment against Rick Perry?
The issue of news journalists being able to continue writing or saying inaccurate information is the simple reason they are not held accountable, nor are the entity that hires them held liable.
If individuals continue to believe what anyone writes as fact without thoroughly fact-checking all available avenues to them, in that case, the country will keep going in whatever is the most popular direction, rather a good direction or a wrong direction.
Most people do not even care to fact-check or lack the skill sets to know how to fact-check independently, and they feel they must be told what to do.
Sad to say, there is so much hate being driven purposely towards Trump that many have forgotten the importance of truth, and truth is what enables a society to grow instead of stagnate.
I am not sure who wrote the quote, ” You can’t change politically what exists culturally,” but I think this quote is valid.
If I murdered a meteorologist because of a belief in a conspiracy I preached online about Jews controlling the weather, then I’d be facing”multiple charges related to my lies.” It wouldn’t mean my lies had been criminalized, but it would be newsworthy to look at my statements–more so if I were already a public figure. Jews don’t control the weather, so the conspiracy would be a lie, and my statements would be in service of that lie, even if some of them (“Lots of Jewish people live in New York and it rains a lot there”) weren’t dishonest per se.
Trump’s guilt or lack thereof will be established in a court of law, likely using at least some evidence we haven’t seen yet. To me, some of the charges seem like clear violations, if not provable crimes (the fake electors), some seem like legal lapses we’ve tolerated in plenty of others (the documents), others seem completely gratuitous. But the legal issues are separate from Trump’s very clear ethical lapse in regards to the 2020 election. He preached a conspiracy that the election was stolen. He kept doing it and keeps doing it, despite either knowing it is a lie, or being so delusional that he has no idea. This is newsworthy, to put it mildly, and isolating examples of things he said in service of that lie, which are not lies when decontextualized, does not alter this.
Agreed Gully.
I think Jack is nitpicking minor details and missing the forest for the trees.
For instance Trump’s claim here:
Last night I was leading, often solidly, in many key States, in almost all instances Democrat run & controlled.
“In almost all instances Democrat run and controlled”
That’s inaccurate.
THAT’s your example of a lie? He was talking about Wisconsin, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania—all Democratical run and controlled. And Trump was leading in those states until very late. That’s not a lie. Not even close.
Georgia is Democrat-controlled?
When did Trump have a huge lead in Wisconsin? Biden was always predicted to win Wisconsin.
So you’re just shooting off opinions without having a clue about what you’re talking about?
Wisconsin was one of the states that had a huge reversal in the early morning hours; the fact that Trump was ahead is what caused a lot of MAGA fans to think their guy had won. Sure, pollsters had it going to Trump—that’s irrelevant to what Trump said. Trumps’ “Democratic controlled” line was in reference to Fulton County, which decided the state.
Hold on a second…
We’re talking about counties now? Trump is talking about what party controls the government in those states.
Is Georgia controlled by a Democrat or Republican government?
I’ve warned you about that style of discourse. Don’t make me do it again. Big city counties control the purple states, and Fulton is where Trump believes the votes were rigged. HE’S talking about counties. I’m talking about political discourse being criminalized as “lies” when they are not.
He’s not talking about counties, he’s talking about the government of those States.
He said “ Democrat run & controlled”
Yes, because Fulton County, which handled the votes that decided the state, is indeed Democrat run. That’s what he was referring to, and he was correct. Even if his meaning was ambiguous, it’s not a “lie.”
End of discussion.
When will Hillary be prosecuted for telling people to resist?
How about prosecuting her for the whole Steele dossier thing?
And how about a RICO prosecution?
Go ahead, tell me the “context” that makes “We used to have what was called Election Day. Now we have election days, weeks and months, and lots of bad things happened during this ridiculous period of time” a lie. You’re just defaulting to “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.” Those statements would NOT be called lies in court, or anywhere other than a biased forum.
You are basically claiming that advocacy is a lie. Opinions, statements of facts and arguments are not lies or part of a conspiracy to defraud because they are employed to convince someone of something that may not be true, or that someone in power doesn’t believe in or fears might convince the public.
“If I murdered a meteorologist because of a belief in a conspiracy I preached online about Jews controlling the weather, then I’d be facing”multiple charges related to my lies.” Fact: no, you wouldn’t. You would be facing charges for murder. Defamation isn’t a crime. There are too many lawyers here to try to get away with garbage like that.
Yes, and my hypothetical charge of murder would be related to my lies. And if some of my statements on the matter of the weather were in fact technically true, they wouldn’t be lies, as I said, but they would still be in the service of a lie, and they would still be newsworthy.
“What color is the sky in your world?” That is complete nonsense. Factual statements, opinions, etc. in “support of lies” is neither a recognized crime nor unprotected speech, nor are they lies. It’s a nice theory on Bizarro World, but in reality, it’s anti-ethical garbage, and an excuse to chill speech.
Factual statements in support of lies is not being labeled a crime nor as unprotected speech by the New York Times. It’s labeled as newsworthy, in the context of Trump’s actions and subsequent criminal charges. And it is.
Look at the headline again, and they ARE being labeled as lies. You’ve settled on a ridiculously meaningless standard to argue about. I didn’t discuss newsworthiness in the post at all—you brought it into the discussion, and it adds nothing.
The headline is entirely accurate. Trump is facing multiple charges related to his lies. This doesn’t mean everything he said has been a lie, or that his lies are criminal acts, as in my hypothetical about murdering someone because of an untrue conspiracy theory. You seem to think that the headline should have been something like “The former president faces multiple charges related to his lies about the 2020 election. Here’s a look at some of his most repeated falsehoods; please note that he also said some things that, while not untrue, are included for newsworthy context, to clarify the ways in which he spread those lies.” Which seems a little wordy.
THAT’s a lie: a deliberate misrepresentation designed to deceive: The headline is, as I stated “Fact-Checking the Breadth of Trump’s Election Lies” The article specifies statements that are NOT Lies, sometimes even by the Times’s own description. The article states that it will be fact-chacking lies, and by clear implication, only lies. You cannot say the headline is “entirely accurate.”
Don’t play those games here. And I don’t understand why you would want to.
Two words: paid troll.
So what?
It was justified payback for the swhole “Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election” propaganda campaign.
“Of the nine states where more than half of voters cast their ballots by mail in the 2016 presidential election, Mr. Trump won four.
This rebuttal doesn’t even debunk the claim anyway about whether or not mail-in ballots skew overwhelmingly democrat. The most this rebuttal can do is show that a mail in ballot dump didn’t skew enough democrat to overwhelm other votes in deep red states.
Benjamin Franklin’s reported response in 1787 at the end of the Constitutional Convention, that the US would be a “Republic” … “if you can keep it” sounds remarkably apposite.
Google (thanks) notes that “He knew the American republic would have to survive by and through the people and not the government itself, because even a republican form of government could become tyrannical. As a studied man, he also knew the history of republican forms of government. They don’t last long”.
The NYT is like a government in that it can not .. existentially speaking .. admit it is or was ever wrong. It is like the democratic party in that it doubles down on legal non-sequitors and obviously defensive ridiculosities when made aware of them, counting on stale, rotting, far past the “sell by” date claims like “gold standard” to see it through it’s serial ethical collapses. The NYT in contemplating the gold in its belly button might ought harken to ol’ wizard Ben Franklin’s grim caveat of an answer when asked what exactly they had at the 1787 convention, a republic or a monarchy: a Republic of course. “.. if you can keep it.” Kept .. or what people BELIEVE is kept.