Monday, October 10, 2016

Second Debate: Trump once again relied on many dubious and false claims that have been repeatedly refuted

It is important to note that some of the commentators to this blog have repeatedly used the same inaccurate allegations that Trump has - often repeating it word for word




In the second presidential debate, Donald Trump once again relied on many dubious and false claims that have been repeatedly been debunked. His Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, on occasion made a factual misstep, but it didn’t even compare to Trump’s long list of exaggerations.
“One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off, and she’s seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped.”
— Donald Trump

Trump mixes up a story about a long-ago criminal case. Clinton did not laugh at a rape victim.

In 1975, Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was a 27-year-old law professor running a legal aid clinic in the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. After a 41-year-old factory worker was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, he asked the judge to replace his male court-appointed attorney with a female one. The judge went through the list of a half-dozen women practicing law in the county and picked Clinton.

In her autobiography, “Living History,” Clinton wrote, “I told [prosecutor] Mahlon [Gibson] I really don’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.” Gibson has confirmed that account in interviews with Newsday and CNN, saying Clinton told him: “I don’t want to represent this guy. I just can’t stand this. I don’t want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

Ultimately, the prosecution’s case fell apart for a number of reasons, including investigators mishandling evidence of bloody underwear, so in a plea agreement the charges were reduced from first-degree rape to unlawful fondling of a minor under the age of 14. Not until 2008 did the victim, Kathy Shelton, realize that Clinton had been the lawyer on the other side. She has since attacked Clinton for putting “me through hell” and she appeared at a news event with Trump before the debate.

The rape case re-emerged when Washington Free Beacon in 2014 discovered unpublished audio recordings from the mid-1980s of Clinton being interviewed by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed for an article that was never published.

In the recorded interview, Clinton is heard laughing or giggling four times when discussing the case with unusual candor; the reporter is also heard laughing, and sometimes Clinton is responding to him.

Here are the four instances:

“Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” (Both Clinton and the reporter laugh.)

“So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didn’t want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings [the judge] and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence before it was presented. (Clinton laughs lightly between “evidence” and “before.”)
“I handed it [a biography of her expert witness] to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, ‘Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.’” (Clinton laughs, as does the reporter.)

“So [Judge] Maupin had to, you know, under law he was supposed to determine whether the plea was factually supported. Maupin asked me to leave the room while he examined my client so that he could find out if it was factually supported. I said ‘Judge I can’t leave the room I’m his lawyer!’ he said ‘I know but I don’t want to talk about this in front of you.’” (Reporter says, “Oh God, really?” And they both laugh.) [...]

“Hillary Clinton attacked those same women, attacked them viciously.”
— Donald Trump

Trump has used this line of attack throughout the campaign, sometimes saying Hillary Clinton was an “enabler” of her husband’s affairs, saying she would “go after these women and destroy their lives.”

One of the interviews that Clinton’s critics have pointed to is a Jan. 27, 1998 interview on the Today Show, saying it showed Clinton was discrediting allegations by then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky. This interview took place a week after her husband was accused of having an affair with Lewinsky, and Clinton blamed Republican foes for making false attacks against her husband.

Specifically, critics have pointed to this quote by Clinton:

“I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this, they have popped up in other settings,” Clinton told Matt Lauer. “This is the great story here, for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

This interview, by many accounts, was certainly pivotal to saving Bill Clinton’s presidency, as his wife forcefully backed him. But by Hillary Clinton’s account at the time her husband had not yet admitted the Lewinsky affair to her. That did not happen until Aug. 15, 1998, according to her memoir.

Moreover, at the time of the interview, Lewinsky also denied there had been a relationship. Her lawyer had submitted an affidavit on Jan. 12 from her saying she “never had a sexual relationship with the president.” Lewinsky did not begin to testify before the independent prosecutor about the full extent of the relationship until July 27, six months after the Today Show interview. Lewinsky testified for 15 days, after which the president finally confessed to his wife.

See our in-depth fact-checks on this here and here.

“Bill Clinton was abusive to those women.”
— Trump

While Trump has ramped up the attacks on the Clintons and the sex allegations against Bill Clinton, the record shows that Trump dismissed or minimized these very allegations for many years. Trump dismissed the women involved as losers and not attractive. Trump even suggested that Americans would have been more forgiving if Clinton had slept with more beautiful women.

Here are some examples (see more here):

In 1998, Trump attacked Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton, alleging sexual harassment: “Paula Jones is a loser, but the fact is that she may be responsible for bringing down a president indirectly.”

In 1999, Trump faulted Bill Clinton for the way he handled the Lewinsky scandal, and complained about his choice in women: “He handled the Monica situation disgracefully. It’s sad because he would go down as a great President if he had not had this scandal. People would have been more forgiving if he’d had an affair with a really beautiful woman of sophistication. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe were on a different level. Now Clinton can’t get into golf clubs in Westchester. A former President begging to get in a golf club. It’s unthinkable.”

During a 2001 interview, Trump again expressed sympathy for Bill Clinton, arguing that the former president’s biggest mistake was answering questions about his sex life. Trump said he likes Clinton, and finds it all too easy to understand why the then president found it hard to answer the question: “Did you f… Monica?” “What he should have done is fought for years not to answer it,” Trump said in the interview. “I mean, isn’t it amazing and terrible that a guy — a president — is put in that position? He could have gone down as truly great and, instead, you know, he’ll be viewed somewhat differently, which is really a shame.” [...]

“In San Bernardino, many people saw the bombs all over the apartment.”
— Trump

There is no evidence this was the case in the 2015 terrorist attack that killed 14 people. There have been unconfirmed second- or third-hand reports — a friend of a friend of a neighbor — that a neighbor claimed to have noticed suspicious activity but did not report anything for fear of doing racial profiling. The religion of this supposed neighbor is unknown, but presumably a fear of racial profiling would suggest the neighbor was not Muslim.

“You [Clinton] get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena, you delete 33,000 e-mails, and then you acid wash them or bleach them, as you would say, very expensive process.”
— Trump

Trump is technically correct on the timeline, but Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”

PolitiFact compiled a helpful timeline of events relating to Clinton’s release of her emails, based on the FBI report. From their timeline:

On July 23, 2014, the State Department agreed to produce records pertaining to the 2012 attack in Libya, for the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigation. In December 2014, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills told an employee of the company that managed her server to delete emails on her server unrelated to government work that were older than 60 days.

On March 4, 2015, the Benghazi Committee issued a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over her emails relating to Libya. Three weeks later, between March 25 and March 31, the employee had an “oh s—” moment and realized he did not delete the emails that Mills requested in December 2014, he told the FBI. The employee then deleted the emails and used a program called BleachBit to delete the files. [...]

36 comments :

  1. It's your blog, but why are you trying to persuade us regarding DJT or Hillary Clinton? You are just as capable of having cognitive bias with this as anyone else.

    Although it is interesting how devotees of either terrible candidate could be compared to defenders of RSK's position on "the divorce".

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am not trying to persuade you about either - I agree both are terrible candidates. But I am bothered by the elasticity of what people claim is the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is worthwhile to check out this list of newspaper endorsements for this election. Specifically, note the amount of papers that endorsed Romney in 2012 who are not endorsing Trump this year (all of them) and how many of them are endorsing Clinton (the vast majority). Note that several publications who have endorsed Republicans in literally, or almost literally, every election for over 100 years are endorsing Clinton (Dallas, Cincinnati, Arizona, The Atlantic); and how publications who have never endorsed any candidate are either endorsing Clinton (Foreign Policy) or endorsing "Not Trump" (USA Today). Read those editorials. This is not an election of two candidates in the traditional sense of the term. There is one run-of-the-mill politician, with some strengths and some weaknesses, the degree of both of which can be debated, and someone else who has literally no relevant experience, no knowledge of world issues or domestic policy, is petty, vindictive, and easily provoked, has no sense of the limits of presidential power, etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't pay attention to anything the WP says regarding this election. They have abandoned even the pretense of impartiality.

    ReplyDelete
  5. why are you holding them to a higher standard than Trump?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The comparison makes no sense. Trump is not expected to be impartial in his own election. Journalists are expected to at least make a stab at it, or failing that, to pretend.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In your zeal for the so called truth you are supporting the woman that would strongly enforce the weakening of the the US military and would enforce the draft of women into the armed forces. Too bad you are working against your brother.

    You are ignoring the fact that Kaine is closely allied with Hamas and has been virulently anti Israel. Hillary pushed the Iran deal that guarantees Iran the bomb in short order while paying ransom to Iran and lowering American prestige world wide.

    The FBI is almost in open revolt against crooked Comey who got 6 million from the Clinton Foundation and totally corrupted the obvious violation of email security on a massive scale that Hillary accomplished.

    There is no come back from Hitlery in that if she wins she will pack the supreme court with radical Leftists and strongly enforce subjugation of religion in favor of LGBT depravity and madness.

    She supported ISIS with arms to the rebels in Lybia and that's why she wanted Stevens killed.

    She is a liar and a criminal and her husband is a rapist and their sale of Uranium to Russia shows they are willing to ravage the US for their illicit aims.

    All the Leftist fact checking is not worth a hill of beans.

    Trump is far from perfect but he is far better than the Clinton criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You are really a prime example of the deterioration of the republican party over the last 25 years. I am a registered Republican, but have seen that party transform from one focused on fiscal conservatism and family values to one driven by conspiracy theories and blind, irrational, hatred of the Clintons and Obama. Almost everything that you wrote is total nonsense, but is standard fare for the Breitbart-reading, Limbaugh-listening crowd.
    This is not really a response to you, as there is no point in engaging with people who have no grasp on reality, but there may be others out there who take comments like these as containing a smidgen of truth, so:
    1: There is no draft of anyone in America, men or women. You are referring to registering for the draft, which is a different issue entirely. I registered when I turned 18 and it had no impact on my life, and the same is true for everyone born post 1970.
    2: The Kaine comment has no content, so I will ignore that one.
    3: One can think the Iran deal was a good idea or a bad one. It is a matter of opinion, and only time will tell. Either way, if you believe Netanyahu that Iran was mere months from having nuclear weapons, then it is definitely better than the alternative, which was doing nothing, as the Europeans were going to let the sanctions end anyway. Also, in case you missed it, Clinton was not Secretary of State during the Iran negotiations.
    4: You provide no source for your claims about the FBI or Clinton having Stevens killed, so I will ignore those as well. By the way, Benghazi was investigated extensively by the Republicans in Congress, and found absolutely no support for that ridiculous and incendiary charge.
    5: The U.S. did not did not sell any uranium to Russia, as anyone with Google can confirm within 30 seconds. The U.S. government approved the partial sale of a Canadian company. The sale was approved by 9 different departments in the government, only one of which was headed by Clinton.
    6: Your distaste for fact checking accords well with the rest of your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Spoken like a true believer - please present facts instead of allegations which are largely or totally false which have canonized by Trump himself.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Please see my response to Yehoshua

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here are links to four endorsements of Clinton from newspapers, none of whom have endorsed a Democrat since World War Two, and a couple of which have not endorsed a Democrat in over 100 years. Perhaps you ought to think about why they have switched sides all of the sudden, or if perhaps the republican side no longer exists in this presidential campaign. Note also that as of now, not one newspaper in America has endorsed Trump.

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-hillary-clinton-endorsement-for-president-20160929-story.html

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-hillary-clinton-endorsement-for-president-20160929-story.html

    http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2016/10/09/1-editorial-for-president-trump-unfit-clinton-is-qualified.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's clear why the mainstream media is knocking Trump. He has destroyed their monopoly on the truth and demonstrated their strong bias.

    The Republican side doesn't exist despite Trump because Ryan and his cohorts are totally slaves of the Democrats and have brought us to the numerous crises that we now face. The tremendous opposition to Trump from all sides is due to the panic that these compromised politicians and news outlets feel that they are losing their lock on the victimized public.

    Trump will stop the insane environmentalists from destroying companies with abandon while not providing for the resources that were lost such as the failed attempt to replace coal with windmills and solar. In the process of doing this, they have shuttered a strong source of energy and have thrown much of the middle class out of work.

    He will rebuild the devastated military which is currently being led by milksops that tow the LGBT line and don't care a bit about the integrity of America's defenses.

    He will also correct the polluting of America with unvetted illegal immigrants who are a drain on the economy at best and savage unpoliced criminals at worst.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes Trump is truly a messianic figure - if you can ignore all his faults. It is important to believe in his mission - despite all the evidence that indicates he is not capable of achieving what he is promising. But the main thing is to believe in him.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Please enlighten me. What are his faults?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I guess you haven't bothered reading the many posts regarding his faults. Anyone who doesn't know what his many faults are at this point should not be wasting their time on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You won't acknowledge the faults of the Wicked Witch. I'll ask one simple question. If Israel were under attack as it was in 1973, who would you trust as President to keep it resupplied in the manner Nixon did? Trump or Clinton?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I am just curious: What would it take for a Trump supporter to realize that he is totally beyond what is considered acceptable as a presidential candidate? Once again, I am not citing "left-wing" or "mainstream" media. I am citing newspapers that have not endorsed a Democrat since the Civil War, for goodness' sake, and they have the sense to realize that he is totally unqualified. The Republican base has become progressively detached from reality over the last 25 years, from Clinton murders to Obama's religion and place of birth, and that disconnect from reality is on full display here. In the words of our president: "They stood by while this happened, and Donald Trump as he’s prone to do, he didn’t build the building himself — he just slapped his name on it and took credit for it."

    ReplyDelete
  18. you are ignoring what I have repeated written.

    Bad example - who expected Nixon to what he did?

    ReplyDelete
  19. You are avoiding the question. Which candidate, based upon their existing proclivities, would you see as more likely to aid Israel in a time of crisis?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Trump is not a man of principles. It is not possible to predict how he would act regarding Israel in a time of crisis - no matter what he is saying now.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I can't understand how you could consider electing a known inveterate liar, criminal violator of security through gross purposeful mismanagement of highly secure materials, supporter of the most anti Semitic state department in history, world class grifter with her criminal Clinton foundation, destroyer of society with her push for LGBT over religious rights, and unfettered immigration advocate that would lead to domination of America by Muslims that hate our society and way of life and expose us to the extreme dangers of Isis.

    She also has no care for nuclear security which is demonstrated by her approval of the sale of at least 20% of US Uranium to Russia. She would also corrupt the supreme court for decades.

    These crimes are orders of magnitude worse than anything you could dream of Donald doing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. There is no question. Based on the fact that security cooperation between Israel and the U.S. has never been stronger than it is now, under a government in which Clinton played a large part, she can be assumed to continue that security cooperation. Trump has repeatedly said that America should not spend resources to defend countries with whom the U.S. already has binding treaties with if those countries don't "pay their fair share." All the more so he cannot be relied upon to support a country that is the recipient of America's largess, and with whom America has no binding treaty.
    While there has been daylight between the Democratic party and the Netanyahu government on the issue of settlements, there has not been any indication that any president in recent memory, Democrat or Republican, who would not do what it takes to ensure Israel's survival if that was threatened.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I don't understand your point of view.

    I can't understand how you could consider electing a known inveterate liar, criminal violator of security through gross purposeful mismanagement of highly secure materials, supporter of the most anti Semitic state department in history, world class grifter with her criminal Clinton foundation, destroyer of society with her push for LGBT over religious rights, and unfettered immigration advocate that would lead to domination of America by Muslims that hate our society and way of life and expose us to the extreme dangers of Isis.

    She also has no care for nuclear security which is demonstrated by her approval of the sale of at least 20% of US Uranium to Russia. She would also corrupt the supreme court for decades.

    These crimes are orders of magnitude worse than anything you could dream of Donald doing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. First of all, I disagree with most of your characterizations of her. She has lied, but much less frequently than her opponent. She has not been deemed a criminal by the only bodies authorized with making that determination. I don't think there is any support for the contention that the State Department under her was "the most anti Semitic state department in history." I do not believe that she is in favor of "unfettered immigration" by "Muslims that hate our society." As noted earlier, the sale of the uranium was approved by nine departments in the government, so many many others agreed with the State Department on that. As far as the Supreme Court, I have no way of knowing if the justices she would appoint would be any better or worse than those appointed by Trump.
    But the main issue is your closing statement: "These crimes are orders of magnitude worse than anything you could dream of Donald doing." That is totally incorrect. Trump understands nothing of policy, domestic or foreign, and has demonstrated time and time again that he will lash out at any perceived provocation. he stated that he would bomb Iran (i.e., involve the U.S. in another Gulf war) if their ships make "improper gestures" to U.S. ships. Once again, read the letters of support for Clinton by Republican foreign service officers, who are terrified of the havoc Trump could wreak, in adidtion to the editorials from the papers who have not endorsed a Democrat in over 100 years.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/08/us/politics/national-security-letter-trump.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. Iran's provocations by with their ships would have been rebuffed forcefully at any other time in history by a powerful American military. Today we have been weakened by Obama's ransacking of the military and firing of capable military leaders for those that push the LGBT agenda. America's standing in the world has dropped considerably and would continue its downward spiral under Hillary. Bombing of strategic targets or those ships attacking American ships is nothing short of self defense. Right now Iran has made a mockery of American standing by humiliating those servicemen that they captured and that is a sign of the weakness of America that Obama started and Hillary would continue.

    Major military and law enforcement officials have endorsed Trump and leaders in all fields have also indicated their support.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016

    "I do not believe that she is in favor of "unfettered immigration" by "Muslims that hate our society."

    Why don't you listen to her statements about not limiting illegal immigration in any way at all? She doesn't care about what happened in San Bernardino, Orlando or Fort Hood. She is just interested in stuffing the rolls with Leftist voting welfare sucking non integrate-able aliens. Who cares about the violence and danger that they pose to the American public?

    She also supports the failure known as Obamacare which is destroying health care in America

    http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/281579-hillarys-obamacare-problem

    All the vastly Leftist media are petrified of someone breaking their monopoly of lies and that's why the oppose Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Trump said: "And by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures that our people -- that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water." He was referring to an incident where Iranian boats came close to a U.S. warship. You really think that the way to respond to that is to get involved in a war with Iran?
    I have nothing further to add, other than to say that I disagree with everything you wrote. And, once again, you refuse to address the point that it is not the "leftist media" that is opposing Trump. To repeat: As I linked to above, several esteemed newspapers who have endorsed Republicans in every election for the past 100 years are opposing Trump and supporting Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You think that the right thing is that Iran should make a mockery of American rights and threaten them with their warships with no response? No self respecting country with agree with that weak kneed approach.

    You ignore all the other facts such as the total rebellion of the FBI against Comey and other things. You are as closed minded on this as you claim I am.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Some important infromation about Iran from Caroline Glick

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/glick-yemen-turtle-bay

    ReplyDelete
  29. what total rebellion? Dissent yes but total rebellion?

    ReplyDelete
  30. 1: You have no way of knowing if there was a response delivered verbally through diplomatic channels, which would be the appropriate response for a minor event such as this. I definitely think that the modus operandi of Trump, which is to blow up every encounter into something worthy of war, is about as dangerous as can be.
    2: What "total rebellion" against Comey? Last I heard, the FBI was functioning quite well.
    3: Again, what is your response to the editorials I posted links to, which give lie to your claim that it is the "left-wing" media that is in favor of Clinton and against Trump?

    ReplyDelete
  31. https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/inside-the-fbi-agents-outrage-at-hillary-email-decision/

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437485/hillary-clintons-email-exoneration-fbi-james-comey-turn-america-banana-republic

    ReplyDelete
  32. 1. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-iranian-naval-provocations-persian-gulf-2016-9

    2. https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/inside-the-fbi-agents-outrage-at-hillary-email-decision/

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437485/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-james-comey-turn-america-banana-republic

    3. The entire left wing media is against Trump and it means absolutely nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You're simply quibbling on the terminology. All the senior members of the FBI feel that he totally messed up the investigation and didn't pursue the guilty verdict due to political considerations. Many have said that he shamed the organization and should be removed.

    ReplyDelete
  34. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/exclusive-fbi-agents-say-comey-stood-in-the-way-of-clinton-email-investigation/

    Just one more source of many

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.