2011: Donald Trump criticized Pres. Obama for not wanting “to go in too strongly” in Libya. MORGAN: “When you hear President Obama say that he wants to get rid of Gadhafi, but he doesn’t want regime change, does that make sense to you?” TRUMP: “It makes no sense whatsoever. I think he’s a little afraid of Congress, frankly, He doesn’t want to go in too strongly, because they’ll say that that he broke his constitutional law and he’s got himself some problems.” [CNN, 3/28/11]
PolitiFact gave Donald Trump’s claim that “ISIS is making millions of dollars a week selling Libyan oil” a rating of “False.” “Trump said, ‘ISIS is making millions of dollars a week selling Libyan oil.’ Experts and news reports say ISIS has attacked Libya’s oil fields in recent months, amid the country’s instability. But they roundly reject Trump’s claim that ISIS jihadists based in that country have been able to seize, refine and sell the oil for ‘millions of dollars a week.’ Instead, they say, the terrorist group is focused on disrupting oil markets and preventing rivals from getting the oil in Libya. We rate the claim False.” [PolitiFact, 4/27/16]
Washington Post Fact Checker gave Donald Trump’s claim that “ISIS is making a fortune now in Libya” off Libyan oil a rating of “Four Pinocchios.” “‘Right now, Libya, as you know, has fantastic oil, some of the finest oil in the world. Who has the oil? ISIS has the oil. Do we blockade it, do we bomb it, do we do anything? No. ISIS is making a fortune now in Libya.’ — Donald Trump, interview on NBC’s ‘Today’ show, April 21, 2016 […] Trump’s penchant for exaggeration continues unabated. The terror group’s activities have at times disrupted the flow of oil. But contrary to Trump’s claim on national television, the Islamic State does not control any oil fields and is not ‘making a fortune’ from Libyan oil. But what do you expect from a man who appears to have conveniently forgotten that he urged an intervention in Libya to topple the country’s leader? Four Pinocchios” [Washington Post, 4/25/16]
Trump incorrectly claims he was endorsed by ICE. “No, Donald Trump was not endorsed by an entire government agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He was endorsed this week by a union of ICE employees, but that’s not the same. The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council had never endorsed a candidate for president.” [Politico, 9/26/16]
PolitiFact rated Donald Trump’s claim that “Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies. She is responsible for ISIS” as “False.” ”Trump said ‘Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies. She is responsible for ISIS.’ There were several factors that contributed to the growing power of ISIS, but it’s misleading to pin the responsibility solely on Clinton. For starters, the roots of ISIS trace back to 2004, when Bush was president and before Clinton was Obama’s secretary of state. She did vote to authorize force in Iraq in 2002 while a senator, but that was advocated by the Bush administration and the vast majority of senators. The intervention in Libya, which she supported, did give ISIS an opening, but Trump is overstating her role by saying she is responsible for ISIS. This claim is inaccurate. We rate it False.” [PolitiFact, 7/20/16]
Washington Post: ISIS gained power because of “a complex dynamic that both pre-dates and post-dates [Hillary Clinton’s] tenure as secretary of state.” ”This is a carefully phrased statement — note the use of the word ‘helped’ — that tries to pin the blame on Clinton for a complex dynamic that both pre-dates and post-dates her tenure as secretary of state. To a large extent, the Islamic State of today is simply an outgrowth of al-Qaeda of Iraq. It was established in April 2004 by longtime Sunni extremist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to the National Counterterrorism Center. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in 2006, and afterward his successor announced the formation of the Islamic State — more than two years before George W. Bush left office. The Islamic State certainly gained strength and territory from the civil war in Syria, but Clinton as secretary of state had pressed to funnel arms to the rebels; she was rebuffed by the president.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 7/20/16]
Associated Press: “As for the manner of the U.S. withdrawal, Trump actually wanted U.S. troops out years earlier than Obama brought them out.” “THE FACTS: The founder of the group was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qaida in Iraq who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in 2006. As for the manner of the U.S. withdrawal, Trump actually wanted U.S. troops out years earlier than Obama brought them out. He told CNN in March 2007 that the U.S. should declare victory and get out because Iraq was going to get further bogged down in civil strife. He said the U.S. was ‘keeping a lid’ on the situation by being there, but that when the U.S. leaves, ‘it’s all going to blow up’ so the U.S. might as well leave ‘because you just are wasting time.’” [Associated Press, 8/12/16]
PolitiFact gave Donald Trump’s claim that “right now we’re the highest taxed country in the world” a rating of “False.” “Trump said, ‘Right now we’re the highest taxed country in the world.’ We used a couple of different measurements suggested by experts to determine that no matter how you slice it, the United States is far from the most taxed nation in the world, whether it’s an advanced industrialized economy or not. We rate his statement False.” [PolitiFact, 2/6/16]
Washington Post Fact Checker said Donald Trump’s claim that “we’re the highest-taxed country in the world” wasn’t “anywhere near” true. “‘Right now, we’re the highest-taxed country in the world.’ –Trump As a self-proclaimed billionaire, Trump probably personally faces high tax rates. But the statistics don’t lie—the United States isn’t anywhere near the top among industrialized nations.” [Washington Post, 2/7/16]
PolitiFact rated Donald Trump’s claim that the U.S. had “the highest tax rate anywhere in the world” as “False.” “Trump, while lamenting the condition of the middle class, said the U.S. has ‘the highest tax rate anywhere in the world.’ All sets of data we examined for individual and family taxes prove him wrong. Statutory income tax rates in the U.S. fall around the end of the upper quarter of nations. More exhaustive measures – which compute overall tax burden per person and as a percentage of GDP – show the U.S. either is in the middle of the pack or on the lighter end of taxation compared with other advanced industrialized nations. We rate Trump’s claim False.” [PolitiFact, 10/20/15]
PolitiFact rated Donald Trump’s claim that the U.S. is “the most highly taxed nation in the world” as “False.” “Trump said the United States is ‘the most highly taxed nation in the world.’ Depending on the measurement you use, the United States is either in the middle of the pack or on the lighter end of taxation when compared to other advanced industrialized nations. We rate his claim False.” [PolitiFact, 8/28/15]
FactCheck.org: As of 2014, “The U.S. ranked 27th out of 30 countries among industrialized nations when it comes to tax revenues as a percentage of GDP… 17th out of 29 industrialized countries when it comes to tax revenue per capita.” “Eric Trump wrongly claimed that the U.S. is ‘one of the highest-taxed nations in the world.’ Though the U.S. has one of the highest business tax rates, U.S. personal taxes don’t even break the top ten among industrialized nations. […] The younger Trump may have been on firm ground had he been talking about business taxes. The U.S. has the highest business statutory tax rate among industrialized nations, but it was second to France when considering the marginal effective tax rate, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation. But Trump did not specify that he was talking about business taxes, and he said if his father is elected president, he would ‘[allow] our citizens a chance to keep more of what they earn,’ suggesting he was talking about personal taxes. On that count, he is wrong. The U.S. ranked 27th out of 30 countries among industrialized nations when it comes to tax revenues as a percentage of GDP in 2014, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. And it ranked 17th out of 29 industrialized countries when it comes to tax revenue per capita.” [FactCheck.org, 7/21/16]
Associated Press: “The U.S. tax burden is actually one of the lowest among the 34” countries in the OECD. “The U.S. tax burden is actually one of the lowest among the 34 developed and large emerging-market economies that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Taxes made up 26 percent of the total U.S. economy in 2014, according to the OECD. That’s far below Sweden’s tax burden of 42.7 percent, Britain’s 32.6 percent or Germany’s 36.1 percent. Only three OECD members had a lower figure: Chile, South Korea and Mexico.” [Associated Press, 6/22/16]
The U.S. ranked 16 of 34 out of the 34 OECD member countries for the average rate of income tax. “Do Americans really pay more individual taxes than citizens of any other country in the world? Hardly. America ranked 16th out of the 34 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development member countries for average rate of income tax and employees’ social security contributions. In America, that rate is 25.6%. In Belgium, the country with the highest average rate of income tax and employees’ social security contributions, citizens pay 42%. Germany, Denmark, Austria and Hungary round out the top five countries with the highest average rate of income tax and employees’ social security contributions.” [CNN, 6/22/16]
The U.S. ranked 27 of 34 OECD member countries in tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. “We can also look at total tax revenue as a percentage of the country’s gross domestic product. This time, America ranks even lower: 27th out of 34 OECD member countries in 2014. America’s tax revenue is 26% of the country’s GDP. Denmark tops the list with its tax revenue being equal to 50% of the country’s GDP. Looking at whether American citizens face the highest taxes, we rate Trump’s claim as false.” [CNN, 6/22/16]
The U.S. ranked 16 of 34 OECD member countries in effective corporate tax rate. “Turning to companies, it’s true that American businesses face the highest official corporate tax rate. The federal rate stands at 35%. But that’s not what many companies actually pay. The Government Accountability Office found that large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010 thanks to things such as tax credits, exemptions and offshore tax havens. In each year from 2006 to 2012, at least two-thirds of all active corporations had no federal income liability, according to the GAO. U.S. corporate tax collection totaled 2.6% of GDP in 2014, according to the OECD. That was the 16th highest rate among the 34 nations.” [CNN, 6/22/16]
New York Times: “This is inaccurate… That has not stopped Mr. Trump from making this claim repeatedly.” “Fact Check: This is inaccurate, according to several organizations that have examined the claim. A thorough check by PolitiFact found about 30 countries that have higher tax rate structures than the United States, including Denmark, Luxembourg and Belgium. That has not stopped Mr. Trump from making this claim repeatedly.” [New York Times, 6/22/16]
2002: Donald Trump on whether he supported the Iraq War: “Yeah, I guess so.” “For months, Donald Trump has claimed that he opposed the Iraq War before the invasion began — as an example of his great judgment on foreign policy issues. But in a 2002 interview with Howard Stern, Donald Trump said he supported an Iraq invasion. In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq. ‘Yeah, I guess so,’ Trump responded. ‘I wish the first time it was done correctly.’” [Buzzfeed, 2/18/16]
2003: Donald Trump on the Iraq War: “We have to – you know, it’s sort like either do it or don’t do it.” CAVUTO: “If you had to sort of breakdown for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy, what would you say?” TRUMP: “Well, I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They are getting a little bit tired of hearing, we’re going in, we’re not going in, the – you know, whatever happened to the days of the Douglas MacArthur. He would go and attack. He wouldn’t talk. We have to – you know, it’s sort like either do it or don’t do it.” [Fox Business, 1/28/03]
2003: Donald Trump: The Iraq War “looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint.” TRUMP: “Well, I think Wall Street’s waiting to see what happens, but even before the fact there, obviously taking a little bit for granted, and it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint and I think this is really nothing compared to what you will going to see after the war is over.” [Fox Business, 3/21/03]
2003: Donald Trump: “It wasn’t a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard.” “Sept. 11, 2003: It wasn’t a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism but not necessarily Iraq.” [FactCheck.org, 2/19/16]
2003: “The question is whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place.” TRUMP: “I don’t think he is going to. He is a very committed guy, he’s committed to that whole situation and I don’t think he will really reconsider. I don’t think he probably can at this point. Other people will, and you are going to find out at the polls whether or not those other people are right. I mean, you see more and more doves, if you call them doves. The question is whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place. I don’t think that this president can do anything about that. He is really — he is on a course that has to stay.” [MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, 11/4/03]
2003: Donald Trump: “I mean, you have Mr. [Howard] Dean, that’s going to say we shouldn’t have been there regardless. And you have others that are saying, well, we are there and we have to do the best.” TRUMP: “Well, look, you have a lot of questions and a lot of people questioning the whole concept of going in, in the first place, Neil. But we are in, we went in, you had to find him. If he was alive, you had to find him. And you know, they fulfilled the pledge of finding Saddam Hussein.” CAVUTO: “If you are the president’s opponents, what do you do?” TRUMP: “Well, you have two mixed bags. I mean, you have Mr. [Howard] Dean, that’s going to say we shouldn’t have been there regardless. And you have others that are saying, well, we are there and we have to do the best. I mean, we are there, regardless of what should have been done. Some people agree and some people don’t agree, but we are there. And if we are there, you have to take down Saddam Hussein. And they have done that, and they did it maybe not as quickly as they thought in terms of finding him, but they found him. And that is a huge day for this country.” [Fox Business, 12/15/03]
Associated Press: Donald Trump “stopped short of saying that he was among those opponents” of the Iraq War in December 2003. “As 2003 went on, Trump’s opinions started to shift slightly. That September, he said on MSNBC that he ‘would have fought terrorism, but not necessarily Iraq.’ In December, he told Fox News that ‘a lot of people (are) questioning the whole concept of going in in the first place.’ But he stopped short of saying that he was among those opponents.” [Associated Press, 9/10/16]
PolitiFact: “Trump said he was ‘totally against the war in Iraq.’ While he came to that position when the war became difficult, earlier on he was more accepting of military action.” “Trump said he was ‘totally against the war in Iraq.’ While he came to that position when the war became difficult, earlier on he was more accepting of military action. In 2002, asked if America should go to war, he said, ‘I guess so.’ Less than three months before the invasion, Trump said the president should be more focused on the economy, but he didn’t speak against launching an attack. Trump didn’t speak often about the Iraq War before it happened, but what he said did not add up to the sort of opposition he describes today. We rate this claim False.” [PolitiFact, 9/7/16]
PolitiFact gave Donald Trump’s claim that he “was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started” a rating of “False.” “On the Iraq War, Trump said, ‘I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.’ The record just doesn’t support this. We could only find one example of Trump commenting on the Iraq War before the invasion where he seemed apprehensive but not vehemently opposed to the operation. In another interview, Trump said he supported the invasion. This claim rates False.” [PolitiFact, 6/22/16]
PolitiFact: “We didn’t find any examples of Trump unequivocally denouncing the war until a year after the war began.” “Trump is correct that Clinton supported the war in Iraq. But Trump is wrong to suggest he opposed the war before it started. We searched newspaper articles and television transcripts from 2002 and 2003 amid the debate leading up to the Iraq War. We didn’t find any examples of Trump unequivocally denouncing the war until a year after the war began.” [PolitiFact, 6/22/16]
PolitiFact: “There’s no evidence…that he advocated against the war in the first place, or that he was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war.” “Clearly Trump opposed the Iraq War in its early years. There’s no evidence, though, that he advocated against the war in the first place, or that he was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war.” [PolitiFact, 6/22/16]
PolitiFact gave Donald Trump’s claim that he “was totally against the war in Iraq, saying for many years that it would destabilize the Middle East” a rating of “False.” “Trump said, ‘I was totally against the war in Iraq, saying for many years that it would destabilize the Middle East.’ The record shows at best some early reservations about the war that evolved into opposition about a year after the war began. However, we find no evidence of Trump warning about regional destabilization before or after the war started. We rate this statement False.” [PolitiFact, 4/27/16]
FactCheck.org: Donald Trump “has yet to provide any evidence” of his early opposition to the Iraq war, despite his claim that he could provide “25 different stories” proving it. “As we have said before, there is no evidence that Trump opposed the war before it started. We wrote a timeline of all Trump’s public comments that we could find in 2002 and 2003, and found no instances of Trump voicing his opposition before the war started on March 19, 2003. Trump has stated during primary debates that his opposition was ‘loud and clear’ and well covered by newspapers, claiming erroneously that he could provide ‘25 different stories’ to prove his opposition. He has yet to provide any evidence.” [FactCheck.org, 6/22/16]
Washington Post: “There is far more evidence that [Donald Trump] supported the invasion” of Iraq. “Trump has repeatedly and falsely claimed he was against the Iraq war. There is no evidence that is the case. Instead, there is far more evidence that he supported the invasion. There is nothing in the public record that shows he opposed the war until more than a year after the war started — and the U.S. occupation started to run into trouble.” [Washington Post, 6/23/16]
CNN: “There’s no indication he said anything along the lines of ‘Do not attack Iraq’ before the invasion began.” “But these statements were made after the war began, mostly in 2004. There’s no indication he said anything along the lines of ‘Do not attack Iraq’ before the invasion began, as he has previously claimed.” [CNN, 6/22/16]
PolitiFact rated Donald Trump’s claim that he “said it loud and clear” that the Iraq war would destabilize the Middle East “False.” “On the Iraq war, Trump said, ‘I said it loud and clear, ‘You’ll destabilize the Middle East.’ ‘ Maybe Trump felt this way privately, but he made no publicly reported comments in the lead-up to the Iraq War that reflect this sentiment. He certainly did not say it ‘loud and clear.’ We could only find one example of Trump commenting on the Iraq War before the invasion, and he seemed apprehensive but not vehemently opposed to the operation. He only started publicly denouncing the war after it started. Because he far overstated how loudly he declared his position on the Iraq War, we’re cranking the rating on this statement up to False.” [PolitiFact, 2/14/16]
PolitiFact rated Donald Trump’s claim that he said the Iraq War would “destabilize the Middle East” before the invasion “Mostly False.” “Regarding the Iraq War, ‘I was the one that said, ‘Don’t go, don’t do it, you’re going to destabilize the Middle East.’ ‘ Maybe Trump felt this way privately, but he made no publicly reported comments in the lead up to the Iraq War that reflect this sentiment. We could only find one example of Trump commenting on the Iraq War before the invasion, and he seemed apprehensive but not vehemently opposed to the operation. He only started publicly denouncing the war after it started. Trump makes it sound like he stood on a railroad to try to stop the Iraq War train in its tracks. In reality, by the time he got around to forcefully criticizing the war, that train had already left the station. We rate his statement Mostly False.” [PolitiFact, 2/6/16]
The Washington Post Fact Checker said that “the evidence is slim” to back up Donald Trump’s claim that he warned against the war in Iraq. “‘I’m the only one up here, when the War in Iraq, I was the one who said, don’t go, don’t do it, you’re going to destabilize the Middle East. So I’m not the one with the trigger.’ –Donald Trump Trump continues to say he opposed the Iraq War ahead of the invasion. But the evidence is slim he warned against it prior to the invasion on March 20, 2003.” [Washington Post, 2/7/16]
Washington Post Fact Checker gave Donald Trump’s claim that the Bush Administration wanted to “silence” his criticism of the Iraq War a rating of “Four Pinocchios.” “‘We should have never gone into Iraq. I’ve said it loud and clear. I was visited by people from the White House asking me to sort of, could I be silenced because I seem to get a disproportionate amount of publicity. I mean, I was very strong, though: ‘You’re going to destabilize the Middle East.’’ — Businessman Donald Trump, interview on Fox News, Oct. 6, 2015 […] The burden of proof is on Trump, and he has not followed through. He earns Four Pinocchios.” [Washington Post, 10/21/15]
Washington Post Fact Checker: “There is no evidence” to support Donald Trump’s claim that the neighbors of the San Bernardino attackers saw bombs on the floor of the attackers’ home. “‘A neighbor saw suspicious behavior. Bombs on the floor and other things, but didn’t warn authorities because they said they didn’t want to be accused of racial profiling.’ There is no evidence this was the case. 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. Trump ad-libbed the phrase about ‘bombs on the floor.’ Even the second-hand reports don’t suggest a neighbor saw ‘bombs on the floor’ — just that they received numerous packages at their home and were in their garage late at night.” [Washington Post, 8/16/16]
FactCheck.org: “Despite Trump’s repeated claims, there is no evidence that any neighbor saw ‘bombs on the floor’ of the San Bernardino shooters’ home but declined to report it because of racial profiling concerns.” “Trump was also off-base with his claim that ‘a neighbor saw suspicious behavior — bombs on the floor and other things – but didn’t warn authorities because they said they didn’t want to be accused of racial profiling.’ Despite Trump’s repeated claims, there is no evidence that any neighbor saw ‘bombs on the floor’ of the San Bernardino shooters’ home but declined to report it because of racial profiling concerns. Authorities did find what the Los Angeles Times described as ‘an armory of weapons and explosives … including a dozen pipe bombs and thousands of rounds of ammunition’ in the Redlands home of the couple responsible for the shooting rampage. But there is no evidence so far that any neighbors knew about that cache of explosives.” [FactCheck.org, 8/15/16]
BuzzFeed report: “There is, however, no evidence to suggest this claim is true.” “‘In San Bernardino people knew what was going on,’ Trump told Anderson Cooper on Tuesday. ‘They had bombs on the floor. Many people saw this, many, many people. Muslims living with them, in the same area, they saw that house. They saw that.’ There is, however, no evidence to suggest this claim is true.” [BuzzFeed, 3/30/16]
Donald Trump: “I think that putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing.” “But Donald did seem to have some limits when it came to which women he wanted in the workplace. ‘I think that putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing,’ Donald told a television interviewer. ‘There was a great softness to Ivana, and she still has that softness, but during this period of time, she became an executive, not a wife … you know, I don’t want to sound too much like a chauvinist, but when I come home and dinner’s not ready, I’ll go through the roof, okay?’” [TrumpNation, 1/1/05]
Donald Trump said a lawyer who requested a medical break to pump breast milk for her infant daughter was “disgusting.” “Donald J. Trump seemed irritated. He had been grilled for two hours in a lawsuit over a failed Florida real estate project, and he told the lawyer that her questions were ‘very stupid.’ When the lawyer, Elizabeth Beck, asked for a medical break, Mr. Trump and his lawyers objected, demanding that the deposition continue. Ms. Beck said it was urgent — she needed to pump breast milk for her 3-month-old daughter, and she took the pump out to make her point. Mr. Trump erupted. ‘You’re disgusting,’ he told Ms. Beck, in a remark that is not disputed by either side. He then walked out of the room, ending the testimony for the day.” [New York Times, 7/28/15]
Donald Trump on working women: “I have days when I think it’s great, and then I have days where if I come home…and dinner’s not ready, I go through the roof, okay?” “I think I’m probably mixed. I have days when I think it’s great, and then I have days where if I come home — you know, I don’t want to sound too much like a chauvinist, but when I come home and dinner’s not ready, I go through the roof, okay?” [ABC’s Primetime Live, 3/10/94]
Donald Trump: “The women get it better than we do folks. They get it better than we do.” “‘I mean. All of the men, we’re petrified to speak to women anymore. We may raise our voice,’ he said. ‘You know what? The women get it better than we do folks. They get it better than we do. If she didn’t play that card, she has nothing.’” [RealClearPolitics, 5/8/16]
Donald Trump: “I mean, the women, some of the women, happen to be very attractive. And they have used their sexuality to win certain tasks, as we call them. And hey, that’s part of life, I guess.” KING: “Do you think that some complaining about women use their gender to advantage in this, or is that also part of life?” TRUMP: “Women? I mean, do women use sex? Absolutely not. You’ve never known a woman to use sex, right? On my show, I get criticized when they use sex. The rest of the world, nobody gets criticized. You know, amazingly, these people were chosen. They’re young people, and they were chosen for their brain, but they happen to be attractive. I mean, the women, some of the women, happen to be very attractive. And they have used their sexuality to win certain tasks, as we call them. And hey, that’s part of life, I guess. In real life, that happens, too. I’ve known it. I’ve seen it happen. It’s actually happened to me a couple of times, Larry.” [CNN’s Larry King Live, 2/27/04]
Donald Trump said pregnancy was “certainly an inconvenience for a business.” “Donald Trump has said that pregnancy is ‘wonderful’ – unless you’re an employer. In an October 2004 interview with NBC’s Dateline, Trump said pregnancy is ‘a wonderful thing for the woman, it’s a wonderful thing for the husband, it’s certainly an inconvenience for a business. And whether people want to say that or not, the fact is it is an inconvenience for a person that is running a business.’” [NBC News, 5/26/16]
Washington Post Fact Checker gave Donald Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton “started” the birther movement a rating of “Four Pinocchios.” “There’s no evidence to support Trump’s repeated claim that Clinton ‘started’ the birther movement and was one of the first to question Obama’s birth certificate. He could blame the actions of Clinton’s supporters during the 2008 primary or say the rumor has some Democratic roots. But there’s no evidence that she or her campaign questioned his birth certificate or his citizenship. Further, the campaign denounced isolated instances of Clinton’s staffers questioning whether Obama was Muslim. Later in the in the same CNN interview, Wolf Blitzer asked Trump about his supporters’ anti-Semitic attacks and death threats against Julia Ioffe for her profile of Melania Trump in GQ. Trump repeatedly distanced himself from the actions of this group of supporters: ‘I don’t know anything about that. … I know nothing about it. … You’ll have to talk to them about it. … I don’t have a message to the fans.’ If Trump doesn’t believe in being held accountable for the actions of his supporters, perhaps he should consider the same standard for his political opponents. Glass houses, and all that. Four Pinocchios” [Washington Post, 5/6/16]
The Washington Post found “no evidence” that Hillary Clinton or her campaign advanced conspiracy emails questioning Pres. Obama’s citizenship. “We found no evidence that Clinton or her campaign coordinated any of these email chains questioning Obama’s citizenship. Authors of the Politico story could not find any links to Clinton or her campaign, and neither could FactCheck.org or PolitiFact.” [Washington Post, 5/6/16]
2008: Hillary Clinton on whether she believed Barack Obama was secretly Muslim: “Of course not. I mean, that’s… You know, there is no basis for that.” “Steve Kroft asked Clinton about the photo and such rumors on ‘60 Minutes’: Kroft: ‘You don’t believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?’ Clinton: ‘Of course not. I mean, that’s… You know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that.’ Kroft: ‘You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim.’ Clinton: ‘Right.’” [Washington Post, 5/6/16]
PolitiFact rated Donald Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement as “False.” “Trump said that Clinton started the birther movement and ‘was all in.’ It’s an interesting bit of history that the birther movement appears to have begun with Democrats supporting Clinton and opposing Obama. But Trump, and others who have made this claim, neglect to mention that there is no direct tie to Clinton or her 2008 campaign. The story appears to have started with supporters of Clinton, an important distinction. Trump goes on to completely distort the chain of events by claiming Clinton ‘was all in’ on the birther movement. Most of the talk started after Clinton suspended her presidential campaign. And the only thing she officially has ever done is deny any accusation of starting a whisper campaign. We rate this claim False.” [PolitiFact, 9/23/15]
PolitiFact: “There is no record that Clinton herself or anyone within her campaign ever advanced the charge that Obama was not born in the United States.” “There is no record that Clinton herself or anyone within her campaign ever advanced the charge that Obama was not born in the United States. A review by our fellow fact-checkers at Factcheck.org reported that no journalist who investigated this ever found a connection to anyone in the Clinton organization. Clinton, herself, answered this very accusation after Trump’s tweet during an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon. Lemon asked Clinton if she started smear campaigns that Obama was born outside the United States. ‘That is – no. That is so ludicrous, Don. You know, honestly, I just believe that, first of all, it’s totally untrue, and secondly, you know, the president and I have never had any kind of confrontation like that,’ Clinton said. ‘You know, I have been blamed for nearly everything, that was a new one to me.’” [PolitiFact, 9/23/15]
FactCheck.org said that Donald Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement was “false.” “Donald Trump again has repeated the false claim that Hillary Clinton ‘started’ the so-called ‘birther’ movement against Barack Obama in 2008. As we wrote last year, there’s no evidence that Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with bogus claims that Obama wasn’t born in the United States and thus was ineligible to be president.” [FactCheck.org, 5/5/16]
PolitiFact: “Trump said of the birther controversy, ‘I finished it.’ In no credible sense is this true.” “Trump said of the birther controversy, ‘I finished it.’ In no credible sense is this true. Trump didn’t ‘finish’ fanning the flames of birther conspiracies once Obama released his long-form birth certificate in April 2011 — he kept tweeting about it for at least another three and a half years. And a core group of Americans hasn’t ‘finished’ expressing birther sentiments. As recently as a year ago, various polls have found that 13 percent of Americans supported the viewpoint. We rate Trump’s claim Pants on Fire.” [PolitiFact, 9/16/16]
Associated Press: “The public record over the past decade undermines his attempt to blame the Democratic nominee for the origins of a conspiracy Trump peddled for years.” “‘Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it.’ But Trump’s new allegation that it was all Clinton’s fault is as untrue as his original lie. The public record over the past decade undermines his attempt to blame the Democratic nominee for the origins of a conspiracy Trump peddled for years. People in Clinton’s orbit did discuss Obama’s background during their bitter primary struggle in 2008. But as nasty as that campaign got at times, it was not an anything-goes affair. And it appears that when Clinton got wind of smears about Obama’s roots or religion, she either shut down that line of argument or ignored it. There is no evidence that Clinton herself has ever said Obama wasn’t born in America.” [Associated Press, 9/21/16]
Donald Trump: “I think that putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing.” “But Donald did seem to have some limits when it came to which women he wanted in the workplace. ‘I think that putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing,’ Donald told a television interviewer. ‘There was a great softness to Ivana, and she still has that softness, but during this period of time, she became an executive, not a wife … you know, I don’t want to sound too much like a chauvinist, but when I come home and dinner’s not ready, I’ll go through the roof, okay?’” [TrumpNation, 1/1/05]
Donald Trump said a lawyer who requested a medical break to pump breast milk for her infant daughter was “disgusting.” “Donald J. Trump seemed irritated. He had been grilled for two hours in a lawsuit over a failed Florida real estate project, and he told the lawyer that her questions were ‘very stupid.’ When the lawyer, Elizabeth Beck, asked for a medical break, Mr. Trump and his lawyers objected, demanding that the deposition continue. Ms. Beck said it was urgent — she needed to pump breast milk for her 3-month-old daughter, and she took the pump out to make her point. Mr. Trump erupted. ‘You’re disgusting,’ he told Ms. Beck, in a remark that is not disputed by either side. He then walked out of the room, ending the testimony for the day.” [New York Times, 7/28/15]
Donald Trump on working women: “I have days when I think it’s great, and then I have days where if I come home…and dinner’s not ready, I go through the roof, okay?” “I think I’m probably mixed. I have days when I think it’s great, and then I have days where if I come home — you know, I don’t want to sound too much like a chauvinist, but when I come home and dinner’s not ready, I go through the roof, okay?” [ABC’s Primetime Live, 3/10/94]
Donald Trump: “The women get it better than we do folks. They get it better than we do.” “‘I mean. All of the men, we’re petrified to speak to women anymore. We may raise our voice,’ he said. ‘You know what? The women get it better than we do folks. They get it better than we do. If she didn’t play that card, she has nothing.’” [RealClearPolitics, 5/8/16]
Donald Trump: “I mean, the women, some of the women, happen to be very attractive. And they have used their sexuality to win certain tasks, as we call them. And hey, that’s part of life, I guess.” KING: “Do you think that some complaining about women use their gender to advantage in this, or is that also part of life?” TRUMP: “Women? I mean, do women use sex? Absolutely not. You’ve never known a woman to use sex, right? On my show, I get criticized when they use sex. The rest of the world, nobody gets criticized. You know, amazingly, these people were chosen. They’re young people, and they were chosen for their brain, but they happen to be attractive. I mean, the women, some of the women, happen to be very attractive. And they have used their sexuality to win certain tasks, as we call them. And hey, that’s part of life, I guess. In real life, that happens, too. I’ve known it. I’ve seen it happen. It’s actually happened to me a couple of times, Larry.” [CNN’s Larry King Live, 2/27/04]
Donald Trump said pregnancy was “certainly an inconvenience for a business.” “Donald Trump has said that pregnancy is ‘wonderful’ – unless you’re an employer. In an October 2004 interview with NBC’s Dateline, Trump said pregnancy is ‘a wonderful thing for the woman, it’s a wonderful thing for the husband, it’s certainly an inconvenience for a business. And whether people want to say that or not, the fact is it is an inconvenience for a person that is running a business.’” [NBC News, 5/26/16]
Yet within hours of publication, the article came under withering criticism from leading political reporters. TPM’s Josh Marshall called the report “tendentious verging on dishonest.” Veteran Washington journalist Jonathan Allen said “I’m still trying to figure out what’s shady/murky/troublesome about WJC aides being paid out of multiple pots for multiple functions.” The Boston Globe’s Michael Cohen tweeted that “the only blurring of lines here is being done by Politico.”
Politico has already been forced to change their headline. Yet major errors remain uncorrected in the article.
Here are the facts: the Politico story falsely insinuated that taxpayer funding was used to “support [Clinton’s] wife’s private email server” and subsidize his foundation. This is incorrect. Taxpayer funds were never used for an email server for either of the Clintons. When General Services Administration funding (which is allocated to every former president) was used, it was to pay for a database and server equipment for President Clinton’s correspondence and to compensate Clinton Foundation staff when they are specifically assisting Clinton in his capacity as a former president. As the GSA itself has noted, this is a common practice for all ex-presidents and their staffs.
Bill Clinton’s staff used a decades-old federal government program, originally created to keep former presidents out of the poorhouse, to subsidize his family’s foundation and an associated business, and to support his wife’s private email server, a POLITICO investigation has found.
This headline is egregiously false. Server hosting HRC’s email during State tenure was paid for w/personal fundshttps://t.co/FblUHKlOhQ
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) September 1, 2016
No GSA funding was ever used for a private e-mail server. And the @ClintonFdn never housed a GSA-funded e-mail server, private or otherwise.
— Angel Urena (@angelurena) September 1, 2016
A Clinton spokesman also emphasized that no taxpayer money was used to purchase or maintain a private email server operated for the former president’s staff starting in 2007, which Hillary Clinton started using in 2009. Her use of the server to send emails as secretary of state has become the center of a swirling controversy about whether she skirted public records laws or State Department rules or compromised the security of top-secret national security information. The server was funded entirely out of Bill Clinton’s pocket, according to his office.
Brian Fallon: “Staffer wasn’t on GSA payroll until two years after he helped set up Clinton email acct.”
New headline is still false. Staffer wasn’t on GSA payroll until two years after he helped set up Clinton email accthttps://t.co/xuzo9mgtXT
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) September 1, 2016
Politico addressed the issue by adjusting the headline of Vogel’s article: ‘Bill Clinton aides used tax dollars to subsidize foundation, private email support.’ The change finds an explanation at the foot of the article: ‘Note: The headline on this story has been revised to reflect that GSA funds were used for IT support.’ As for the article itself, a Politico spokesman said it is ‘one hundred percent accurate and remains unchanged.’ The headline change doesn’t exactly have the Clinton folks celebrating: ‘That is a stretch, too, given Cooper was also paid out of personal funds, and it does not put the genie back in the bottle in terms of other outlets that are now citing Politico to say taxpayers footed the bill for the purchase of the personal email server,’ writes Fallon to the Erik Wemple Blog.
We have two employees that need the GSA packages. Can you send them to me ASAP. The names are Justin Cooper and Oscar Flores. Joe is aware of this change.”
In at least one instance, GSA paid to purchase and maintain a specialty Lockheed Martin database system called Intranet Quorom, the supporting systems for which were housed at one time at the Clinton Foundation’s offices, and used by both foundation staff and Bill Clinton’s personal office staff to store and process his correspondence.
The Clinton aide said servers supporting the Intranet Quorom system — which is used for data storage, not email — were the only pieces of equipment purchased by GSA that were housed at the Clinton Foundation at one point, but he said it was justified by the specific circumstances around it.
As staff needs to have the full picture of all correspondence sent by President Clinton, both staff from the Office of the Former President and the Foundation have access to, and can input into, the Intranet Quorum database,” the aide said.
The Clinton Foundation’s website suggests that there’s a strict wall between the foundation and the ex-president’s personal office. ‘All Foundation employees are paid for work through the Foundation payroll,’ the website says. ‘No Foundation staff are paid for Foundation work with taxpayer dollars.’ But the aide acknowledged ‘staff at the Foundation and staff at the Office of the Former President may have similar tasks, and need to coordinate this work — specifically staff that handles President Clinton’s correspondence.’ That shared work is facilitated by the Lockheed Martin IQ database system, the aide said.
To varying degrees, foundations associated with each former president are involved with the office operations. While the foundations themselves do not pay any portion of the office rental cost, they do assist office operations by supplying some furniture and equipment. At former President Carter’s office, which is leased from the Carter Presidential Center—a nonprofit foundation—two staff members of the Center use office space paid for by GSA. Simultaneously, however, GSA does not pay for other Center space that is used exclusively by former President Carter or his staff.
But the system’s dual purpose raised questions among GSA officials, who pressed Clinton’s representatives when they submitted an invoice in September 2011 to the GSA to purchase a $7,700 Dell server and other IT equipment to support the Lockheed Martin IQ database. Clinton Foundation officials explained to the GSA that they wanted the Dell server housed at foundation headquarters rather than at Clinton’s personal office. They explained in an email that the foundation office had better air conditioning, allowing it to support ‘about 10-15 more servers,’ and also it was where IT staff were based, so ‘trouble shooting with the servers can be done ASAP.’ The GSA staff asked Graham, then serving as the foundation’s COO, to demonstrate that ‘safeguards are in place to ensure that the servers are solely for use by’ Clinton’s personal office. A note affixed to the bottom of an email produced pursuant to POLITICO’s FOIA indicates that the GSA ultimately decided not to purchase the Dell server. Asked about the reasoning this week, a GSA spokesman suggested that Clinton’s representatives failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Dell server was not for use by the foundation.
But, perhaps highlighting the confusion caused by the overlapping spheres in the Clinton’s universe, the Clinton aide offered a different recollection. ‘We believe that the information GSA provided you with is incomplete. Our files show that GSA purchased the Dell server that operates the IQ database in 2010.’
All ex-presidents are allocated $96,000 per year for staffing.
A GSA spokesperson declined to comment on specific employees, but said ex-presidents have broad discretion over how they choose to divvy up the $96,600 they are provided each year for staffing. They can give the entire sum to a single employee or divide it among multiple employees.
A representative for Clinton in 2001 told the Government Accountability Office that, in addition to the GSA money, ‘some staff compensation will be paid by the former president and his presidential foundation,’ according to a 2001 GAO report. It made clear that most employees on the GSA payrolls of former presidents ‘also receive compensation from other sources.’
The office staffs of former presidents’ ranged from 6 to 19 persons and included full-time and part-time paid members along with volunteers and interns. In addition to receiving federal compensation, most paid staff members also receive compensation from other sources. These sources include the former presidents and his or his spouses’ foundations.
Generally, the aide explained that Clinton ‘wears several hats — among them being former President of the United States and the founder of the Clinton Foundation. His staffing reflects those roles.’ The aide added ‘there is no legal prohibition that would preclude the former president’s staff from receiving compensation from other sources or doing personal work for the former presidents. We are unaware of any legal prohibition that would preclude these activities.’
Aides to President Clinton assisted him “in a variety of settings” and were compensated according to the capacity in which they were assisting, be it his role as a former president, founder of the Clinton Foundation, or otherwise. According to several people familiar with the former president’s operation, the rationale behind the interwoven payrolls is that they allow for a small team to assist Clinton in a variety of settings without having to do logistically complicated hockey-like line changes. In a given day, Clinton might deliver a paid private speech (during which time his employees’ salaries could be paid by the executive services corporation) and a public speech in his capacity as a former president (during which his staff could be paid by the GSA funds). And he could attend events for the foundation (where staff time would be paid by the foundation) as well as his wife’s presidential campaign (staff time would be paid by the campaign).
I'd hate to call that piece tendentious verging on dishonest. But well, it's tendentious verging on dishonest.
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) September 1, 2016
Politico seems to be letting a bit of Clinton derangement syndrome show with this 'commingling' story today. Cheap.
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) September 1, 2016
I'm still trying to figure out what's shady/murky/troublesome about WJC aides being paid out of multiple pots for multiple functions.
— Jonathan Allen (@jonallendc) September 1, 2016
The only blurring of lines here is being done by Politico. pic.twitter.com/OOKXnQADLA
— Michael Cohen (@speechboy71) September 1, 2016
In general, this Politico story is the perfect example of deciding on a story & manipulating the evidence to make it fit
— Michael Cohen (@speechboy71) September 1, 2016
Same pattern as AP, Judicial Watch etc.–facts dug up by big investigation disprove thesis of big investigation https://t.co/ECIqVRL9bu
— Paul Glastris (@glastris) September 1, 2016
Politico tries to outdo the AP on most disingenuous Clinton Foundation reporting: https://t.co/558f9rdrre
— Michael Cohen (@speechboy71) September 1, 2016
Politico headline, 2008: “Taxpayers fund Bill Clinton spending.”
The 2008 version of @kenvogel’s story on Bill Clinton and the Former Presidents Act is a lot clearer https://t.co/pqpgGKlVHh
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) September 1, 2016
Politico headline, 2015: “Taxpayer tab for Clinton Inc.: $16 million.” “
]]>In the past week, commentators from across the political spectrum—from Erick Erickson to The Des Moines Register to Dana Milbank—have slammed Trump. What has united these usual political adversaries? It’s the fear that Trump’s candidacy is doing lasting damage to both the Republican Party and American democracy itself. As The Washington Post wrote earlier this week, Trump “has already given the nation a sense of the dangerous places he might go.”
Tonight, Hillary Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination for president and made history. Her nomination comes at a “moment of reckoning” for our country. Will we succumb to the forces tearing us apart or rise up together? As retired four-star General John Allen said, “the stakes are enormous” in this election. Donald Trump is running a cynical campaign of fear and bigotry that betrays our country’s democratic principles.
Hillary and the Democratic Party are offering something different. As National Review’s Jonah Goldberg tweeted “[the Democratic National] convention is better: it’s about loving America.” Hillary knows that our country is stronger together and will fight for an economy that works for everyone. In the words of former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, Hillary has “huge plans to create good-paying jobs” and unlock opportunity for all Americans. Unlike Donald Trump, Hillary knows that “America is great because America is good.”
]]>
It was an emotional milestone for our entire country. When Hillary Clinton took the stage in Philadelphia last night, The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote that her nomination represented “a final if unofficial barrier that has kept 50.8 percent of America’s people—women—from becoming president.” In Virginia, The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that “The general reaction to Clinton’s nomination on the day she accepted was one of excitement and relief” and that her victory “was a good day for women.” Vox’s Sarah Kliff wrote that this week, many women didn’t “expect to cry during a roll call vote but all of a sudden found tears coming down their faces.”
During a convention in which Democrats celebrated our nation’s guiding principles and defended decency in our politics, Hillary’s nomination represented a victory for American democracy itself. As The New York Times reported, Hillary last night became “the first woman to accept a major party’s presidential nomination…a prize that generations of American women have dreamed about for one of their own.” The Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel put it a little more bluntly: “It’s about damn time.”
]]>
In a stirring night, some of our country’s most admired leaders — from Gabby Giffords to Michael Bloomberg — made clear that Hillary Clinton has the strength, leadership and qualifications to take on our country’s greatest challenges and keep America safe. As President Obama said during his moving tribute to Hillary and our democratic system: “There has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, not nobody, more qualified than Hillary to serve as President of the United States.”
So c’mon America. We’re stronger together. It’s time to make history.
L
ast night, American leaders extolled Hillary Clinton’s vision for our country and made a passionate, patriotic case against Donald Trump’s bigoted politics. President Obama offered a pointed rebuke to Trump’s authoritarianism, insisting that “we don’t look to be ruled” and that our country must “reject cynicism [and][/and] reject fear.” Vice President Biden strongly defended the tenacity and greatness of the American people, telling the delegates that “given a fair shot, given a fair chance, Americans have never, ever, ever, ever, let their country down.” And former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg got down to brass tax when he said in his speech endorsing Hillary: “Let’s elect a sane, competent person.”
It was a night filled with optimism, determination and pride in our country and fittingly ended with President Obama and Hillary standing together and embracing before the entire convention. As The New York Daily News’ Josh Greenman noted, the convention’s third night was the “antidote” to Trumpism.
]]>
“One headline today,” Politico’s Glenn Thrush tweeted tonight. “The Democratic Party just nominated the first female presidential nominee in the 240-year history of the country.”
Tonight, the Democrats made history. It was a remarkable evening. Members of Congress, mothers, celebrities, and yes, even a former president, shared their personal stories of working, praying, loving and fighting alongside Hillary Clinton. Each speaker made clear that the Democratic Party hadn’t just nominated the first woman in the history of this country. The delegates had nominated Hillary Clinton, a change maker who has spent her entire life working to make a difference in people’s lives.
Really one headline today: The Democratic Party just nominated the first female presidential nominee in the 240-year history of the country.
— Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) July 26, 2016
Shards of glass ceiling falling all over inside WF Center.
— tomfitzgerald (@tomfitzgerald) July 26, 2016
History.
— Lynn Sweet (@lynnsweet) July 26, 2016
I’ve seen women on floor w/ tears in their eyes as they watch a roll call that will lead to 1st female pres. nominee of a major party.
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) July 26, 2016
Arizona just had a 102-year-old woman cast their votes for Hillary. When she was born, women didn’t have the right to vote. #DemsInPhilly
— Sean Walsh (@SeanCWalsh) July 26, 2016
Democrats having disabled people give pledge, sing national anthem to open Day 2 of #DemsInPhilly. Serious shade @realDonaldTrump
— Emily Cahn (@CahnEmily) July 26, 2016
Key difference between DNC and RNC conventions: Deafening cheers here at 7 p.m. vs no speaking program there at 7 p.m.
— Annie Linskey (@AnnieLinskey) July 26, 2016
Not surprising that people (ok, more than normal) attest to HRC’s character at #DemsInPhilly. But–no one no one did it for Trump in CLE.
— Cathleen Decker (@cathleendecker) July 27, 2016
This is what party unity looks like. Sanders moves to nominate HRC by acclimation. pic.twitter.com/jp5MAQpxxS
— Annie Linskey (@AnnieLinskey) July 26, 2016
The room is just electric as Sanders moves for Clinton
— Gabriel Debenedetti (@gdebenedetti) July 26, 2016
– Great by Bernie!
– Great for HRC!
– And whole party.The contrast with RNC-CNL, in the faces and sentiments ..
— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) July 26, 2016
Very powerful to see Senator Tom Harkin give his Democratic National Convention speech simultaneously in sign language.
— (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) July 26, 2016
This roll call is a great rolling state history, civil rights and women’s right lesson. #DNCinPHL
— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 26, 2016
Through South Carolina, this roll call is considerably kinder and seems to be more unifying than the GOP’s last week. #DemConvention
— Henry J. Gomez (@HenryJGomez) July 26, 2016
Classic. Career cap moment: Retiring @SenatorBarb puts Hillary Clinton’s name into nomination.#DemConvention
— Lisa Mascaro (@LisaMascaro) July 26, 2016
Civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis joins longest-serving woman in Congress-Sen. Barbara Mikulski-in nominating Clinton. #DemsInPhilly
— Amrita Khalid (@askhalid) July 26, 2016
Electrifying John Lewis at DNC, reminding us all what it means to fight for rights and against injustice! #DemsInPhilly
— Christiane Amanpour (@camanpour) July 26, 2016
Huge applause for Donna Brazile (who replaced Debbie Wasserman Schultz) #DNCinPHL
— (((Ron Kampeas))) (@kampeas) July 26, 2016
People, @donnabrazile is holding some church. I have my fan out. #DemsInPhilly (also why does she look 28 years old?)
— shonda rhimes (@shondarhimes) July 26, 2016
Cheers for Eric Holder as he speaks to Clinton’s social justice causes #DemsInPhilly pic.twitter.com/jtwMBaWI69
— Tal Kopan (@TalKopan) July 27, 2016
This is a pretty profound moment. The “Mothers of the Movement” on stage at the DNC. pic.twitter.com/SrMyPOSGms
— Trymaine Lee (@trymainelee) July 27, 2016
So moved by the loss, strength, courage, determination of all the Mothers of the Movement. #DemsInPhilly #BlackLivesMatter
— Mary Anne Hitt (@maryannehitt) July 27, 2016
Aside from the fact that that was a highly damning attack on Trump, this is a tremendously powerfully delivered speech by Crowley.
— emily nussbaum (@emilynussbaum) July 27, 2016
911 survivor Lauren Manning giving the most powerful personal testimonial yet for @HillaryClinton: “She took my bandaged hand into her own.”
— (((Cameron Joseph))) (@cam_joseph) July 27, 2016
More stories about Clinton in one speech than in Trump’s entire convention. https://t.co/Ot6Mk8byL9
— James Downie (@jamescdownie) July 27, 2016
Lauren Manning, who suffered horrific burns on 9/11: Hillary Clinton “had my back.” pic.twitter.com/fLtXDvxPcR
— Jim Roberts (@nycjim) July 27, 2016
Great to have Sen @amyklobuchar speak about human trafficking here in the US before the Dem Convention! So much more to be done on this.
— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) July 27, 2016
Madeleine Albright earns one of the biggest rounds of applause of the day. #DNCinPHL
— Ed O’Keefe (@edatpost) July 27, 2016
I was really struck by Dean making fun of himself. What a great moment—and what a contrast to Trump, who is entirely incapable of that.
— emily nussbaum (@emilynussbaum) July 27, 2016
Bill is managing the neat trick of butchering Trumpism without mentioning Trump and staying all positive and good feelings.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) July 27, 2016
Everyone should be lucky enough to do their spouse a solid like that.
— Franklin Foer (@FranklinFoer) July 27, 2016
While Republicans engaged in divisive rhetoric and demonized large segments of the American population, the Democrats struck a starkly different tone. As The New Yorker’s Emily Nussbaum noted, “So far, the DNC (the parts I’ve seen so far) have been so sweet & positive. A nice break from last week’s Festival of Goblin.”
The night featured not just elected officials, but Americans who are fighting to break down barriers across this country. Karla Ortiz gave an emotional testimony about being afraid that her parents will be deported—and her hope for the future. Disability rights advocate Anastasia Somoza delivered a powerful rebuke to Trump’s bigotry, saying ”I honestly feel bad for anyone with that much hate.”
Michelle Obama summed up the night best: “When they go low, we go high.”
]]>
TWEETS:
]]>