Trump and credibility
The WSJ has published an editorial excoriating Trump for being a liar. For some reason I can’t get to the whole thing in the usual manner—Googling the title of the piece and the paper’s name—so I can’t report on the details of what was said there.
But I can find lengthy excerpts here. And what’s more, I’m not even sure they’re needed, because the gist of the idea is simple: Trump lies, and that destroys his credibility.
Well, duh.
That “duh” of mine doesn’t mean those things are unimportant. On the contrary, it’s something I (and many others) wrote a great deal about during the 2016 campaign. It’s something anyone who took even a cursory look at Trump’s lifelong habits of speech and behavior and his conduct during that campaign that led to the presidency would have naturally noticed. That includes his supporters, who calculated that it was okay because (a) Trump’s heart was in the right place, pro-America and anti-progressive (b) his lies were strategic and would help him win; and (c) he was running against an even greater liar.
“C” was indeed the dilemma we faced at the end. Once the other GOP candidates had fallen by the wayside, it was liar vs. liar, and most people on the right chose the liar who at least had their backs rather than the one determined to stab them in the back. I don’t fault anyone for that.
After Trump had been elected, some of us who had always been worried about Trump were left to reflect that his presidency would rise or fall on his actual accomplishments in the real world rather than his words. I still believe that, because I think that most people (although perhaps not the editors of the WSJ?) had already factored lies, exaggerations, weird tweets, and bizarre accusations into the Trump mix.
Now, however, Hillary has faded into the woodwork (for the moment) and Trump stands alone as president, with no reminder of what the terribly awful alternative would have been.
Trump is fully capable of acting sober and presidential, but not 24 hours a day, and no one has been able to take away his Twitter privileges. And yes, sometimes he uses the Twitter medium very very effectively. But not always.
The WSJ editors write:
Mr. Trump is doing to his Presidency with his seemingly endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free accusations, implausible denials and other falsehoods.
The latest example is Mr. Trump’s refusal to back off his Saturday morning tweet of three weeks ago that he had “found out that [Barack] Obama had my ”˜wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory” on Election Day. He has offered no evidence for his claim, and a parade of intelligence officials, senior Republicans and Democrats have since said they have seen no such evidence.
One of the most interesting—and saddest—things about all of this is that Obama was a liar extraordinaire, a slick and savvy one. The difference between him and Trump isn’t just the style of their lies, though—it’s the opposite political sides they’re on. Obama’s lies were backed by the full force of the MSM, which is still a formidable player in shaping public perceptions, including those regarding truth or falsehood. In contrast, Trump’s lies or near-lies or maybe-lies or ambiguities or even some of his truths will always, always, always be attacked by the MSM as lies of a particularly nefarious type and magnitude, and used as examples of his basic mendacity.
That’s the situation Trump faces, and the situation we face. We can bewail it all we like, but it’s the reality. It’s not new, and it should not be a surprise. It was never realistic to think that this aspect of Trump would change, or that the MSM would cut him any slack whatsoever.
When Trump made his “wiretapping” accusation, I wrote the following:
The Trump we knew during the campaign made a host of wild allegations against his opponents. That was one of the things about him that dismayed me. I like a fighter as much as the next person, and a hard-hitting one at that, but trying to somehow tie Ted Cruz’s father to the Kennedy assassination was so far beyond the pale that it should have worried even Trump’s most fervent supporters.
We often say that the Democrats have cried wolf on Trump so many times that they’ve lost all credibility. But Trump was a champion wolf-crier as well, especially during the campaign.
That does not mean he’s making up a story here. It does not mean he’s gone of the deep end and is swimming in the waters of paranoia. But what it does mean is that his opponents are going to spin it that way, and that the wildness of some of Trump’s prior accusations have made the spin more plausible…
…launching such a serious accusation in a tweet is both pure Trump and feeds into the idea that he is reckless. I think it’s pretty clear that if a president is going to make an accusation of that sort against a former president, he’d better have his ducks in a row before he does, and make it in a forum other than Twitter. But that’s most definitely not Trump’s style.
So here we are. I continue to think that Trump will be judged as president by his deeds rather than his words. It’s early yet. Let’s see what gets accomplished.
[ADDENDUM: One thing I want to reiterate is something I said at the outset of Trump’s “wiretap” tweet, which is that the problem with that tweet was it was exaggerated. The use of the word “wiretap” (even in scare quotes), and Trump’s saying that President Obama himself had done it, gave Democrats plausible deniability to Trump’s charges.
It seemed clear that, in making those tweets, Trump was relying on reports in the MSM about surveillance, and that much if not all of the surveillance in question was done through NSA data-collection and/or surveillance of non-Trumpian targets rather than an actual wiretap involving Trump himself (or Trump Tower itself), or something ordered specifically by Obama.
Now we see this:
The U.S. Intelligence Community collected ‘incidental’ information about President Donald Trump’s transition team ”“ and possibly about Trump himself ”“ during the three months following the 2016 election, according to House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes.
Nones told reporters that the information collected was ‘legally collected’ pursuant to a warrant issued by a FISA judge in a federal court, and concerned ‘foreign’ surveillance…
Based on Nunes’ evaluation, the surveillance would have occurred while Obama was still president. Nunes said he has seen no evidence that Trump Tower was surveilled, which was one of Trump’s contentions…
…”This is normal incidental collection, at least from what I was able to read.”
I believe that this was the kernel of truth in Trump’s allegations. ]
Over time I have grown accustomed to Trump’s imprecise way of speaking; also his exaggerations.
WSJ attacked Trump today for two reasons:
1. WSJ is very much in favor of open borders and it looks like Trump is winning here; and
2. As funny as it sounds, it is a class thing. Trump is too much of a blue collar guy for the blue bloods at the WSJ.
The problem with a lot of this is what they call ‘exaggerations and falsehoods’ or whatever are actually just debatable assertions that they disagree with. For a large percentage of people and virtually the entire MSM (including the WSJ editorial board I guess) there is almost nothing that Trump can say or do that they will support.
This is like the old Bush era claim that he lied about WMD in Iraq when really he MAY have been incorrect but it was not a lie. Now everything Trump says is given this treatment. So tiring.
Cornhead may have grown accustomed to Trump’s imprecise way of speaking, that is his lies, but others have most definitely not. What the WSJ editorial excoriates him for besides his mendacity, is the effect it’s having on his agenda.
“All of this continues the pattern from the campaign that Mr. Trump is his own worst political enemy. He survived his many false claims as a candidate because his core supporters treated it as mere hyperbole and his opponent was untrustworthy Hillary Clinton. But now he’s President, and he needs support beyond the Breitbart cheering section that will excuse anything. As he is learning with the health-care bill, Mr. Trump needs partners in his own party to pass his agenda. He also needs friends abroad who are willing to trust him when he asks for support, not least in a crisis.
This week should be dominated by the smooth political sailing for Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominee and the progress of health-care reform on Capitol Hill. These are historic events, and success will show he can deliver on his promises. But instead the week has been dominated by the news that he was repudiated by his own FBI director.”
I definitely want him to succeed, at least to the extent that his proposals are conservative and will stop or reverse our march to socialist disaster. The editors at the WSJ appear to want the same thing. Basically they want him to get his act together and stop the nonsense.
From February 10 — The Wall Street Journal to close Google loophole entirely:
But…
I was able to get the full text of the article just now via WSJ’s Twitter account.
So, I’m supposed to believe what the reporters and the editorial board of the NYT, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, ABC, NBC, etc. tell me he said? Too much filthy water under the bridge for that to happen.
Ann, I was able to access the editorial through Drudge – and more than once without problems. Even my add blocker didn’t stop it from loading.
‘But instead the week has been dominated by the news that he was repudiated by his own FBI director’
I’m not sure I would call Comey Trump’s ‘own FBI director’. And repudiated could also be debatable. I guess my big issue with this is too many in the MSM are characterizing debatable points as outright lies and falsehoods. Or things that they don’t actually know to be false.
Trump lies, and that destroys his credibility.
this is bs, as he hasnt been lying in the real world, but been painted as lying when joking obviously, no leeway when the meaning is understood but the words are not perfect, and literally chaging things and constant attack on all sides… 98% of news being negative… with the most elitist papers being non stop…
yeah… cause you were there, and the left press that lies, calls blacks teens, fails to mention it was the dems that did the race stuff, and on and on and you ignore ALL that and think you know what is going on and that your facts are factual, and not played with. meanwhile, if you dig, you find out these knowings are not real or not presented validly and gamed.
all you have to do is imagine what you knew about anthony weiner BEFORE his real self was exposed.. you think no one knew? how about the asymetric treatment of polanski vs cosby?
copied technique from the feminists? lets speak for both sides and conclude what we want… that list is bs.. no one did that.. no one said that… in fact, lots of energy showed that the press was lying not so muich he was…
just take a look at hillary and her gaming of his tax returns
and what was in the illegal release of one? NOTHING…
he didnt lie… he did the AMT… paid 30 million
over and over its like this… first we hear the bs, then we remember it as its hard to correct it and go forwards… and even worse, we know we swim in muck, and write as if we ignore it.
Headlines
The New York Times Missed Trump’s Biggest Lie
Donald Trump’s biggest lie
Washington Monthly | Trump’s Biggest Inaugural Lie
so WHAT was that big lie? what was his biggest lie?
well all three articles point out that the biggest lie was he would unite us
[and we will ignore the dems and the left and all that they are doing to divide us and blame that trump hasnt stopped them from doing that, so its his fault]
[edited for length by n-n]
Griffin:
My point, though, is that the MSM will always do that to any GOP president or national figure. Always. There’s no need to make their job so easy for them by making oneself on easy target.
Sometimes the audaciousness of Trump’s tweets transcends the MSM attacks. This time he looks foolish, even if there is that kernel of truth in his assertions (I pointed out that kernel in the ADDENDUM to the post).
“Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder a work by Vladimir Lenin attacking assorted critics of the Bolsheviks who claimed positions to their left. Most of these critics were proponents of ideologies later described as left communism.
Lenin’s manuscript was subtitled “A Popular Exposition of Marxist Strategy and Tactics”, but this was not applied to any edition brought out during his lifetime
It has taught me a great deal, as all your writings have done … Many a trace, and many a germ of this infantile disease, to which without a doubt, I also am a victim, has been chased away by your brochure, or will yet be eradicated by it. Your observations about the confusion that revolution has caused in many brains, is quite right too. I know that. The revolution came so suddenly, and in a way so utterly different from what we expected. Your words will be an incentive to me, once again, and to an even greater extent than before, to base my judgement in all matters of tactics, also in the revolution, exclusively on reality, on the actual class-relations, as they manifest themselves politically and economically.
After having read your brochure I thought all this is right.
But after having considered for a long time whether I would cease to uphold this “Left Wing”, and to write articles for the KAPD and the Opposition party in England, I had to decline
neo,
Yeah I get your point and agree with it but I don’t think it even matters to the MSM. Trump could say an 80 degree day is a warm day and a large portion of the MSM would call that a lie or exaggeration and come up with all kinds of info to back it up.
So, while I would like more precise language at times I still don’t think it would improve things with the MSM in general.
This is going to be a political calculation whether or not he backs down from his assertion that Obama “wiretapped” him.
If he backs down, that won’t be the end of it, and the MSM/GOPe will use it as proof that he lies.
Whether or not he says that he might have been wrong, the media attacks won’t change and it probably won’t improve his polling. If Big Maq says he’ll support Trump more if Trump admits he made a mistake, I conclude there is no upside to any change in his position.
the word lying itself is questionable. Was I lying to you when I said “just a sec” when in reality it took me 1 minute and 45 seconds to stop what i was working on to pay attention to you. Treating figurative speeches literately itself is a form of lying by the MSM in order to delegitimize the President. under the same standard we all lie every time we speak when every word we have spoken is being examined and dissected (or twisted) to that extend. You can’t help but take their opinions with a grain of salt whenever a accusation of lying is made by people who were known for being serial liars themselves.
Griffin:
Nothing will improve things with the MSM. I don’t suggest it will.
I’m talking about the audience of the MSM, particularly people in the middle. If Trump gives the MSM’s attacks greater credibility by his own intemperate tweets, the MSM becomes more persuasive with that middle group in what it (the MSM) does. Propaganda doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Trump gives their propaganda more credibility as he throws away some of his.
neo,
I think we pretty much agree on this but I just don’t think it matters because everything he says will be painted in the worst possible light by the MSM so a large part of that passive middle group will be exposed to his comments in the worst way whether true or not and is not invested enough to dig deeper.
Trump’s tweet about wiretapping was inartful, as is his usual style, but based on media reports.
The reports were based on anonymous Obama administration sources. (Of course!) How much credibility do they have? Well, why did the NYT, WAPO, and other media print them? Did they think they would hurt Trump? Probably. Instead they gave him ammunition to counter punch them.
The law was broken when General Flynn’s electronically surveilled conversation (done under a FISA warrant) was leaked to the media. The law was broken when telephone conversations between President Trump and Australian PM and Mexican President were leaked to the media. Who knows what else has been leaked and is being held in reserve to be released at some fortuitous future moment?
It’s interesting to me that the FBI has solved the case of the theft of Tom Brady’s jerseys quite handily, but seems hesitant (At least that is what I would call Comey’s reaction to Gowdy’s questioning.) in finding out who is doing illegal leaks. The number of possible perps is probably 20. Is the FBI unable to do that investigation? We will see.
I agree, there’s a difference between the scheming, calculated lies of someone like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and the impromptu, lies of convenience that are trademark Donald Trump. Nevertheless, the choice of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee (and then president, of course) meant sacrificing the moral high ground that Republicans once enjoyed on the honesty front.
More importantly perhaps, as someone once told me, credibility is everything, and it’s especially important for a president. What’s going to happen when Trump tries to sell his agenda to an American public that’s become cynical from his habit of lying when it serves his purposes? It’s the boy-cried-wolf syndrome. You can get away with it a couple of times but then the trust is gone. Just ask the leftwing media. They’re learning the hard way.
So Trump was correct. When will Obama and the MSM
apologize?
CW
Leakers will never be caught. Reporters will never testify. But if the House brought Brennan, Clapper and Rice to a hearing they would all take the Fifth.
I’m gonna make a prediction: the wiretapping is true. And the evidence will appear in the following weeks.
Why not releasing the evidence from the very beginning? That’s an old tactic: you make some accusation, no evidence, then you leave the opposition to deny it and call you liar, and then you release the evidence.
The thing is: when you have all the media against you, you need to be tricky. If you just make some statement, the media will hide it. You must bait them, leave it escalate, and then, when everybody is talking about it and it’s too late to hide, release the evidence.
When the media hides something, that doesn’t exist. Check that book:
https://www.amazon.com/White-Girl-Bleed-Lot-Violence/dp/1938067061
All that happens, but nobody knows about it.
So you have to bait the media into talking about it. And then, and only then, release the evidence. And to bait the media they need to believe they have the winning cards. Otherwise, they will hide it.
Neoneocon,
Check Ace of Spades. He has a different assessment of Nunes press conference.
20. He (Nunes) thinks it was legal collection, but then possibly illegal dissemination. I thnk he’s also suggesting that given that most of the intercepted communications have no foreign intelligence value, our foreign intelligence collection agencies should not have been typing them up, analyzing them, and then disseminating them — what our our foreign spy agencies doing spying on US citizens? Or typing up the “incidentally intercepted” conversations of US citizens, if those conversations have no foreign intelligence value? Are they spying on foreign threats — or against political opponents? Note all those questions are not quotes; they’re what I think Nunes is getting at.
21. Was it information monitored in real time, or was it captured, stored, then sifted through later? He says it happened “pretty quickly,” i.e., near real time.
22. Press: “Are you attempting to give the president cover for his wiretapping claim?” Of course they ask this. He answers that many documents do not seem to rise to having any foreign intelligence value, which makes him wonder why US citizens were unmasked in the reports.
23. Says he can’t get into the issues here too specifically, but suggests people look into the “incidental collection” of data on Congress last year, because that case is similar to this one.
Update: When asked if he feels “vindicated” by what Nunes has told him, Trump says “I somewhat do, I very much appreciate they found what they did.”
Brian E:
Yes, I wrote that Nunes’ testimony backs up the idea that there was a kernel of truth in what Trump said.
But only a kernel. Trump went further, and needlessly so in my opinion, and therefore made it easier for his critics to call him a liar. He’s not a careful guy, though. The fact that he doesn’t talk like a lawyer is one of his strengths. But it’s one of his weaknesses, also. He could talk a bit more carefully without being subject to accusations of being too lawyerlike.
The WSJ did severely criticize Trump. Would that it offered an equal amount of vitriol for the MSM’s lying propaganda.
Yes, Trump does often exaggerate and contradict himself and even lie. However, since the Left is NOT loyal in it’s opposition, our side holding Trump to a higher standard and focusing upon Trump’s flaws is counter productive. In a street fight, one side insisting that it will not hit below the belt, while the other employs every dirty trick is a formula for defeat.
But we will be able to hold our heads high as we’re led into the Gulags, watching our children being led off to the re-education camps. Hyperbole? Not if they have their way, then it would just be a matter of when not if.
Yann
I like your way of thinking. Kind of like Scott Adams.
Once Trump is vindicated on this the MSM and Dems go to less than zero credibility.
“I’m gonna make a prediction: the wiretapping is true. And the evidence will appear in the following weeks.” -Yann
It will never happen. It’s all true of course. But the wiretapping never happened. There were no wires tapped, taped, or otherwise touched.
Politifact rates it four Pinocchios.
Brain E.: “But the wiretapping never happened. There were no wires tapped, taped, or otherwise touched.”
Yep! That’s what I mean when I say Trump’s tweet was inartful. The media want to take the accusation literally. That way they can make fun of it.
It’s actually data collection by various intel agencies from the phone companies. Then computer algorithms are used to sort the data into usable info about who is calling who. If the persons involved are the target of intel collection, a FISA warrant can be obtained and the conversations can be recorded. U.S. citizens names are supposed to be masked unless there is a national security reason for unmasking them.
The intel agencies have been playing fast and loose with this useful but dangerous program almost from the beginning. If you don’t believe it, see this about William Binney, an NSA whistle blower:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_%28U.S._intelligence_official%29
Edward Snowden is better known, but Binney has been talking about this stuff since 2001.
As I said, its a useful program, but dangerous. Snowden revealed that NSA employees used it to spy on girl friends, wives, and other personal spying targets. It’s powerful stuff. The kind of thing that can be used to bring down governments. And it appears that it is being used to that end as we comment.
Brian E, I guess you went to the Willie Clinton school of dissembling. I doubt seriously that the average person, or even an above average person, will dwell on the fact that “no wires were tapped” when the evidence suggests that communications were in fact monitored.
Lots of interesting points to explore. We have been told repeatedly, and emphatically, that there were no FISA warrants. It appears that there were–other wise the incidental surveillance would hardly be legal. In fact reports now say there were FISA findings.
We are told that names of citizens obtained through incidental monitoring were widely circulated in the intelligence community. That is a violation of law.
General Flynn’s name was leaked and published; a violation of law.
A personal opinion. The First Amendment was never intended to give the press license to participate in illegal acts; or act as accessories to illegal acts. Sensitive national security Information has been leaked and published. Citizen privacy has been invaded (incidentally?) and illegally leaked (deliberately). I wish that Trump would have the nerve to prosecute one or more of these Democrat shills who operate under the cover of Press Credentials.
Trump is impulsive and all too willing to spout conspiracy theories. The involvement of Cruz’s father in the JFK assassination is a classic example. This makes it easy to see him as unhinged. Otherwise, he has shown that he is wickedly canny and deft at getting the msm to take the bait that ends up biting them in the derrié¨re.
We’ll see which lasts the longest.
I agree with others that “incidental” collection on Trump and/or Trump folks is likely a huge red flag. I would not consider it to be a (small?) kernel of truth, because of what we know from Snowden and Binney.
We know factually (if memory serves) from previous reports on incidental and illegal collection of data on US citizens that the initial reports were fabricated, in part, by NSA people. The initial reports said that there were hundreds of occasions of these incidental collections, but later learned that each instance may have included hundreds of illegal collections. Also, we know that the NSA people with knowledge of these collections were instructed to delete any specifics from their reports that would illuminate the level of illegality. We also know that at least one FISA court judge has stated, on the record, that in his opinion, the court is a joke in the sense that only pro-surveillance people argue cases in front of the court, and because the judges have no investigative powers.
Snowden established that ALL emails and the content of phone calls passing thru internet fibers are stored by the NSA, and are not “collected” (NSA vernacular) until legal authorization exists. But…, at the time of Snowden, over 900 people had super-admin access to these databases and Binney tells us that 6,000 analysts had some kind of access to them as well. Sleep well, knowing that 6,900 people have pledged “Scout’s Honor” that they will not snoop on you.
PS: I had a newsprint subscription to the WSJ for decades, but recently downgraded to an online subscription only, because the it is now a pale and tarnished shadow of its former self.
According to Comey, the Trump campaign has been under investigation since July 2016 over alleged ties to Russia. So if they weren’t surveilling Trump & Co., what were they doing? Unveilling Trump? Curtailing Trump? Retailing Trump? E-mailing Trump? Derailing Trump?
Of course, the FBI was surveilling Trumpland, either physically, electronically, or both! What else would they be doing, dusting for Russian fingerprints in Trump Tower? Analyzing the fibers in Trump’s chair to see if they came from Russia?
Once again, Trumps little nuggets turn out to be true, once you wade through the underbrush. Naturally, this will never be noticed by the MSN, or, if noticed, not mentioned.
Griffin:
“This is like the old Bush era claim that he lied about WMD in Iraq when really he MAY have been incorrect but it was not a lie.”
See the answer to “Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq”.
Also see this critical response to several statements by Bush in his memoir, Decision Points, that suggest he didn’t read key fact findings carefully.
On the law and facts, Bush’s decision on Iraq was correct. The case against Saddam is in fact substantiated, including Saddam’s breach of the UNSCR 687 WMD mandates.
“We’ll see which lasts the longest.” – parker
My money is on the msm.
Why?
Because they have a business and they are providing what their audience wants.
There are more of “them” than there is of trump, which means that they can spin this stuff endless ways to every single one of trump’s.
They can find what “sticks” in a more entrepreneurial sense than trump ever can by not sticking to the facts and shooting for the sensational falsehoods.
.
A “kernel of truth” doesn’t cut it with such exaggerations.
trump can manage to change the conversation by doing this, but it is very doubtful in the long term he can sustain this “strategy” and look like a “winner”.
.
Sticking to the truth and making an honest (not exaggerated) case for one’s position is more likely to get one where he needs to be.
Sure, the msm will still spin it all, but in the long term consistency, persistence, reality, and strategic focus should win out.
The problem is few want to really make the case (and make it in terms that are meaninful to a broader audience), and feel compelled to exaggerate their case or hyperbolize the perils of the others’ case.