header 1
header 2
header 3

Message Forum - GENERAL

Welcome to the Bethesda Chevy Chase High School Message Forum.

The message forum is an ongoing dialogue between classmates. There are no items, topics, subtopics, etc.

Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful! Click the "Post Message" button to add your entry to the forum.


 
go to bottom 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page      

08/04/24 05:04 PM #17338    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maryanngeorgantopoulos/trump-immigrants-vermin-infest

Jack,  I think we are both right. Trump thinks of lots of us as vermin. ...Here is the info about his talk of immigrants as vermin. Love, Joanie


08/04/24 05:08 PM #17339    

 

Jack Mallory

My apologies, you're right, Joanie! It's next to impossible to keep up with his bigoted ethnocentrism. 


08/04/24 05:35 PM #17340    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jack it's perfectly understandable as it's hard to keep up with the one area Trump is inclusive, lumping lots of us as vermin.  Love, Joanie


08/04/24 05:58 PM #17341    

 

Jack Mallory

VERMIN AND PROUD OF IT!


08/04/24 07:09 PM #17342    

 

Jack Mallory

Nori, this is an excellent example of the kind of credible information-based article that's available on many of the current issues, and statements made by politicians of all sides. I use FactCheck all the time. If you're confused by the variety of "facts" in public discourse, there is help! 
 
 
 

Trump Distorts the Facts in Attacks on Harris


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

At a campaign rally in St. Cloud, Minnesota, former President Donald Trump rattled off several criticisms of Vice President Kamala Harris, his presumptive opponent in the presidential race. But some of Trump’s attacks ran afoul of the facts.

  • Trump falsely claimed that Harris voted to “cut Medicare by $237 billion” and “betrayed American seniors.” The legislation allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices and reduces costs for some seniors.
  • He pointed to Harris’ support in early 2019 for Medicare for All, saying she “endorsed outlawing private health insurance entirely.” Harris also proposed a plan later that year that included private insurance, but regardless, she isn’t supporting Medicare for All now.
  • Trump claimed that Harris “said that a 80% tax rate is a bold idea that should be discussed.” Harris didn’t endorse that rate. Instead, she said a Democratic lawmaker’s ideas, which included a rate that high for people making more than $10 million a year, “should be discussed,” adding that “when we are able to defend the status quo, then do it.”
  • Trump said Harris “just turned him free,” referring to Shawn Tillman, who committed murder in 2022, weeks after he was bailed out of jail by a nonprofit Harris promoted on social media in 2020. But it was not her decision to release Tillman, nor was he someone she sought to help get out of jail.
  • He distorted the facts in claiming that Harris, a former prosecutor, “couldn’t pass her bar exam” to become a licensed lawyer. She did pass California’s bar exam on her second attempt.
  • Trump claimed that Harris previously “supported mandatory gun confiscation,” without mentioning that she talked about having a mandatory buyback program only for so-called assault weapons. Harris’ campaign told us she is no longer pushing a buyback program.
  • The former president said Harris “called for slashing consumption of red meat to fight climate change.” Harris once said she supported encouraging and incentivizing Americans to eat better, but she did not say she would restrict how much red meat is consumed.
  • He claimed Harris’ votes “created the worst inflation in half a century.” Economists say the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is primarily to blame.
  • He wrongly said inflation was the worst “we’ve ever had” under this administration. The worst was in 1919-1920.
  • Trump falsely said Harris supported abortion “even after birth,” and he wrongly said “all legal scholars” wanted the issue of abortion rights to be returned to the states.
  • He baselessly said that Harris would let “40 to 50 million more people in our country,” referring to illegal immigration, and added that it would “kill Social Security and Medicare.” Those concocted figures aside, workers who aren’t authorized to be in the country can’t receive the benefits of those retirement programs.

Trump spoke in Minnesota on July 27. The day before, in Florida, Trump made some of the same claims on Medicare, inflation and abortion. 

Medicare Benefits, Not Cuts

Trump falsely claimed that Harris “cast the tiebreaking vote to cut Medicare by $237 billion,” telling the crowd in Minnesota that “she betrayed American seniors.” He’s referring to the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which passed the Senate with Harris’ tie-breaking vote, but the law doesn’t cut benefits for seniors. In fact, it could lower what some seniors pay for prescription drugs.

 

The Medicare provisions of the law are expected to lower federal deficits by $237 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by, among other things, allowingMedicare to negotiate the prices it pays for some drugs and requiring rebates from drug companies if their prices increase faster than inflation. 

The provisions will lower out-of-pocket costs for some beneficiaries, and lowering Medicare spending overall strengthens Medicare’s finances. The nonpartisan health policy research group KFF said in a 2023 analysis that the number of beneficiaries who will pay lower drug costs and how much they save “will depend on how many and which drugs are subject to the negotiation process and the price reductions achieved through the negotiations process relative to what prices would otherwise be.”

The law also caps seniors’ out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 a year for Medicare’s prescription drug plan next year, and it has already capped monthly insulin copays at $35. Those provisions cost the federal government money, as we’ve explained.

We often see politicians, of both parties, falsely claiming or suggesting that legislation to reduce Medicare spending would harm seniors. 

Private Health Insurance

Trump highlighted Harris’ support in 2019 for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All legislation, which aimed to expand Medicare to everyone, creating a universal health care system. Trump said Harris “endorsed outlawing private health insurance entirely.” But at the time, Harris wasn’t as steadfast as Sanders that private health insurance would have to be eliminated, and Harris is no longer supporting such a plan.

Her campaign told us Harris “will not push Medicare for All as President.”

At a January 2019 town hall on CNN, Harris indicated that Sanders’ plan, which she supported, would lead to the elimination of private insurance. But the next day, her press secretary noted that she also supported other health care legislation that wouldn’t go that far. Later in the campaign, Harris proposed her own version of Medicare for All that would include a role for private insurance.

But now, Harris isn’t advocating Medicare for All.

Taxes

Trump went on to hit Harris on taxes, saying: “She said that a 80% tax rate is a bold idea that should be discussed. It’s very interesting to her.”

He appeared to be referring to comments that Harris made during a January 2019 appearance on ABC’s “The View.” Harris was asked if she believed that “socialist left” policies proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, such as a “70% to 80% tax rate,” could splinter the Democratic Party. Harris said “no,” and added that Ocasio-Cortez was “challenging the status quo” which is “fantastic.”

“I think that she is introducing bold ideas that should be discussed. And I think it’s good for the party, and frankly I think it’s good for the country,” Harris continued. “Let’s look at the bold ideas and I’m eager that we have those discussions. And when we are able to defend the status quo, then do it. And if there’s not merit to that, then let’s explore new ideas.”

At the time, Ocasio-Cortez had floated increasing the top income tax rate to 70% or more — but only for U.S. residents making at least $10 million annually. Moreover, Harris never said she supported that hypothetical policy.

While running for president in 2019, Harris proposed raising the top income tax rate on the top 1% of earners back to 39.6%. Trump had reduced it to 37% in 2017, when he signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Harris’ Connection to Shawn Tillman

Being in Minnesota, Trump attacked Harris for soliciting donations in 2020 for a Minnesota-based nonprofit that later paid bail for a man who went on to commit murder.

“Kamala urged her followers to donate to the so-called Minnesota Freedom Fund, helping raise $35 million to set loose violent offenders after they shot at police, looted your stores, sexually assaulted innocent victims and committed all sorts of other heinous crimes.” Trump said. “One of the criminals Kamala helped bail out of jail was Shawn Michael Tillman, very famous now unfortunately, a repeat offender, who, with Harris’ help, was set free –  she set free many very bad people – then he went on a murder rampage. He killed a man on a train platform in St. Paul, shooting him six times in the head. She just turned him free.”

But Harris did not have the authority to free Tillman or other criminals. Tillman is not even someone Harris tried to help get out of jail.

Days after George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis by a police officer in May 2020, Harris encouraged donations “to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” The group that she highlighted, the Minnesota Freedom Fund, pays bail for individuals who cannot afford to secure their release from jail while their court case is pending. The bail amount is set by a judge.

After Harris and other public figures promoted the nonprofit, it raised almost $40 million in 2020, the group’s then-interim executive director told us in February 2021. MFF did use some of the money to pay bail and legal expenses for people who were arrested while protesting, and in some cases rioting, but there is no indication that Tillman was a protester.

MFF said it paid a bail amount of $2,000 in April 2022 for Tillman, who was in jail on a misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure. That was almost two years after Floyd’s death.

Weeks after his release, Tillman shot and killed Demitri Ellis-Strong at a rail station in St. Paul. He was sentenced in March to life in prison for the murder.

Trump blamed Harris for Tillman’s release, but there is no evidence that she had any say in the judge’s decision to grant Tillman bail or the nonprofit’s decision to pay it. Harris requested financial assistance specifically for protesters in Minnesota – not people arrested for any other reason.

“We have no connection to Harris or her campaign beyond a four-year-old tweet,” an MFF spokesperson told us in an email. “All our clients have been made eligible for pre-trial release by a judge, and are in jail until trial simply because they cannot afford bail.”

Bar Exam

In an attempt to insult her intelligence, Trump distorted the facts in claiming that Harris “couldn’t pass” the state exam required to become a licensed lawyer.

“You know she couldn’t pass her law exam, right? Have you heard that?” Trump askedthe crowd. “These are minor details. She couldn’t pass her bar exam. Took the bar exam; she couldn’t pass it. She thought she’d never be able to pass it.”

Harris, a 1989 graduate of the then-University of California Hastings College of Law, failed the first time she took the bar exam in California in July 1989, according to her book, “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey.” (About 28% of those who took the exam for the first time in July 1989 failed, and about 40% of all people who took it did not pass, according to figures sent to us by the State Bar of California.)

However, in February 1990, on her second attempt, she passed the exam, considered to be one of the toughest in the country, and was admitted to the State Bar of California in June 1990.

Harris went on to hold multiple positions as a prosecutor before being elected San Francisco’s district attorney in 2003 and then California’s attorney general in 2010.

Trump raised this issue again when speaking at the National Association of Black Journalists convention on July 31. “She didn’t think she was going to ever pass it. And I don’t know what happened. Maybe she passed it,” he said. One of the journalists interviewing the former president corrected him, saying, “She did pass it.”

Guns

On the subject of Harris’ position on guns, Trump said, “She supported mandatory gun confiscation, ripping firearms away from law-abiding citizens.” That’s misleading.

In multiple interviews during her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris did talk about implementing a mandatory buyback program — but only for so-called assault weapons, not all firearms.

For example, during an October 2019 forum on gun violence, Harris was asked about a potential assault weapons ban and what she would do about millions of those particular guns already in circulation in the country.

“We have to have a buyback program, and I support a mandatory buyback program,” Harris replied. “It’s got to be smart, we got to do it the right way. But there are 5 million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets, but doing it in the right way.”

In an NBC News interview the following month, Harris talked about rejecting the “false choice” that “either you’re in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.” She added that “there are certain types of weapons that should not be on the streets of a civil society,” and said incentives should be provided for the public to turn in what she called “weapons of war.”

Recently on the campaign trail, Harris has called for an “assault weapons ban.” But the campaign confirmed to us that she was no longer advocating a mandatory buyback program.

Red Meat

Trump suggested that, to combat climate change, Harris was prepared to limit how much red meat is consumed in the U.S.

“Kamala called for slashing consumption of red meat to fight climate change,” Trump said. “Now, you know what that means, because in a couple of countries, they’re actually getting rid of their cows and their cattle … because they say it’s environmentally unacceptable.”

Harris did not explicitly say that she would restrict how much red meat Americans consume, as Trump suggested. During a September 2019 climate town hall, Harris, when asked, said that, for health reasons and because of climate change, she would support modifying U.S. dietary guidelines to encourage a change in eating habits.

“The balance that we have to strike here, frankly, is about what government can and should do around creating incentives and then banning certain behaviors,” she said, before relating her own love of cheeseburgers “from time to time.”

Although Harris did mention “banning certain behaviors” as part of a balanced government approach, her answer primarily focused on motivating, rather than forcing, the public to eat better. After all, Americans are not required to follow the dietary guidelines.

“But there also has to be what we do in terms of creating incentives that we will eat in a healthy way, that we will encourage moderation, and that we will be educated about the effect of our eating habits on our environment,” she said.

Inflation Distortions

Economists say the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is the primary reason for higher inflation beginning in 2021, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine the following year further compounded the problem. The American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion pandemic relief measure that President Joe Biden signed into law in March 2021, contributed to inflation, economists told us two years ago, though estimates varied as to how much.

But Trump, echoing a claim made throughout the Republican National Convention, claimed in his Minnesota speech that Harris “cast the tie-breaking votes that created the worst inflation in half a century,” going on to falsely claim “they don’t use the real numbers” and he believed it was “the worst inflation that we’ve ever had.” 

The worst inflation the U.S. has ever had occurred from June 1919 to June 1920, when the 12-month increase in the Consumer Price Index was 23.7%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Under the Biden administration, the largest increase was 9.1% for the 12 months ending June 2022. BLS said it was the biggest increase since November 1981. So, it was the worst inflation in 41 years. 

Inflation has moderated since that June 2022 peak. It rose 3% in the 12 months ending in June, according to the BLS.

In July 26 remarks in Florida, Trump similarly cast doubt on the official inflation figures, saying, “they say, ‘Sir, it’s only 58 years.’ I say I believe it’s the worst we’ve ever had. The numbers are much higher than they’re showing.” This false claim fits a pattern of Trump rejecting statistical measures when criticizing his political opponents, but accepting the figures when they are favorable to him. For instance, he claimed BLS unemployment rate figures were “phony” when campaigning in 2016, but once in office, he embraced the figures.

As for Harris’ vote, she cast the tie-breaking vote on a motion that moved the American Rescue Plan legislation forward in the Senate, which a few days later passed the bill without Harris’ assistance. As we said, economists cite the impact of the pandemic — a shutdown of the economy followed by a rapid recovery — as the primary culprit for inflation. (See our 2022 story on the issue for more.)

Abortion

Trump repeated false claims he’s made before about abortion. He said that Harris “wants abortion … right up until birth and even after birth.” There are no post-birth abortions. That would be homicide, and it’s illegal.

He also said that “everybody” and “all legal scholars” wanted the issue of abortion rights to be returned to the states. Plenty of legal scholars, and a majority of the American public, didn’t want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, which it did in June 2022, sending the issue to the states.

We’ve written about both claims before. 

Trump said that Harris “wants abortion in the eighth and ninth month of pregnancy. Think of that. And right up until birth and even after birth.” Harris has called for abortion rights to be guaranteed by federal law. “And when Congress passes a law to restore reproductive freedoms — as president of the United States, I will sign it into law,” she said at a July 30 rally in Atlanta.

Republicans have pointed to a September 2023 interview on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” saying that Harris didn’t explain what gestational limit on abortion she would support. Harris said she wanted to “restore the protections of Roe v. Wade,” adding, “we’re not trying to do anything that did not exist before June of last year.”

As we’ve explained, the 1973 Roe ruling said states could outlaw abortion after fetal viability, but with exceptions for risks to the life or health of the mother. Many Republicans have objected to the health exception, saying it would allow abortion for any reason after viability.

Abortions late in a pregnancy are rare. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 93.5% of abortions in 2021 were performed at or before 13 weeks of gestation, and less than 1% were performed at or after 21 weeks.

Trump also referred to a 2019 bill, saying that Harris “voted against legislation that would require medical providers to give care to babies born alive after an attempted abortion.” The GOP bill would have instituted penalties and jail time for health care providers who don’t provide certain medical care “[i]n the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive.” As we wrote then, Democrats said the legislation was unnecessary and aimed at restricting access to legal abortion, while Republicans said it was about protecting babies.

The Supreme Court overturned Roe after Trump’s appointment of three conservative justices during his time as president. “I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars, both sides, wanted and in fact demanded be ended. Roe v. Wade, they wanted it ended,” Trump said in a video posted on Truth Social on April 8.

He made the same claim in Minnesota, saying that “everybody wanted it back in the states. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives and legal scholars, every legal scholar wanted it back in the states.” 

When we wrote about this in April, legal scholars told us the claim was “utter nonsense” and “patently absurd.”

Legal scholars wrote many amicus briefs supporting Roe and opposing the Mississippi law that prompted the Supreme Court case that led to the court overturning Roe. Several polls since then have found a majority of Americans oppose the court’s decision.

Medicare and Social Security

Trump, who has grossly inflated immigration figures before, baselessly claimed that if Harris is elected “it’ll be 40 to 50 million more people in our country,” referring to illegal immigration, adding that “they’ll be using Medicare and Social Security,” programs that would then be “destroyed.” Harris “will kill Social Security and Medicare,” he said.

The baseless 40-to-50-million figures aside, illegal immigration doesn’t destroy those programs — instead it improves their finances.

That’s because workers who are not authorized to be in the U.S. have to pay a percentage of their paychecks in Medicare and Social Security taxes, even though they can’t receive any of the benefits from those programs. We and other fact-checkers have explained this before.


Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 
 

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/08/trump-distorts-the-facts-in-attacks-on-harris/


08/05/24 05:15 AM #17343    

Wolfgang Voegeli

Hi, Ihave been silent for a long time but followed some of your postings, especially articles giving analyses of the political process in the USA. The latter, to a European, is quite frightening. We have our weirdos, too: Orban in Hungary, Le Pen in France, Wilders in the Netherlands.... But we simply cannot understand how anyone who believes in basic concepts of democracy can vote for someone who instigated an insurgency against essential constitutional proceedings and whose morals are highly questionable, to put it mildly.

Friends in the US sent me this link which most of you will know but maybe some not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNu_Q11QFWY  

Sorry, I somehow am not able to create a link on this website. But copy and paste will work.


08/05/24 05:40 AM #17344    

 

Jack Mallory

Link works fine, Wolfgang--thanks! 
 

**********
And so do photos, now. Here's Bodie, and/or Bodie's siblings. Bodie himself to be revealed the 21st.


08/05/24 06:09 AM #17345    

 

Joan Ruggles (Young)

Hey Mr Smeby, I hear there are some rumblings among the citizenry of "The Villages". I read in the New York Times, that parades of old people in their little electric carts are parading for Trump or Harris! I hope this doesn't turn white neighbors against white neighbors! Was surprised to hear that the community permitted Democrats. Who woulda thought it?

Hey Wolfgang! Always glad to hear from you! I'm in France now and we just missed (as always) Marine le Pin by the skin of our teeth for what seems like the 20th time! 

 


08/05/24 09:13 AM #17346    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Wolfgang, thanks for your note.  So good when an authoritarian doesn't take power.  Yes Joan.  Soooo relieved. Le Pen lost. So happy we now have more hope that Trump will lose...love, Joanie


08/05/24 09:32 AM #17347    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jack, the pup is precious looking.  What's the name? Love, Joanie ❤️❤️❤️


08/05/24 11:53 AM #17348    

 

Jack Mallory

Our pup's name is Bodie, but we don't yet know which one is Bodie, Joanie. See the breeder policy I described earlier.

*******

Glad I wasn't considering RFK even before I read this. Google "Kennedy bear cub" if you can't open the New Yorker story, you'll find at least a little bit of the nuttiness. 

What Does Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Actually Want?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/08/12/robert-f-kennedy-jr-profile-presidential-campaign
 


08/06/24 11:52 AM #17349    

 

Jack Mallory

Brief NYT description, with links, of Kamala's VP choice:

 

Liberal Vermin like Kamala, I'll vote for him! He's a former high school history teacher!

 

And, relax J.D., the Walzs are dog owners! And Mrs. Walz isn't childless!
 


https://www.startribune.com/meet-scout-gov-tim-walz-s-new-dog/559520102

 

 


08/06/24 07:22 PM #17350    

 

Jay Shackford

 

The Joy Couple

 

In 1968, we were blessed with the movie “The Odd Couple,” written by Neil Simon and featuring beloved actors Jack Lemmon and Walther Mathew. It was, for some incomprehensible reasons, a commercial failure. 

 

Today, 56 years later, we are blessed with “The Joy Couple,” featuring Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. This time this best-selling presidential team featuring joy and the American promise won’t fail.  

 

Go online  Commit.  Volunteer,  Get excited and enthused.  Send generous contributions. We won’t go back!

 

The best line from tonight’s event — one that will be replayed countless times in the days ahead and tomorrow on “Morning Joe”— was from Minnesota Governor and Running Mate Tim Walz:  

 

“Make no mistake about it: During Trump’s presidency, violent crime went up, and that’s not counting the crimes he committed.”


08/07/24 09:49 AM #17351    

 

John Smeby

My annual post to recognize National Purple Heart Day on August 7th. At this time I continue to be thankful that I survivied that experience and came back in the category of "wounded in combat" as opposed to "killed in the line of duty". 


08/07/24 12:19 PM #17352    

 

Stephen Hatchett

Jack:  In that pic of 4 pups and a bowl -- if Bodie is either the pup on top of another pup, or the pup underneath -- you are good!.  If they are anything like two of ours like that, the pup on top will be joyful bouncer, retriever, splasher,...   and the pup on the bottom will be as sweet and loyal and loving as a dog can get.   Our two came different years from different rescue situations, but that is just how they played and just who they were/are.  You may have to get a sit-on-top kayak yet to make room for Bodie.  Or a two seater?  We were told that a two-seater for a man and wife really needs to be a 3 seater -- for the marriage therapist to go along.  But with a dog, no problemo! 

Can't wait to see what happens in 2 weeks.  

And that jpeg of "DOG PEOPLE FOR KAMALA" has been going on all my emails.  And that rally yesterday in Pennsylvania with Tim Walz uncorked another kayak's worth from me.  What's a kayak worth if you can't float free??!


08/07/24 12:20 PM #17353    

 

Jack Mallory

Yes, a salute to all those killed, wounded, or missing in action. May we never fight wars unworthy of such sacrifices. 


08/07/24 02:46 PM #17354    

 

Jay Shackford

Hey John -- Glad you made it home okay and recovered from Vietnam.  Where are you in the photo? Bests, Jay


08/07/24 05:32 PM #17355    

 

Jack Mallory

Having had arms full of all those little lumps of Lab fur, Stephen, any one of them will be fine. I may be too old and grumpy to adjust to humans, but pups I can deal with. 

I may be the one who told you that tandem kayaks should come with couple's counseling! We've always had individual 'yaks, go out together but paddle off in our own directions, me with the camera and Deb in search of drift wood. When we did that week kayak camping in the Everglades it was in a tandem, 'cuz that's what the guides provided. Required both physical and attitudinal readjustments, switching off bow (power) and stern (steering) paddler throughout the day! We, and the relationship, survived. 

Today's walk in the woods:

 

Well, that one's really from The New Yorker.
 

 


08/08/24 10:29 AM #17356    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

John so glad you came back.  Love, Joanie


08/09/24 05:51 AM #17357    

 

Jack Mallory

Lest we forget:

  • How power-crazed liars with no integrity threaten democracy
  • How many Americans can be fooled into supporting and voting for "mean-spirited, foul-mouthed bullies"
  • How the free press is our defense against such lying bullies
  • How charges of "liberal conspiracies" are used to defend would-be autocrats
  • How presidents claim special legal exemptions from justice to evade justice

​I especially hope that those who, 50-some years ago, were bamboozled into voting for Nixon recognize their susceptibility to criminals seeking power today.

Fifty years ago, on August 9, 1974, Richard M. Nixon became the first president in U.S. history to resign.

The road to that resignation began in 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg, who was at the time an employee of the RAND Corporation and thus had access to a top-secret Pentagon study of the way U.S. leaders had made decisions about the Vietnam War, leaked that study to major U.S. newspapers, including the New York Times and the Washington Post

The Pentagon Papers showed that every president from Harry S. Truman to Lyndon B. Johnson had lied to the public about events in Vietnam, and Nixon worried that “enemies” would follow the Pentagon Papers with a leak of information about his own decision-making to destroy his administration and hand the 1972 election to a Democrat. 

The FBI seemed to Nixon reluctant to believe he was being stalked by enemies. So the president organized his own Special Investigations Unit out of the White House to stop leaks. And who stops leaks? Plumbers. 

The plumbers burglarized the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in California, hoping to find something to discredit him, then moved on to bigger targets. Together with the Committee to Re-elect the President (fittingly dubbed CREEP as its activities became known), they planted fake letters in newspapers declaring support for Nixon and hatred for his opponents, spied on Democrats, and hired vendors for Democratic rallies and then scarpered on the bills. Finally, they set out to wiretap the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, in the fashionable Watergate office complex.

Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, Watergate security guard Frank Wills noticed that a door lock had been taped open. He ripped off the tape and closed the door, but on his next round, he found the door taped open again. Wills called the police, who arrested five men ransacking the DNC’s files. 

The White House immediately denounced what it called a “third-rate burglary attempt,” and the Watergate break-in gained no traction before the 1972 election, which Nixon and Vice-President Spiro Agnew won with an astonishing 60.7% of the popular vote. 

But Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, two young Washington Postreporters, followed the sloppy money trail back to the White House, and by March 1973 the scheme was unraveling. One of the burglars, James W. McCord Jr., wrote a letter to Judge John Sirica before his sentencing claiming he had lied at his trial to protect government officials. Sirica made the letter public, and White House counsel John Dean immediately began cooperating with prosecutors.

In April, three of Nixon’s top advisors resigned, and in May the president was forced to appoint former solicitor general of the United States Archibald Cox as a special prosecutor to investigate the affair. That same month, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, informally known as the Senate Watergate Committee, began nationally televised hearings. The committee’s chair was Sam Ervin (D-NC), a conservative Democrat who would not run for reelection in 1974 and thus was expected to be able to do the job without political grandstanding.

The hearings turned up the explosive testimony of John Dean, who said he had talked to Nixon about covering up the burglary more than 30 times, but there the investigation sat during the hot summer of 1973 as the committee churned through witnesses. And then, on July 13, 1973, deputy assistant to the president Alexander Butterfield revealed the bombshell news that conversations and phone calls in the Oval Office had been taped since 1971.

Nixon refused to provide copies of the tapes either to Cox or to the Senate committee. When Cox subpoenaed a number of the tapes, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire him. In the October 20, 1973, “Saturday Night Massacre,” Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, refused to execute Nixon’s order and resigned in protest; it was only the third man at the Justice Department—Solicitor General Robert Bork—who was willing to carry out the order firing Cox.

Popular outrage at the resignations and firing forced Nixon to ask Bork—now acting attorney general—to appoint a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, a Democrat who had voted for Nixon, on November 1. On November 17, Nixon assured the American people that “I am not a crook.”

Like Cox before him, Jaworski was determined to hear the Oval Office tapes. He subpoenaed a number of them. Nixon fought the subpoenas on the grounds of executive privilege. On July 24, 1974, in U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court sided unanimously with the prosecutor, saying that executive privilege “must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that 'the twofold aim (of criminal justice) is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.'... The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts….”

Their hand forced, Nixon’s people released transcripts of the tapes. They were damning, not just in content but also in style. Nixon had cultivated an image of himself as a clean family man, but the tapes revealed a mean-spirited, foul-mouthed bully. Aware that the tapes would damage his image, Nixon had his swearing redacted. “[Expletive deleted]” trended.

In late July 1974, the House Committee on the Judiciary passed articles of impeachment, charging the president with obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. Each article ended with the same statement: “In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.”

And then, on August 5, in response to a subpoena, the White House released a tape recorded on June 23, 1972, just six days after the Watergate break-in, that showed Nixon and his aide H.R. Haldeman plotting to invoke national security to protect the president. Even Republican senators, who had not wanted to convict their president, knew the game was over. A delegation went to the White House to deliver the news to the president that he must resign or be impeached by the full House and convicted by the Senate.

In his resignation speech, Nixon refused to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong. Instead, he told the American people he had to step down because he no longer had the support he needed in Congress to advance the national interest. He blamed the press, whose “leaks and accusations and innuendo” had been designed to destroy him. His disappointed supporters embraced the idea that there was a “liberal” conspiracy, spearheaded by the press, to bring down any Republican president.


08/09/24 11:22 AM #17358    

 

Jack Mallory

Trump. Forgetful? Delusional? Senile? Or just a liar? 

That Time Trump Nearly Died in a Helicopter Crash? Didn’t Happen.

In a news conference, the former president recounted a brush with death alongside Willie Brown, the former San Francisco mayor. A few aspects of the story don’t hold up to scrutiny.

 
Image
In November 2018, President Donald J. Trump and Gov. Jerry Brown of California visiting a neighborhood destroyed by a wildfire in Paradise, Calif. Mr. Trump and Mr. Brown also viewed the damage by helicopter.
Credit...Tom Brenner for The New York Times

Heather Knight and 

Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles

 

Sign up for the On Politics newsletter.  Your guide to the 2024 elections. Get it sent to your inbox.

Former President Donald J. Trump told a jaw-dropping story on Thursday about nearly dying in a helicopter ride with Willie Brown, the former California politician and ex-boyfriend of his rival, Vice President Kamala Harris.

There was only one problem with the story. Or maybe two. Or maybe three.

It wasn’t the famous former San Francisco mayor on the helicopter flight at all. It was Gov. Jerry Brown, the former governor of California, who bears little resemblance to Willie Brown.

There was also no emergency landing, and the helicopter’s passengers were never in any danger at all, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was also on the flight.

Jerry Brown, who left office in January 2019, said through a spokesman, “There was no emergency landing and no discussion of Kamala Harris.”

“I call complete B.S.,” Mr. Newsom said, laughing out loud. (My emphasis, JKM)

Mr. Trump’s errant account, delivered during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, came in response to a reporter who asked a leading question about Ms. Harris’s past relationship with Willie Brown, and whether Mr. Trump thought it might have had something to do with her career trajectory.

The two dated in 1994 and 1995, while she was a prosecutor in Alameda County, which includes Oakland, and he was the speaker of the California State Assembly, and he appointed her to two state boards. He was — and still is — married to Blanche Brown, but they have long lived separate lives.

“Well, I know Willie Brown very well,” Mr. Trump responded. “In fact, I went down in a helicopter with him.”

He went on to tell a cinematic tale of a close call with death — and of politically advantageous gossip on death’s door:

“We thought maybe this was the end,” Mr. Trump said. “We were in a helicopter, going to a certain location together, and there was an emergency landing. This was not a pleasant landing.

“And Willie was — he was a little concerned,” Mr. Trump continued. “So I know him, but I know him pretty well. I mean, I haven’t seen him in years. But he told me terrible things about her. But this is what you’re telling me, anyway, I guess. But he had a big part in what happened with Kamala. But he — he, I don’t know, maybe he’s changed his tune. But he — he was not a fan of hers very much, at that point.”

 
Open modal at item 1of 2
Open modal at item 2of 2
Both Jerry Brown, left, and Willie Brown, refuted Mr. Trump's story of a helicopter ride gone wrong.

Reached on his cellphone just after Mr. Trump’s news conference — at his regular lunch spot at Sam’s Grill in downtown San Francisco — Mr. Brown, 90, said the whole story was false. He had never ridden in a helicopter with Mr. Trump, he said. He had never nearly perished in any helicopter ride. And he remained an avid supporter of Ms. Harris’s.

Mr. Brown, who loves regaling anybody who will listen with stories and who penned a weekly column in The San Francisco Chronicle until 2021, added, laughing: “You know me well enough to know that if I almost went down in a helicopter with anybody, you would have heard about it!”

Ms. Harris ended their relationship nearly three decades ago, but Mr. Brown said he had always been a big fan and supporter of hers. “No hard feelings,” he said.

The helicopter ride that Mr. Trump took in 2018 with Gov. Jerry Brown, 86, and with Mr. Newsom, then the governor-elect of California, was to survey damage wrought by the deadly Camp Fire in the town of Paradise, in the Sierra Nevada foothills north of Sacramento.

Mr. Newsom’s recollection of the occasion was vivid.

“I was on a helicopter with Jerry Brown and Trump, and it didn’t go down,” Mr. Newsom, 56, said in an interview. He said that Mr. Trump had, however, repeatedly brought up the possibility of crashing.

The subject of Ms. Harris, with whom Mr. Newsom had enjoyed a friendly rivalry, did not come up on the helicopter, he added. “We talked about everyone else, but not Kamala,” he said with a laugh.

Mr. Newsom called Mr. Trump’s news conference “an act of desperation” prompted by what he called Ms. Harris’s momentum.

Mr. Trump’s visit to the burned forest with then-Governor Brown and Mr. Newsom did generate headlines, but not because of anything that occurred on their helicopter ride. Rather, it was because, during a news conference after landing at the scene, Mr. Trump, 78, attributed the wildfire to too many fallen, dead tree branches and said the answer to solving California’s wildfire crisis was to rake the forest floors.

“It was back when we were making raking the forest great again,” Mr. Newsom said.

 

 


08/09/24 01:11 PM #17359    

 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Appreciate the 'fact checking', Jack.  And, yes, from helicopters to cannibals and too many topics tween,  politics is rife with lies, plagiarism, accusations and exaggerations. Gawd knows we can hopefully agree on that. Now, after reading the 'factual' account top to bottom, little-old-blonde-that-I-am can't tell you a single thing that Harris has pointed to where she hasn't either abandoned or flipped her views.   She once advocated a mandatory buyback of guns, now she has dropped that idea and seems to have settled on a ban on assault weapons but all other guns are ok.  Of course she's had to move center.  As we all know she DID advocate medicare for all (ala Bernie Sanders' universal healthcare position)) but now is not advocating medicare for all. She has had to move center. (Incidentally, recognizing public dependence on Obamacare and having removed the mandatory aspect of it, Republicans are not advocating getting rid of it, making it a much smaller issue than pre-Trump). But, I digress.  Ok, So, no mention of where Harris stands on our illegal immigration mess? Won't go into the numbers but can we all agree it IS a mess? Bottom line, she again HAS to move center.  She has not been explicit about how she would restrict red meat for enviromental reasons. That's not popular, so she won't even mention it but (I guess) later on she'll have to to appease her environmental base by announcing her stand. Maybe she hopes to wait until elected to mention it.  Interestingly, no mention of her stand on two raging wars. If she can't appeal to the masses, then don't go there? Is that her ploy? As for inflation, Trump was in office for over two years before COVID gripped the nation, then our inflation rate was around 2%.   It shot up long after Biden declared COVID dead and his own WH tenure.  Inflation and prices though better than a year ago, are still too high. What is her plan for stabilizing the economy and the roles energy and busness regulations will play? Will she continue to follow through with Biden adminstration policies internationally and here at home?  Where/how will she differ? She has flipped her stand from anti to pro fracking. Who knew? Soundbites indicate she is a self-described 'radical' which is a scary word for moderate thinking people. If she is, she should own it and like Walz had to mea culpa the role he played (or didn't play) in the Minneapolis riots, she should get ahead of these things.  No matter how joyful and cute she is, Americans will sniff out an air of phony word play, even if time is short. JMO

Oh, and Jack, please answer this question for me, s'il vous plait: if DEI is the goal, why do Dems recoil at the mention of anyone being a DEI hire? I mean, isn't that a good thing?  


08/09/24 02:06 PM #17360    

 

Jack Mallory

Many of us use paragraph indents or line breaks to make reading dense text simpler, Nori. Highly recommended if you're going to the trouble of writing a lengthy screed, want people to read it. 
 

I'd address your last question, but I need some clarification. 

What does "Dems" in "Dems recoil at the mention of anyone being a DEI hiremean? 

Who, exactly, is recoiling? Has the Democratic Party announced a position opposing anti-DEI hiring policy, or opposition to mentioning DEI hires? Have individual Democratic office holders announced such positions? Which ones? A majority? National, state or local? 

Or does this refer to Democratic voters? All of them? Most of them? Is there a poll or survey that evidences such a "recoil"? Would you call me a "Dem" since I usually vote for Democratic candidates? But I don't recoil at the mention of anyone being a DEI hire, I do think it's a good thing. Hell, I think targeted, preferential choice helped put both Vance and Walz in the race as veterans!

At any rate, clarify the reality of this recoil and who's doing the recoiling, s'il vous plait, and I'll happily speculate on the reasons for it. Got to be speculation, since the Democratic voters I know don't seem to be doing it. 

 


08/10/24 04:28 PM #17361    

 

Nora Skinker (Morton)

Jack, funny that you would point out my lack of continuity by my failure to use paragraphing properly.  Did you then TRY to margin-out much of your response? If you did not try, then am I the only one who could only read half of each sentence due to either the other half being off the page or the margin taking up 3/4's of the page width?  Crazy.  If you can, please resubmit so I can read what you wrote (s'il vous plait:))

For those who are (as I am) enjoying the Olympics, HOW BOUT THAT MIND-BLOWING USA TRACK & FIELD TEAM OF OURS!!!??? 


08/10/24 04:41 PM #17362    

 

Joanie Bender (Grosfeld)

Jack, I had trouble reading all of that post too but I got the jist of at least a good portion of it. From what I have observed of Kamala Harris since Biden has been President, I have been happy with her for the most part. I like her message that she is for the future and for people not just getting by but getting ahead. I like that she sees an America of possibilities like Joe Biden does. Trump is talking of an America that has nothing in it good but the chance for him to return to restore it all.His idea of restoration is turning America into a dictatorship and destroying the federal government and the justice dept, the environment, the education department and abandoning our NATO alliances and going after his perceived enemies.  She sounds like she will try to continue the Biden Harris Administrations policies of helping children with the child credit program reinstalled if possible .and she is for restoring voters rights. She is for women's reproductive rights etc.and so many more important things.  I also could tell she is genuine in her love of Joe Biden which was refreshing as so many politicians are only thinking of themselves but she was very sensitive to his having to pull out. It was apparent when Joe Biden called in and she talked to him. I know you always say we need facts to justify our opinions but there are times when our feelings have significance. I feel that she has shown she is trying to move us in the right direction. I felt that the person writing that article was very cynical making it sound like she never had an opinion that she didn't put her finger to the wind to check out. As far as being for Medicare for all and now not talking of that or banning guns but not some other type of gun control, she still is for increasing gun safety. Its common for politicians to move towards the center to appeal to more people but she hasn't abandoned some very important things she will fight for like climate change, etc. Love, Joanie


go to top 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page