Category Archives: government

The Majority Rules, Chapter Two

Posted on by
Reply

A rare race for Speaker of the Missouri House has shaped up after 51.6% of the voters of Missouri approved Amendment 3, the abortion amendment.

For several years, Missouri House Republicans have picked a Speaker-designate during the September veto session who would succeed the outgoing Speaker in January. They have a two-thirds majority, so the decision in September is tantamount to the actual election.

But the November election has injected some uncertainty into the proceedings.

Republicans chose Dr. Jon Patterson of Lee’s Summit as the presumptive successor to Dean Plocher, a St. Louis County Representative who is term limited.

But the election, particularly the approval of Amendment 3, has produced a challenger—Justin Sparks of Wildwood.

Patterson has said the legislature should “respect the law.”  But Sparks says that Patterson’s comment “is not what the leader of the Republican Caucus should be saying.”

Sparks is a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus.  His background is in law enforcement as a 15-year veteran of the St. Louis County Police Department and a Deputy U.S. Marshall. He has told St. Louis television station KMOV, “It is clear that many people that voted for Amendment 3 did so under information that was false.” And he asked, “Should three cities determine what everybody lives under for the entire state? I say no.”

Sparks also criticizes Patterson on other issues, especially as a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial put it, “Patterson’s vote against legislation to prohibit transgender treatments for minors. Patterson, a surgeon, has said he believes there should be exceptions to that prohibition based on case-by-case details — a medically reasonable standard that most in Patterson’s party today reject. As House majority leader, Patterson nonetheless allowed debate on the legislation, which passed.”

The November election tally from the Secretary of State’s office shows Amendment 3 passed 1,527,096-1,432,084., a 95,000 vote margin.  But it passed in only seven of Missouri’s 116 voting areas (114 counties plus the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City).  Voters in the two cities, Jackson and St. Louis Counties were joined by Boone, Clay, and Buchanan Counties with 72.6% of the votes in those areas.  In the rest of the state, Amendment 3 was outvoted 728,042-1,050,088. Boone County was the only county outside the metro areas to vote “yes.”

Patterson and Sparks, both Republicans, won in areas that went heavily in favor of Amendment 3. St. Louis County, where Sparks lives, went for it 335,082-162,311 with St. Louis City going 95,039-19,673. Jackson County was in favor 112,822-78,712 with Kansas City adding a tally of 99,120-23,985.

Two Republicans will face off for one of the most important jobs in state government in January, both from metro areas that provided the margin in the statewide victory for Amendment 3.  One says the will of the whole people of Missouri as well as the will of voters in his home area, should be honored. The other says both should be ignored because that’s not what Republicans are about, in effect saying that they should be a party that does not accept the will of all of the public.

One says all of the voters should make the decision. The other says only one party’s voters count.

Let’s see what kind of Republican Party we have in the Missouri House, come January.

The Rules Don’t Apply to Me

Posted on by
1

Four years later, the Leopard still has his spots.

Donald Trump has wasted no time proclaiming in word and deed that rules and laws do not apply to him. After all, his victory “was the greatest political movement of all time.”

He said during his campaign he wanted to be a dictator on day one. He’s not even waiting that long. He’s already ignoring the law and in a dangerous way.

New York Times reporter Ken Bensinger reported earlier this week that Trump “has not submitted a required ethics plan stating he will avoid conflicts of interest.”

The Trump transition team was hired in August “but has refused to participate in the normal handoff process, which typically begins months before the election.” Because of that, the Trump team is barred from national security briefings. The committee also has been denied access to federal agencies. The team reportedly has “an intent” to sign the agreements. But nobody has.

Concerns about Trump’s ethical lapses (to substantially understate the point) in his first term led Congress in 2019 to require candidates to post an ethics plan before the election and how the person would address conflict of issues accusations during their presidential terms, regardless of how far they get in the process.  Trump announced then that he would not divest his assets or put them in a blind trust, as office-holders usually do to separate themselves from making decisions that would benefit them while in office. Bensinger says the watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has identified 3,400-plus Trumpian conflicts in his first four years as President.

Both President Biden and Vice-President Harris  had no trouble signing the agreements during the recently-concluded campaign. But signing them apparently was too inconvenient on the other side. Doing so apparently would distract from cooking up cat-eating conspiracies and fake reports of Venezuelan gangs taking over Colorado apartments.

Frequent Trump critic, Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, charges Trump is “thumbing his nose” at the requirements. Raskin says refusal to sign the documents keeps the Trump transition team from getting $7.2 million in transition money.  The program puts $5,000 limits on individual donations to the transition effort.  But since Trump refuses to sign the ethics code, he can raise money hand over fist and now have to report who gave it to him.

There’s an even bigger issue that would be trouble for people who think they are not above the law:  Refusal to sign the ethics documents means none of the transition team can get security clearances that will give them access to 438 federal agencies’ records.

But who needs that?  After all, we’re dealing with someone who thinks he knows everything already. Nobody knows the political system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it,” had modestly observed in his first campaign.

Even more recently, Trump demanded that the next leader of the U. S. Senate not stand in the way of his appointments to key positions by letting him make what are called recess appointments.

And those seeking power in the Senate are saying, in effect, “Yes Sir. Whatever you want, sir.”

Recess appointments are intended to respond to emergencies. They can stay in place for a couple of years without seeking advice and consent form the Senate. He has openly said he wants to avoid opposition to his choices. He said on his personal social media site, “Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments…without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner.”

Senate confirmation of appointments has been one of the great checks and balances in the American system of government. They demand, on behalf of the American people, accountability from the nominees as well as from the President making the nominations.

Sadly, the three front-runners as Mitch McConnell’s replacement have quickly drunk from the Trump Kool-Aid pitcher on this. Trump favors Florida Senator Rick Scott for the job. His election will tell us a lot about whether the Senate will maintain any independence from the White House.

So far, however, thee’s no guarantee that every other Senator will go along with Trump’s dictates.  Some of those who survived January 6th aren’t happy with plans to pardon many of the peaceful tourists who convinced members of Congress they weren’t interested in tourism. Some also think his tariff plans are impractical. Those who resist will be threatened with well-funded primary opponents in their re-election bids, a visceral threat. Loyalty to him is the only thing that matters with Trump.

Trump also wants all judicial appointments by President Biden halted until Republicans take control of the Senate.  Damn the process! Forget about checks and balances. The only judges fit to sit on the federal bench are those that must prove their loyalty is beyond (or is beneath?) the law alone. That appears to be a no-brainer for the bunch that refused to even let Merritt Garland have a hearing months before the end of the Obama presidency so Trump could get a head start on loading the court.

Last night, the Wall Street Journal reported the Trump transition team is creating an executive order that would establish a so-called “warrior board” of retired general and noncoms to recommend dismissals of generals that Trump considers disloyal, were involved in the Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021 or have suggested policies that are considered too liberal. The report says the generals could be kicked out of the service for “lacking in requisite leadership qualities,” a vague phrase that so far has not been explained by the transition team.

A military loyal to Trump more than it is loyal to the nation and its Constitution is something he promised during his campaign to do.

Well, this is the bed made by those who don’t like his mouth but think his policies are okay.  Forget ethics and laws and constitutional limits on presidential power. Within a week after his election, Donald Trump has blatantly asserted that the rules and the laws do not apply to him.

And he is more than two months away from taking office.

I am terribly scared of this man.

The Choice

Posted on by
Reply

We will decide the future of our state and nation tomorrow.

Some argue we will decide the FATE of our nation tomorrow.

We harken back to the story of an English stable owner in the 16th and 17th Centuries who had forty horses, leading customers to think they could choose one from among the forty.  But the stable owner allowed only the horse in the first stall to be rented, believing that he was keeping the best horses from always being chosen.

Customers believing they had many choices actually had only one. Take it or leave it, even if neither was desirable.

The stable owner was named Thomas Hobson, whose name is preserved in the phrase “Hobson’s Choice,” meaning only one thing is really offered while it appears there are other choices and it isn’t particularly desirable.

Many believe that is what we are facing tomorrow, a Hobson’s Choice.

We’ve all survived the weeks of rhetoric, weeks of misstatements and lies, or misinformation from insiders and outsiders on our social media, weeks of efforts to denigrate competing candidates and competing issues.

We have listened to the two sides paint the picture of the other side. And after listening to all of that noise we have concluded that we have these choices at the top of the ticket:

—A candidate who claims to be middle-class child of immigrants whose party has been branded as Marxist and Socialist and a threat to our democracy by the other party.

—A felon, a congenital liar and narcissist whose party is backing him despite complaints that he wants to emulate Hitler and other dictators and is a threat to our democracy.

Thomas Hobson would be greatly entertained.  Take it or leave it when neither choice seems to be desirable.

The political process seems to have given us horses in the first of two stalls in a stable full of better mounts that we can’t have.

This might not be any help to you at all, but let’s skim the surface of the two possibilities.

Both Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler wrote books: Marx’s Das Kapital, and Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

Marx is described as “a German-born philosopher, political theorist, economist, historian, sociologist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist.”  The description is from Wikipedia, which serious researchers caution should not be considered original research. It is an amalgam of the evaluations done by others presumably well-acquainted with a subject.  So, We are going to rely on one of Wikipedia’s sources, English historian Gareth Stedman Jones, whose work focuses on working class history and Marxist theory and who wrote in 2017 in the journal Nature:

“What is extraordinary about Das Kapital is that it offers a still-unrivalled picture of the dynamism of capitalism and its transformation of societies on a global scale. It firmly embedded concepts such as commodity and capital in the lexicon. And it highlights some of the vulnerabilities of capitalism, including its unsettling disruption of states and political systems… it [connects] critical analysis of the economy of his time with its historical roots. In doing so, he inaugurated a debate about how best to reform or transform politics and social relations, which has gone on ever since.”

The same resource describes Hitler as “an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator” of Germany under the Nazi Party that “controlled the country, transforming it into a totalitarian dictatorship.”  He wrote his book in prison while serving four years for treason after a failed coup in 1923. The book outlined his plans for Germany’s future, the main thesis being that Germany was in danger from “the Jewish peril,” a conspiracy of Jews to gain world control. It is considered a book on political theory. “For example, Hitler announces his hatred of what he believed to be the world’s two evils: communism and Judaism…Hitler blamed Germany’s chief woes on the parliament…Jews, and Social Democrats, as well as Marxists, though he believed that Marxists, Social Democrats, and the parliament were all working for Jewish interests. He announced that he wanted to destroy the parliamentary system, believing it to be corrupt in principle…”

So there you have it. A choice between an economic theorist whose theories challenge our capitalistic society and a political theorist who used every means necessary to be an all-powerful manipulator of a political system, including mass incarceration and murder of undesirables.

You might have a different evaluation for these two whose partisans have stereotyped each other throughout this campaign.

We had a coworker who once observed, “Stereotypes are so useful because they save a lot of time.”

In American politics, stereotyping saves the voters a lot of thinking.

And that’s too bad.

From our lofty position, we offer this thought;

Economic theories are abstract offerings that do not imprison or murder those who differ from them.  Political theories can create tangible results that, taken to extremes, can produce (in order) division, disrespect, control through, if necessary, mass incarceration and—-at the very worst—murder.

We have two politicians to think about tomorrow.  It’s too bad none of the others in the stable are available.  It’s take it or leave it time.

Which Hobson’s Choice are you going to make?

-0-.

 

Then They Came For Me…..

Posted on by
1

Our almost final pre-election meditation today focuses on a former president, a comedian/social commentator/political satirist, a German leader, a Christian movement that might sound familiar, and a Lutheran minister.

We are focusing on Donald Trump’s promotion of “the enemy within” and the failure of people today to recognize the dangers of that philosophy in the past as a warning for us now.

There are several versions of a famous quotation although scholars have found no indication that he was the one who distilled his words into the poetic version in the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. The one we will use here comes from the British Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and is slightly longer.

The Lutheran minister is Martin Niemoëller, an anti-Communist supporter of Adolph Hitler during his rise to power. But he became a leader of German religious leaders opposing Hitler when Hitler announced he supported the German Christians movement that sought to remove the “Jewish element” from Christianity, including portraying Jesus as Aryan, rejecting the Old Testament and trying to rewrite the New Testament. Niemoëller was a leader in the opposition to Hitler and the German Christians.

He was arrested in 1937 and imprisoned at Dachau and Sachsenhausen until American troops liberated the camps in 1945.  The next year, he began a series of speeches apologizing for those who remained silent about Hitler’s crackdowns. Among his comments we find, “The people who were put in camps then were Communists. Who cared about them?…They got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables [who] just cost the state money; they are a burden to themselves and others….”

His apologies came to mind as I watched a recent edition of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show.  Stewart is a liberal comedian and social commentator who has a large following, especially among young people, and is an intellectual critic of American politics and the contradictions within the practice of them.  In this case, we refer to his comments after Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden event.

We have omitted the audience applause and Stewart’s pauses and facial expressions that are part of his schtick.  He inserted several video excerpts of events as part of his program:

Trump at his Madison Square Garden rally; On day one I will launch the largest deportation program in American history to get the criminals out.

Stewart: Day one? Have a snack. Meet the staff.  Day one is typically—we just read the syllabus. There’s no—there’s generally no homework. OK, day one, mass deportation.  How is that going to happen?

Trump: I will invoke the Alien enemies act of 1798.

Stewart: …From the man himself, that is his priority.  From day one, I’m going to round up all the so-called illegal immigrants. It’s a tough policy but I guess it’s gotta be done. And it’s not like anyone else, i.e. legal immigrants or who are American citizens going to be caught up in that dragnet. I’m sure that Trump has a very detailed and precise plan.  How many people are we talking about?

Niemoëller: First they came for the Communists but I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.  

Trump (montage of previous statements at rallies and in interviews); Millions of illegal immigrants.  They think it’s two million; it’s probably five times that amount. You hear 15, 16 million, sometimes you hear 17. We have 21 million, at least 21 million; I think it’s much more than 21.

Stewart: So we are going to be rounding up and deporting between two and 21, or more, million people. But listen, they’re all bad. And they’ve all committed terrible crimes. And we have cataloged—without due process—the terrible things they have done, yes?

Trump (from debate with Kamala Harris): In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.

Stewart: So, between 2 and 21 million people—and while they weren’t actually doing that, still, chase them with guns. Because at the very least they are here illegally. Yes, they are illegal.

John Berman, CNN, during broadcast: Donald Trump threatening to deport thousands of migrants in the country legally…

Stewart: So that one’s tricky. But I’m confident that on day one, Trump does his mass deportation of anywhere from two to 100 million people, it won’t be you. It’ll be them because of how precise Trump is, especially when it comes to people of color.

Niemoëller: They came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.

Trump: I know Willie Brown very well. In fact I went down in a helicopter with him.

(Part of News Nation’s The Hill Sunday excerpt, with Chris Stirewalt): The African-American politician in question was not Willie Brown but rather this man, Nate Holden.

Reporter: Holden says, quote, “Willie is the short Black guy living in San Francisco. I’m a tall black guy living in Los Angeles. I guess we all look alike.”

Stewart: I guess there’s some confusion there. But he’s not deporting California politicians day one. And that story makes him racist. It’s not the point. He really can’t tell white people apart either.

Trump (video from grand jury deposition in the E. Jean Carroll case): Roberta Kaplan asks, “You say Marla’s in this photo?”  Trump: “That’s Marla, yeah. That’s my wife.”  Kaplan: “Which woman are you pointing to?” Trump: (points) “Here.” Kaplan: “That’s Tara. The person you just pointed to is E. Jean Carroll.”  Trump: “Oh, I see. Who is that? (points to another woman in the picture). Kaplan: “And the person, the woman on  your right is your then wife, Ivana?” Trump: “I don’t know.  This was the picture.”

Stewart: You know what I just realized? Donald Trump doesn’t have affairs—just thinks everyone is his wife. So clearly an attempt to deport between thirty and 500 million people is gonna be complicated. So it’s gonna be important to know how carefully the former president would execute this plan.

(Portion of interview on Full Measure, the weekly television news show hosted by Sharryl Attkisson):

Niemoëller: Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Attkisson: “A lot of the millions of people have had children here who are American citizens. So, yes to mass deportation of women and children—”  Trump: So we’re going to look at it very closely. They way that you phrase it is exactly right. You put one wrong person on a bus or on an airplane and your radical-left lunatics will try and make it sound like the worst thing that’s ever happened.”

Stewart;  Because it’s the worst thing that ever happened to THEM, the American citizens, the American citizens you mistakenly deport. Yet Trump is like (imitating Trump), “That makes me look like the bad guy.” And why is my wife interviewing me? (a takeoff on his inability to identify people in the photo, shown earlier and a reference to Attkisson) You are my wife, right? Marla? Ivana? Ivanka? I don’t know. This sounds awful. But as everyone knows, you can never listen to what Trump’s saying and hear it.

(Montage of Republicans responding: Unidentified member of Congress: “I think you’re taking everything a little bit too literally.”  New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sunnunu: “Look, Trump speaks in hyperbole. This is nothing new.” KellyeAnn Conway, at the time of the interview the incoming White House counselor: “He’s telling you what was in his heart. You always want to go with what comes out of his mouth rather than what’s in his heart.”

Stewart: You’re right Why hold former presidents to what they say they’re going to do from their mouth holes?… Look. You know what? Sure, maybe Trump’s just talk. But on day one when the deportation of between two and eleventy billion people begins, what will be the guiding principle? Perhaps we should ask the dead-eyed architect of these plans, Stephen Miller.

Miller (at Madison Square Garden rally): America is for Americans and Americans only.

Niemoëller: Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Stewart:  Oh, that makes sense. We’re only deporting people who’ve come here illegally, or people who have come here legally but sneaky legally. Or people who have children who actually are citizens, or some people who look like they may have come here illegally, or people who have protested the war in Gaza, or a special prosecutor that Trump doesn’t like, like Jack Smith, which, by the way, name a more American name than Jack (bleeped) Smith. Where are you going to report him to, Faneuil Hall in Boston? Or maybe we just going to be deporting the people that always bring wretchedness and want.

Oh, I’m sorry. That’s how we describe the Irish in 1832 (with image of portrait of New York Mayor Phillip Hone who said, “They will always bring wretchedness and want.”)

Or maybe we’re just going to deport people whose race inherently has a certain kind of criminality.  Oh, I’m sorry, That was the Italians in 1911.

The point is, every one of these groups was at a place and a time on the wrong side of not being American enough. And right now you think you’re safe. Because the group Trump’s people are talking about—It’s not you, as if…Donald Trump can tell the (bleep) difference or even cares that day one implementation of the 1798 law that was last used to intern Japanese and German citizens in World War II, will be a fine-toothed comb.

It just makes me very sad, it—the whole thing—it

(Interrupted by the show’s former senior correspondent, Jessica Williams) Jon, Jon, Jon…Don’t be sad.  Jon, everything’s going to be okay—for you, a white guy, a rich old white guy.

Stewart: You think my rich old white guy privilege will save me?

V: Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Williams; Maybe…It doesn’t matter. Because for non old white people, for people of color, and women, and queer people it’s gonna be a completely different story, all right?

Let me give you some advice.  I know you’re exhausted. Hell, I’m exhausted. Everybody’s exhausted. Anger and disappointment in our political discourse is exhausting. But it’s easy to throw up our hands and be like fine…I’m tired.  Go ahead and take people’s rights…

—–

In one of his 1946 speeches, Niemoëller  wondered what would have happened if thousands of clergy in Germany would have spoken out against Hitler and his German Christians and the disaster and the tragedy they brought to the world.

Niemoëller: … I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out.

We preferred to keep silent. We are certainly not without guilt/fault, and I ask myself again and again, what would have happened, if in the year 1933 or 1934—there must have been a possibility—14,000 Protestant pastors and all Protestant communities in Germany had defended the truth until their deaths? If we had said back then, it is not right when Hermann Göring simply puts 100,000 Communists in the concentration camps, in order to let them die. I can imagine that perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 Protestant Christians would have had their heads cut off, but I can also imagine that we would have rescued 30–40,000 million [sic] people, because that is what it is costing us now.

Williams: Focus, okay? I just want to be clear, all right? Do not let them exhaust you. Don’t let the constant draining bull— wear you out. Do not turn away. Look it right down that barrel and say, not today, apathy… And no matter what happens, we have to throw our arms around the people who need us the most, and hang…on. All right?

If you want to watch the entire routine, it’s at (15) Jon Stewart on Trump’s Xenophobic MSG Rally & Mass Deportation Plan | The Daily Show – YouTube.

(Photo Credits: Amazon, The Daily Show, Holocaust Museum)

Beyond Hope

Posted on by
2

He’s not deranged.

He’s not unhinged.

Both words have been used frequently to describe him.

He is just plain sick.

Try to imagine that you are one of the children of Arnold Palmer.  Try to imagine being a resident of Springfield, Ohio.

Would you tolerate unmitigated sewage of this kind about your family or your town at your dinner table?

He thinks he’s being funny when he talks about genitalia, whether it’s describing it in admiring (or is it envious?) terms or whether it’s in claiming he can have his way with some people if he grabs theirs.

He thinks it’s a good thing to libel an entire town and the people who live and work there, to make citizens whose culture is not native to the community afraid?

—to tell a lie because it gets you publicity and the bigger the lie the more you can overwhelm those who won’t wade through the treatment plant with you.

How furious would you be—perhaps after you’ve gotten over the embarrassment of hearing your father described as Trump described Arnold Palmer?

Pam Palmer Wears, a daughter of the great golfer, called Trump’s commentary about her father “inappropriate,” one of the biggest understatements of our recent political history. And she said it was a waste of voter’s time. Palmer described himself as a political conservative but Wears told ABC news that her father would “cringe” at the thought of Trump. In fact, she recalls, he did..

She called Trump’s commentary “a waste of the voters’ time.”

“”The people coming to these rallies deserve substance about plans Trump has as a candidate, if he could elucidate on some of the threats he’s made to people. I mean, these are important issues that should be discussed for people when they’re getting ready to vote, and using my dad to cover the important things just seems unacceptable to me.”

She said her father “was very modest,” continuing, “We’ve lost our sense of outrage in this country over just about everything, and I’m not sure that’s okay.  There are other things about my dad that would be better to focus on.”

And she recalled her father, talking shortly before his death, about his strong dislike of Trump:

“My dad didn’t like people who act like they’re better than other people. He didn’t like it when people were nasty and rude. He didn’t like it when someone was disrespectful to someone else. My dad had no patience for people who demean other people in public. He had no patience for people who are dishonest and cheat. My dad was disciplined. He wanted to be a good role model. He was appalled by Trump’s lack of civility and what he began to see as Trump’s lack of character.”

I’m not sure I would be that restrained if someone were to stand in front of a large audience and make that kind of personal comments, regardless of their truth, about someone in my family.

When I take my ballot for the November election in a few days, I’m likely to vote against this sick bully and I will be hard-pressed to vote for anyone who has become aligned with him.

John Dean, who became famous fifty years ago with his damaging testimony against President Nixon in a Watergate hearing, told Nixon one day in the oval office, “I think that there’s no doubt about the seriousness of the problem we’ve got. We have a cancer within—close to the presidency, that’s growing. It’s growing daily. It’s compounding. It grows geometrically now, “

We know who would fit that description today.

—a man with no morals. No regard for anyone else.

Donald Trump is the RINO he accuses others of being.  It would not be disloyal to the party—in fact, it might be a great sign of loyalty—to vote for every other Republican but not for hm.

The nation’s history is dotted with times that people have chosen the better of two evils.

It should not be that hard in 2024—unless you believe that the face of our country should be someone who think that a person’s genitalia is a proper topic of conversation.

It’s not.  It’s sick.

-0-

Cold Cases 

Posted on by
1

We usually talk about big-deal issues and people in these entries but there are times when an issue overlooked in the rush of great thoughts about great issues catches the eye.  Such is the case with Ethan Colbert’s piece in the September 17 Post-Dispatch about the exhumation in Jefferson County of an unidentified man found in the Mississippi River thirty years ago.

On one hand, it’s about how DNA technology not available then will help identify him now. He was naked except for a pair of socks, with no tattoos or other easily-identifiable features or injuries.  On the other hand, it’s a story of how government works, or can work, on behalf of the people, especially the least of us. And you don’t get much more “least’ than this man.

Colbert reported Missouri cemeteries hold the remains of more than 115 unidentified men, women, and children, “such as the female toddler found inside a suitcase in 1968 along the riverbank in West Alton in St. Charles County, date back decades.Others are far more recent, including an infant who was found in July 2019 inside a freezer inside an abandoned St. Louis city residence. The boy, wrapped in a blanket, was wearing a diaper and a ‘Winnie the Pooh’ onesie.”

Authorities and the news media did all they could do thirty years ago to identify the man pulled from the river.  They combed missing person reports, published and broadcast information about a 160-pound man, 5-10, with a three-day beard. His fingerprints didn’t match any records at the state or federal levels. Nobody called the sheriff’s office to say the man’s description resembled someone they knew.

Some of these nameless people might be those whose families long ago filed missing person reports. Some might be victims of a crime whose perpetrator has been eliminated by the passage of time. They deserve to be known, as do all of us.

Colbert relates how State Representative Tricia Byrnes of Wentzville met with some families of missing people and then got $1.5 million put into the state budget requiring the state to pay the costs of exhuming and of identifying those John and Jane Does.

Highway Patrol Sergeant Eric Brown, speaking for the Patrol, told Colbert private labs that specialize in this kind of cold cases will have to be hired because none of the state labors has the equipment needed.

The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department spent $1,700 of its own money to exhume the body of the unidentified man and it still hasn’t found a laboratory to do the DNA work, which is expected to cost another $2,300.  Once a lab is found, it could take as much as six months to finish its inquiry.

But few would doubt the value of spending $4,000 to resolve a family’s questions or of giving someone a name for a proper stone that marks their existence.

Sometimes the effort succeeds. Colbert recalled a 2022 case in St. Louis County when investigators learned a man had been missing since 1994 from Moline Illinois.  His family released a statement saying the discovery would provide “comfort to us and his friends.”

DNA technology has vastly improved in thirty years and the amount of DNA in various systems has partnered with that technology to solve lot of mysteries.  Private DNA repositories such as those available through Ancestry.com and other commercial ancestry companies have been used to identify victims of crime and their perpetrators as well as missing persons.

It is time consuming work, not much like the stuff we see on television where it seems DNA evidence can be processed within an hour-long program.

Missouri is investing a small amount of money in an effort to answer long-held painful questions asked by many people. Representative Byrnes’ legislation is an infinitesimal part of the $50-Billion state budget. But it might turn out to be the most important part of it to a lot of folks, living and dead.

It is so easy to think of government as a massive, faceless, unemotional entity.  But what it really is, is thousands and thousands of small and very human stories. Perhaps we will someday hear who this man in Jefferson County was. And maybe, someday, we’ll learn who the suitcase baby and the freezer child in the Winnie the Pooh onesie were.  And why somebody gave up on them.

 

 All Dressed Up and No Place to Go 

Posted on by
Reply

Doggone it!  I have lost a lot of weight so my tuxedo fits well again, including my red vest and my red already-tied bowtie.  I look dashing—tuxes have a tendency to do that to some people and I am one of them if I say so myself.

It’s been probably fifteen years since I wore it.  The shoulders have a fine cover of closet dust. But I was all set to send it to the cleaners so I would really look spiffy and sharp. I had searched for and found the studs for my pleated shirt and French cuffs.  The patent leather shoes were still in their soft cotton protective bags and still fit when I found them under a bunch of stuff in the far corner of my closet.

And then they cancelled it.

I hadn’t bought my ticket yet but I was seriously considering using the event to break out the new, thin, distinguished ME and mingle with some of the most important people in the country. That’s how they were promoted. And it was for such a worthy cause.

I really wanted to get that signed #1 music chart plaque. I don’t remember hearing the song played on the radio, the National Anthem sung by twenty peaceful tourists jailed after visiting the National Capitol on January 6, 2021 while their greatest supporter and benefactor intones the Pledge of Allegiance over their voices. It’s not something that plays very often on Top-40 stations or whatever they call that format now, or on NPR or Country-Western stations.

Billboard reported in March last year that, “Donald J. Trump and J6 Prison Choir’s “Justice for All” enters Billboard’s Digital Song Sales chart (dated March 25) at No. 1. The recording sold 33,000 downloads March 10-16, according to Luminate.”  It also drew 442,000 “official U. S. Streams,” whatever those are.

That’s pretty impressive, I guess.  The magazine has several charts of hit songs, one of which is the top 50 Streaming Songs that listed its number one as Morgan Wallen’s “Last Night,” with 38.9 million streams.  The Top 50 Radio Songs survey was listing Miley Cyrus’ “Flowers,” with an airplay audience of 106.7 million. But number one is number one and even it is a relatively small number one it is still number one and all I had to do to qualify as a possible recipient of a plaque commemorating this achievement was to buy a $1500 general admission ticket.

I’ve listened to the recording a time or two. While it’s a long ways from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, I can understand why some people might find a little charm in it.

But the general admission probably wouldn’t have let me get really close to the distinguished guests, one of whom is a co-founder of the sponsoring organization, Sarah McAbee.   The New York Times says she has a vested interest in it because her husband, a former sheriff in Tennessee, is one of the peaceful tourists of January 6, 2021 who has had the misfortune of being sentenced to five years in prison for being involved in the “prolonged multi-assistant attack on police officers.”

For an extra thousand dollars I could have gotten my picture taken the speakers. That probably was the best I could do.  Certainly it would have been exciting to have one of the speakers at my table but I couldn’t afford $50,000 for that and I don’t know eleven other people who have sacrificed so much to get into their tuxedos as I had sacrificed.

Mr. Trump was listed by the non-profit group planning the event—The Stand in the Gap Foundation—as an invited speaker but his campaign circulated word about ten days before the event that he wouldn’t be able to be there.  But that’s okay.  There were a dozen speakers confirmed and ninety minute or two hours of Mr. Trump after all of the other folks spoke would have taken me well beyond my bedtime anyway.

But some of the other folks would have been interesting although I’ve never heard of about nine of them. But there were three I either knew about or looked up—Rudi Giuliani, Peter Navarro, and Anthony Raimondi, identified by others as a “MAGA influencer.”  A fourth was an actor whose name didn’t ring any bells, so I looked him up.

Actor Nick Searcy has appeared in 40 movies playing such memorable characters as Highway Patrol Officer, Man at Party, FBI man, Construction Worker, Stan, Repairman, Mr. Miller, County Sheriff, The Farmer, Herb, The Captain, and Head of FBI Field office. I’m not impressed but then again, he’s been in forty movies (and a lot of TV shows) and I haven’t, so there’s that.

I’m sure they comped Rudi’s ticket.  That poor man has vigorously ridden the Trump bus—although I’m not sure whether he has a seat inside it or is hanging onto the frame under it—from fame to disgrace with all the dignity he can muster and so far has fended off lawsuit winners’ efforts to take everything but tomorrow’s underwear from him to pay judgements.

I imagine Peter Navarro could buy his own ticket. I’d like to sit as his table and hear him tell about the fun of the four months he spent in prison for contempt of Congress because he refused to turn over documents to the House January 6th Committee and also to learn how much he looks forward to going back on a Contempt of Court charge for refusing to turn over 200-250 documents to the National Archives.

The third face promoted on the invitation was completely unfamiliar. So I looked him up on the internet—and now I wonder what I should think about the other people I might meet there because if the Anthony Raimondi on the flyer is the Anthony Raimondi on the internet—-

Well, get this:

It’s Anthony LUCIANO Raimondi, who claims the notorious mobster Lucky Luciano is his uncle and says he was an enforcer for the Colombo mafia family in New York.  A New York Post article in 2019 says Raimondi claims he went to Rome in 1978 and helped to poison Pope John Paul I with cyanide, that he was among those recruited to do the deed by his cousin, Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, then the head of the Vatican Bank who wanted to keep the Pope from exposing a massive stock fraud “run by Vatican insiders.”  He also claims he was recruited to kill Pope John Paul II until the Pope, fearful for his life, decided not to continue the investigation.

Another website says Raimondi claims to have killed 300 people as a teenaged sniper in Vietnam, winding up there in a plea deal that let hm escape a New York murder charge at age 16 if he joined the Army. .

If that’s the guy invited to be a speaker at this event, I’m not sure I want to cross paths with him.  He does have his critics who accuse him of being a huge liar and a major conspiracy theorist. I don’t think I could have a casual conversation with while nibbling on bacon-wrapped pineapple slices or toothpicked wienies dipped in barbecue sauce because I would worry that cement would damage my patent leather shoes.  Just my luck, he’d be the speaker at my table though, if I could afford to sit at one of the big bucks tables.*

I would have been interested, just from general curiosity, how much of this money actually reaches any of the families of the peaceful tourists.  I’m sure that the costs of the event at Mr. Trump’s New Jersey golf club will be quite high and some might find its way into his own legal fund or campaign fund, something that seems proper given that it is HIS club.

But the whole thing is moot now (I have a friend who refers to things as being a “moo issue—not even the cows care about it.”). It’s been cancelled without explanation on the website. One organizer has told a reporter it’s because of “scheduling conflicts of invited guest speakers.”

One of the conflicts is that U. S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan will be deciding that day how to go forward with the election subversion case against Mr. Trump in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity from prosecution for presidential acts.

Well, truth be told, my invitation must have gotten lost in the mail, but I’m sure they would have taken my money if I wanted to buy a ticket anyway.  If they do reschedule this event for some time when Mr. Trump isn’t in court or creating his own conspiracy theories on the stump, I might think about the event again.  I’ll need to know about it far enough in advance to get a haircut.

And I hope it is on a day that is not the one where I give my pet fish his weekly shampoo. That’s something I never miss.

*I have entertained myself, if no one else, by writing about this event and the “distinguished” list of speakers but this Raimondi guy deserves some additional observation and it’s serious, assuming he’s the person mentioned in numerous internet entries and videos.  First of all, I cannot for the life of me understand why any presidential candidate or any group of his supporters would want to associate with a proclaimed mob enforcer and Pope-killer.  Second, Raimondi has critics who claim he is a complete fraud.  Third, an internet search turns up several reports that I find more credible than his claims about his sniper work in Vietnam including a 2023 article on Historynet (originally in Vietnam magazine) about Staff Sgt. Adelbert F. Waldron III being the highest-scoring sniper in Vietnam with 109 confirmed kills, for which he earned two Distinguished Service Crosses, a Silver Star, and three Bronze Star Medals. A directory listing all winners of these three awards during the Vietnam War does not list Raimondi receiving any of them. I will leave it to you to judge what kind of presidential candidate would allow himself to be pictured prominently with someone like this.

Fact Checking The Debate 

Posted on by
Reply

We don’t usually post something on Friday but the timing of the debate and its evaluation of it fits the weeks schedule, so we return to CNN and its fact-checker Daniel Dale and his staff. When first published on the CNN Politics web page, it carried the message that it would take 38 minutes to read.  We publish it to be consistent with previous fact-checking postings.

-0-0-0-

Former President Donald Trump delivered more than 30 false claims during  Tuesday’s presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, CNN’s preliminary count found – as he did during his June debate against President Joe Biden.

Trump again delivered a staggering quantity and variety of false claims, some of which were egregious lies about topics including abortion, immigration and the economy.

Harris was far more accurate than Trump; CNN’s preliminary count found just one false claim from the vice president, though she also added some claims that were misleading or lacking in key context.

Here is a fact check of some of the remarks made by each candidate.

Harris on Trump’s tariff plan

Former Vice President Kamala Harris said during Tuesday night’s debate that former President Donald Trump’s policies would result in a “Trump sales tax” that would raise prices for middle class families by about $4,000 a year.

Facts First: The claim is reasonable enough, but it’s worth explaining that Harris is referring to Trump’s proposal to implement new tariffs if he returns to the White House.

Trump has called for adding a tariff of 10% to 20% on all imports from all countries, as well as another tariff upward of 60% on all Chinese imports.

Together, a 20% across-the-board tariff with a 60% tariff on Chinese-made goods would amount to about a $3,900 annual tax increase for a middle-income family, according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund a liberal think tank.

If the 20% tariff was just 10%, as Trump sometimes suggests, the total impact for middle-class families could be $2,500 a year, according to CAP.

Separate studies estimate that the impact of Trump’s proposed tariffs would also raise prices for families, but by a lower amount. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated the new duties would cost the average middle-class household about $1,700 annually. And the Tax Policy Center said the impact could be $1,350 a year for middle-income households.

From CNN’s Katie Lobosco 

Trump on inflation during his presidency

Former President Donald Trump claimed in Tuesday’s debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that there was virtually no inflation during his administration.

“I had no inflation, virtually no inflation,” Trump said.

Facts First: This is false. Cumulative inflation over the course of Trump’s presidency was about 7.8%.

Inflation was low at the end of Trump’s term, having plummeted during the Covid-19 pandemic. The year-over-year inflation rate was about 1.4% in January 2021, the month Trump left office.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale and Tami Luhby 

Trump claims migrants are arriving to US from prisons and mental institutions

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday repeated a claim that migrants are arriving to the US after fleeing prisons and mental institutions.

“We have millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums,” Trump claimed.  Trump makes this claim often, and he’s often alleged that jails and mental institutions are being emptied out deliberately to somehow dump people upon the U.S.Enter your email to sign up for CNN’s “What Matters” Newsletter.

Facts First: There is no evidence for Trump’s claim.

Representatives for two anti-immigration organizations told CNN last year they had not heard of anything that would corroborate Trump’s story, as did three experts at organizations favorable toward immigration. CNN’s own search did not produce any evidence. The website FactCheck.org also found nothing.

Trump has sometimes tried to support his claim by making another claim that the global prison population is down. But that’s wrong, too. The recorded global prison population increased from October 2021 to April 2024, from about 10.77 million people to about 10.99 million people, according to the World Prison Population List compiled by experts in the United Kingdom.

In response to CNN’s 2023 inquiry, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung cited one source for Trump’s claim about prisons being emptied for migration purposes – a 2022 article from right-wing website Breitbart News about a supposed federal intelligence report warning Border Patrol agents that Venezuela had done this. But that vague and unverified claim about Venezuela’s actions has never been corroborated.

And a second article that Cheung cited at the time, about Mexico’s president having freed 2,685 prisoners, was not about migration at all; that article simply explained that the president had freed them “as part of an effort to free those who have not committed serious crimes or were being held unjustly.”

From CNN’s Daniel Dale and Kaanita Iyer

Trump on the number of undocumented immigrants under Biden

Former President Donald Trump claimed during Tuesday night’s debate that “21 million people” are crossing the border monthly into the United States under President Joe Biden.

Facts First: This number is false. The total number of “encounters” at the northern and southern borders from February 2021 through July 2024, at both legal ports of entry and in between those ports, was roughly 10 million, far less than Trump’s “21 million” figure. 

An “encounter” does not mean a person was let into the country; some people encountered are promptly sent away. Even if you added the estimated number of “gotaways” (people who evaded the Border Patrol to enter illegally), which House Republicans have said is more than 1.7 million during the Biden-Harris administration, “the totals would still be vastly smaller than 15, 16 or 18 million,” said Michelle Mittelstadt, spokesperson for the Migration Policy Institute think tank, said in an email in June, when Trump made similar claims.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale and Piper Hudspeth Blackburn

Harris on the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling

Vice President Kamala Harris said during Tuesday night’s debate that the US Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Trump would “essentially be immune from any misconduct” undertaken by him while in the White House.

“Let’s talk about extreme and understand the context in which this election in 2024 is taking place. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the former president would essentially be immune from any misconduct if he were to enter the White House again,” she said.

Facts First: This needs context. In their decision in July in the historic case, the six conservative justices granted Trump some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, but not blanket immunity, as the former president had sought in his federal election subversion case. The court said Trump could not be criminally pursued over “official acts,” but that he could face prosecution over alleged criminal actions involving “unofficial acts” taken while in office. 

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the conservative majority.

From CNN’s Devan Cole

Trump repeats false claim about migrants eating people’s pets

Former President Donald Trump repeated a false claim at Tuesday’s debate that has been promoted by numerous prominent Republicans in the past week, including Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance. Trump claimed that Haitian migrants in the city of Springfield, Ohio, are stealing people’s pet dogs and cats and eating them.

“In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats,” Trump said. “They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

Facts First: This is false. The City of Springfield and the local police have said they have seen no evidence for the claim – which appeared to originate from a Facebook post in which someone purporting to be a local resident passed along what they said was a story about their neighbor’s daughter’s friend.

In a statement to CNN on Monday, a spokesperson for the City of Springfield said “there have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”

The Springfield News-Sun reported that “the Springfield Police Division said Monday morning they have received no reports related to pets being stolen and eaten.”

Vance acknowledged on social media on Tuesday that it is “possible” that the “rumors” he has heard from local residents “will turn out to be false,” though he also encouraged people to “keep the cat memes flowing.”

From CNN’s Daniel Dale and Michael Williams

Trump on who pays for tariffs

Former President Donald Trump said Tuesday the United States took in billions of dollars from China as a result of his tariffs.

Facts First: Trump’s claim about how tariffs work is false. A US tariff is paid by importing businesses in the United States – not other countries – when a foreign-made good arrives at the American border.

Here’s how tariffs work: When the United States puts a tariff on an imported good, the cost of the tariff usually comes directly out of the bank account of an American importer.

Study after study, including one from the federal government’s bipartisan US International Trade Commission, have found that Americans have borne almost the entire cost of Trump’s tariffs on Chinese products.

It’s true that the US Treasury has collected more than $242 billion from the tariffs Trump imposed on imported solar panels, steel and aluminum, and Chinese-made goods – but those duties were paid by US importers, not the country of China.

From CNN’s Katie Lobosco

Harris on her stance on fracking

During Tuesday night’s debate, Vice President Kamala Harris said, “I made it that very clear in 2020 – I will not ban fracking,” though she had said, while running in the Democratic presidential primary in 2019, that “there’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.”

Facts First: This is misleading. Harris did not make her position on fracking clear during her only debate in 2020, the general election’s vice presidential debate against then-Vice President Mike Pence; Harris never explicitly stated a personal position on fracking during that debate.

Rather, she said that Joe Biden, the head of the Democratic ticket at the time, would not ban fracking if he was elected president. Harris said in the 2020 vice presidential debate: “Joe Biden will not end fracking”; “I will repeat, and the American people know, that Joe Biden will not ban fracking.”

It made sense that Harris was addressing Biden’s plans at the time given that the president sets administration policy. But contrary to her claim on Tuesday, neither of these 2020 debate comments made clear that she personally held a different view on the subject than she had the year prior.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale and Ella Nilsen

Trump falsely claims US experienced highest inflation ever under Biden

Former President Donald Trump said the US experienced “the highest inflation” ever under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Facts First: Trump’s claim that inflation was at its highest under the Biden-Harris administration is false. Inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, hit 9.1% in June 2022. That wasn’t the highest ever recorded. Rather, it was the highest inflation rate in nearly forty years. For instance, in 1980, inflation hit nearly 15%, according to CPI data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Some of the earliest inflation data the BLS maintains indicates that inflation was even higher in 1917, when it was trending at nearly 18%.

From CNN’s Elisabeth Buchwald

Trump on Harris’ previous run for president

Former President Donald Trump claimed that when Vice President Kamala Harris previously ran for the presidency, during the 2020 election cycle, she was the very first candidate to drop out of a crowded Democratic primary.

“When she ran, she was the first one to leave because she failed,” Trump claimed, referring to Harris’ 2020 bid, while arguing that Harris didn’t receive any votes this primary cycle because President Joe Biden was still at top of the ticket during the primaries.

Facts First: This is false. Harris was far from the first candidate to drop out of that Democratic primary when she exited the race in early December 2019

Harris was preceded by the sitting or former governors of Washington, Montana and Colorado; the sitting mayor of New York City and sitting or former members of the House of Representatives and Senate, plus some others.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

 Trump on Harris’ border role

Former President Donald Trump claimed at Tuesday’s debate that Vice President Kamala Harris has been the Biden administration’s “border czar.”

“Remember that she was a border czar,” Trump said. “She doesn’t want to be called the border czar because she’s embarrassed by the border.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim about Harris’ border role is false. Harris was never made Biden’s “border czar,” a label the White House has always emphasized is inaccurate. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is the official in charge of border security. In reality, Biden gave Harris a more limited immigration-related assignment in 2021, asking her to lead diplomacy with El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras in an attempt to address the conditions that prompted their citizens to try to migrate to the United States.

Some Republicans have scoffed at assertions that Harris was never the “border czar,” noting on social media that news articles sometimes described Harris as such. But those articles were wrong. Various news outlets, including CNN, reported as early as the first half of 2021 that the White House emphasized that Harris had not been put in charge of border security as a whole, as “border czar” strongly suggests, and had instead been handed a diplomatic task related to Central American countries.

A White House “fact sheet” in July 2021 said: “On February 2, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order that called for the development of a Root Causes Strategy. Since March, Vice President Kamala Harris has been leading the Administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.”

Biden’s own comments at a March 2021 event announcing the assignment were slightly more muddled, but he said he had asked Harris to lead “our diplomatic effort” to address factors causing migration in the three “Northern Triangle” countries. (Biden also mentioned Mexico that day). Biden listed factors in these countries he thought had led to migration and said that “if you deal with the problems in-country, it benefits everyone.” And Harris’ comments that day were focused squarely on “root causes.”

Republicans can fairly say that even “root causes” work is a border-related task. But calling her “border czar” goes too far.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale and Tami Luhby

Trump claims legal scholars wanted states, not the federal government, to decide how to regulate abortion

Former President Donald Trump repeated a version of one of his frequent claims Tuesday night that legal scholars wanted Roe v. Wade overturned so individual states could instead decide how to regulate abortion.

“Every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative, all wanted this issue to be brought back to the states where the people could vote, and that’s what happened,” Trump said. “It’s the vote of the people, now it’s not tied up in the federal government.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim is false. Many legal scholars wanted the right to have an abortion preserved in federal law, as several told CNN when Trump made a similar claim in April. 

Some legal scholars who support abortion rights had wanted Roe written in a different way, including even the late liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but that isn’t the same as saying that “every legal scholar” believed Roe should be overturned and sent to the states.

“Any claim that all legal scholars wanted Roe overturned is mind-numbingly false,” Rutgers Law School professor Kimberly Mutcherson, a legal scholar who supported the preservation of Roe, said in April.

“Donald Trump’s claim is flatly incorrect,” another legal scholar who did not want Roe overturned, Maya Manian, an American University law professor and faculty director of the university’s Health Law and Policy Program, said in April.

Trump’s claim is “obviously not” true, said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who is an expert on the history of the US abortion debate. Ziegler, who also did not want Roe overturned, said in an April interview: “Most legal scholars probably track most Americans, who didn’t want to overturn Roe … It wasn’t as if legal scholars were somehow outliers.”.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale and Jen Christensen

Trump blames Rep. Nancy Pelosi for poor security at the Capitol on Jan. 6

Former President Donald Trump claimed during the debate on Tuesday that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker of the House, was responsible for inadequate security at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

“Nancy Pelosi was responsible. She didn’t do her job,” he said.

Facts First: This claim is false. The speaker of the House is not in charge of Capitol security. Capitol security is overseen by the Capitol Police Board, a body that includes the sergeants at arms of the House and the Senate. Pelosi’s office has explicitly said she was not presented with an offer of 10,000 National Guardsmen as Trump has claimed, telling CNN last year that claims to the contrary are “lies.” And even if Pelosi had been told of an offer of National Guard troops, she would not have had the power to turn it down. The speaker of the House has no authority to prevent the deployment of the District of Columbia National Guard, which reports to the president (whose authority was delegated, under a decades-old executive order, to the Secretary of the Army).

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Trump claims Harris met with Putin days before Russian invasion

Former President Donald Trump claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris met with Russian President Vladimir Putin days before Russia invaded Ukraine and failed to deter him from the invasion.

“They sent her to negotiate peace before this war started,” Trump said, referring to Harris. “Three days later, he went in, and he started the war because everything they said was weak and stupid.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim is false. Harris was not sent to negotiate peace, and she has never met with Putin. In reality, she met with US allies, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, at the Munich Security Conference in the days before Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Putin was not at the conference.

“Frankly speaking, I cannot recall a single contact between President Putin and Mrs. Harris,” a Kremlin spokesperson said in July, according to a state-owned Russian news agency.

The Biden administration was still trying to deter an invasion of Ukraine at the time of Harris’ 2022 trip to the conference in Germany, but top administration officials, including President Joe Biden himself, made clear that they believed Putin was already moving toward invading. As Harris was on her way to Germany, Biden told reporters that he thought a Russian attack “will happen in the next several days.”

CNN reported on the day the Munich conference began that a senior administration official said Harris had three key objectives: “Focus on the ‘fast-changing’ situation on the ground, maintain full alignment with partners and send a clear message to Russia that the US prefers diplomacy but is ready in case of Russian aggression.”

The Munich conference was held from February 18 to February 20, 2022; Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale and Kaanita Iyer

Trump repeats familiar claim about military equipment left in Afghanistan during withdrawal

In Tuesday night’s debate, former President Donald Trump repeated a familiar claim, which he has made in speech after speech, that the US left $85 billion worth of military equipment to the Taliban when President Joe Biden pulled American troops out of Afghanistan in 2021.

“We wouldn’t have left $85 billion worth of brand new, beautiful military equipment behind,” Trump said.

Facts First: Trump’s $85 billion figure is false. While a significant quantity of military equipment that had been provided by the US to Afghan forces was indeed abandoned to the Taliban upon the US withdrawal, the Defense Department has estimated that this equipment had been worth about $7.1 billion – a chunk of the roughly $18.6 billion worth of equipment provided to Afghan forces between 2005 and 2021. And some of the equipment left behind was rendered inoperable before US forces withdrew.

As other fact-checkers have previously explained, the “$85 billion” is a rounded-up figure – it’s closer to $83 billion – for the total amount of money Congress appropriated during the war to a fund supporting the Afghan security forces. A fraction of this funding was for equipment.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Harris claims Trump left with worst unemployment since Great Depression

Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday claimed that former President Donald Trump left office “with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression.”

Facts First: Harris’ claim is false.

In January 2021, when Trump left office, the official unemployment rate was 6.4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The unemployment rate skyrocketed to 14.8% in April 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic shut down global economies, including that of the US. That was the highest rate since 1939, according to BLS historical records.

Nearly 22 million jobs were lost under Trump in March and April 2020 when the global economy cratered on account of the pandemic. But by the time Trump left office, the unemployment rate had gone down.

From CNN’s Alicia Wallace

Trump’s claim about jobs created under Biden administration

Former President Donald Trump claimed Tuesday that 818,000 of the jobs created under the Biden-Harris administration from April 2023 to March 2024 were a “fraud.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim is false and needs additional context.

Trump was referring to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ recently released preliminary estimate for its annual benchmark revision that suggested there were 818,000 fewer jobs for the year ended in March 2024 than were initially reported.

Economic data is often revised, especially as more comprehensive information becomes available, to provide a clearer, more accurate picture of the dynamics at play.

Every year – including the four years when Trump was president – the Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts a thorough review of the survey-based employment estimates from the monthly jobs report and reconciles those estimates with fuller employment counts measured by the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program.

This annual process, called a benchmarking, provides a near-complete employment count, because the BLS can correct for sampling and modeling errors from the surveys and re-anchor those estimates to unemployment insurance tax records. The revision process is two-fold: A preliminary estimate is released in mid-August, and the final revision is issued in February, alongside the January jobs report.

While the recently announced preliminary revision (which amounts to 0.5% of total employment) was the largest downward revision since 2009 (which was -902,000, or -0.7%), there have been other large revisions made in recent years – notably a downward revision of 514,000 jobs (-0.3%) for the year ended in March 2019, during the Trump administration.

The preliminary revision was larger than typical, but economists and even a Trump-appointed BLS commissioner have publicly stated that there is nothing nefarious at play. Revisions of this size typically happen at turning points in the economy, when the BLS’ methodology is less reliable, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

Additionally, the pandemic had a seismic effect on the economy as well as the gold standard methods used to measure it, so this large revision is likely a reflection of that. Specifically, the BLS’ model for capturing business “births and deaths” is likely overstating new firm formation while underestimating deaths, Oxford Economics’ Chief US Economist Ryan Sweet told CNN.

From CNN’s Alicia Wallace

Trump claims Biden took money from China, Ukraine

Former President Donald Trump claimed that President Joe Biden has taken money from China and Ukraine, including $3.5 million from the wife of the mayor of Moscow.

Facts First: There is no public evidence that Joe Biden received money from any foreign entities while in office or as a private citizen. While investigations by House Republicans have found that Biden family members who have been involved in business, including his son Hunter Biden and brother James Biden (“and their related companies”), have received over $18 million from foreign entities, they have found no proof to date that the president himself received any foreign money.

Roughly a year after launching their impeachment inquiry into Biden and more than three years into Biden’s presidency, the closest House Republicans have gotten to connecting the president to money earned by his family members is in finding that the president received personal checks from his brother while he was a private citizen after his vice presidency. Republicans have questioned the legitimacy of these transactions and used them to suggest that Joe Biden did benefit from his brother’s relationships with foreign entities. But banking records provide substantial evidence that Joe Biden had made loans to his brother and then was paid back without interest, as House Democrats have said.

Biden said at a presidential debate against Trump in 2020: “I have not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my life.”

The Washington Post dove into the allegations in 2022 that Hunter Biden received money from the wife of the Moscow mayor. But there’s no evidence that Joe Biden had any involvement regardless.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale and Jeremy Herb

Trump falsely claims Biden orchestrated criminal cases against him

Former President Donald Trump repeated a claim he has made on numerous occasions during his campaign – that the Biden administration orchestrated a criminal election subversion case that was brought against him by a local district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, a criminal fraud case that was brought against him by a local district attorney in Manhattan, and a civil fraud case that was brought against him by the attorney general of New York state.

Facts First: This is false. There is no evidence that Biden or his administration were behind any of these cases. None of these officials reports to the president or even to the federal government. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland testified to Congress in early June about the Manhattan case in which Trump was found guilty: “The Manhattan district attorney has jurisdiction over cases involving New York state law, completely independent of the Justice Department, which has jurisdiction over cases involving federal law. We do not control the Manhattan district attorney. The Manhattan district attorney does not report to us. The Manhattan district attorney makes its own decisions about cases that he wants to bring under his state law.”

As he did in his conversation with Musk, Trump has repeatedly invoked a lawyer on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team, Matthew Colangelo, while making such claims; Colangelo left the Justice Department in 2022 to join the district attorney’s office as senior counsel to Bragg. But there is no evidence that Biden had anything to do with Colangelo’s employment decision. Colangelo and Bragg were colleagues in the New York attorney general’s office before Bragg was elected Manhattan district attorney in 2021.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Harris overstates the effect of the $50,000 start-up deduction she proposed

Vice President Kamala Harris implied Tuesday that all prospective start-up business owners will be able to take advantage of the $50,000 tax deduction she’s proposing for new small businesses, saying that it will help them “pursue their ambitions.”

“I have a plan to give startup businesses $50,000 tax deduction to pursue their ambitions, their innovation, their ideas, their hard work,” Harris said.

Facts First: Harris’ point about new business owners being able to benefit from the deduction she’s proposed lacks context.

“Businesses that fail before they begin to turn a profit won’t be able to utilize the deduction, because to take a deduction you have to have taxable income to deduct against,” Erica York, a senior economist at the right-leaning Tax Foundation, told CNN.

In other words, the tax deduction may not ultimately help businesses owners get off the ground and running initially. However, it may help lower their tax burden over time, but only if they turn a profit.

From CNN’s Elisabeth Buchwald

Trump claims Biden job growth was all ‘bounce-back jobs’

Former President Donald Trump said of the Biden-Harris administration, “the only jobs they got were bounce-back jobs” that “bounced back and it went to their benefit,” but “I was the one that created them.”

Facts First: Trump’s claims that the job growth during the Biden-Harris administration presidency has been all “bounce-back” gains where people went back to their old jobs is not fully correct.

More than 21 million jobs were lost under Trump in March and April 2020 when the global economy cratered on account of the pandemic. Following substantial relief and recovery measures, the US started regaining jobs immediately, adding more than 12 million jobs from May 2020 through December 2020, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

The recovery continued after Biden took office, with the US reaching and surpassing its pre-pandemic (February 2020) employment totals in June 2022.

The job gains didn’t stop there. Since June 2022 and through August 2024, the US has added nearly 6.4 million more jobs in what’s become the fifth-longest period of employment expansion on record. In total under the Biden-Harris administration, around 16 million jobs have been added.

But it’s not entirely fair nor accurate to say the jobs gained were all “bounce-back” or were people simply returning to their former positions.

The pandemic drastically reshaped the employment landscape. For one, a significant portion of the labor force did not return due to early retirements, deaths, long Covid or caregiving responsibilities.

Additionally, because of shifts in consumer spending patterns as well as health-and-safety implications, public-facing industries could not fully reopen or restaff immediately. Some of those workers found jobs in other industries or used the opportunity to start their own businesses.

From CNN’s Alicia Wallace

Trump falsely says he rebuilt the US military

Former President Donald Trump repeated Tuesday past claims that he “rebuilt our entire military.”

“We’re going to end up in a third world war, and it will be a war like no other. Because of nuclear weapons, the power of weaponry. I rebuilt our entire military. She gave a lot of it away to the Taliban. She gave it to Afghanistan,” he said.

Facts First: Trump’s claim to have rebuilt the entire military is false. “This claim is not even close to being true. The military has tens of thousands of pieces of equipment, and the vast majority of it predates the Trump administration,” Todd Harrison, an expert on the defense budget and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, told CNN in November.

Harrison said in a November email: “Moreover, the process of acquiring new equipment for the military is slow and takes many years. It’s not remotely possible to replace even half of the military’s inventory of equipment in one presidential term. I just ran the numbers for military aircraft, and about 88% of the aircraft in the U.S. military inventory today (including Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps aircraft) were built before Trump took office. In terms of fighters in particular, we still have F-16s and F- 15s in the Air Force that are over 40 years old.”

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Trump on US and European aid to Ukraine

Former President Donald Trump complained that the US had given $250 billion to $275 billion in aid to Ukraine while European countries had given just $100 billion to $150 billion even though they are located closer to Ukraine.

Facts First: Trump’s claim is false. In total, European countries have contributed significantly more aid to Ukraine than the US has during and just before the Russian invasion began in early 2022, according to data from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy in Germany. 

The Kiel Institute, which closely tracks aid to Ukraine, found that, from late January 2022 (just before Russia’s invasion in February 2022) through June 2024, the European Union and individual European countries had committed a total of about $207 billion to Ukraine, in military, financial and humanitarian assistance, compared to about $109 billion (€98.4 billion) committed by the US. Europe also exceeded the US in aid that had actually been “allocated” to Ukraine – defined by the institute as aid either delivered or specified for delivery – at about $122 billion (€110.21 billion) for Europe compared to about $83 billion (€75.1 billion) for the US.

In addition, Europe had committed more total military aid to Ukraine, at about $88 billion (79.57 billion euro) to about $72 billion (64.87 billion euro) for the US. The US narrowly led on military aid that had actually been allocated, at about $56.91 billion for the US (51.58 billion euro) to about $56.84 billion for Europe (51.52 billion euro), but that was nowhere near the lopsided margin Trump suggested.

It’s important to note that it’s possible to come up with different totals using different methodology. And the Kiel Institute found that Ukraine itself was getting only about half of the money in a 2024 US bill that had widely been described as a $61 billion aid bill for Ukraine; the institute said the rest of the funds were mostly going to the Defense Department.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Trump on crime statistics

Former President Donald Trump claimed during the debate on Tuesday that “crime in this country is through the roof.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim that crime rates are up is false. And while it is true that the FBI’s most recent data did not include some large cities, crime counts still show a downward trend as both violent crime and property crime dropped significantly in 2023 and in the first quarter of 2024.

There are limitations to the FBI-published data from local law enforcement – the numbers are preliminary, not all communities submitted data and the submitted data usually has some errors – so these statistics may not precisely capture the size of the recent declines in crime.

The preliminary FBI data for 2023 showed a roughly 13% decline in murder and a roughly 6% decline in overall violent crime compared to 2022, bringing both murder and violent crime levels below where they were in Trump’s last calendar year in office in 2020. The preliminary FBI data for the first quarter of 2024 showed an even steeper drop from the same quarter in 2023 – a roughly 26% decline in murder and roughly 15% decline in overall violent crime.

Crime data expert Jeff Asher, co-founder of the firm AH Datalytics, said in an email to CNN last week: There is ample evidence that crime is falling in 2024 and murder specifically fell at the fastest – or one of the fastest – paces ever recorded in 2023 and again in 2024.”

Asher continued: “The evidence comes from a variety of sources including the FBI’s quarterly data, the CDC, the Gun Violence Archive, and our newly launched Real-Time Crime Index. We show a 5 percent decline in violent crime – including a 16 percent decline in murder – and a 9 percent decline in property crime through June 2024 in over 300 cities with available data so far this year. Data from these various sources suggest the US murder rate was down significantly in 2023 relative to 2020/2021 highs but still slightly above 2019’s level.”

After Trump claimed in June that “crime is so much up,” Anna Harvey, a political science professor and director of the Public Safety Lab at New York University, noted to CNN that the claim is contradicted both by the data from the FBI and from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represents 70 large US police forces. She said: “It would be more accurate to say that crime is so much down.”

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Trump falsely claims Central Park Five pleaded guilty

Former President Donald Trump said Tuesday that the Central Park Five pleaded guilty to crimes, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the 1989 attack.

Facts First: These claims are false. The Central Park Five did not plead guilty, they were convicted by a jury at trial (that conviction has since been vacated). Also, the five teenagers were accused of raping a jogger – not of murder. 

Five teenagers who were accused of raping a jogger in 1989 were pressured into giving false confessions. They were exonerated in 2002 when DNA evidence linked another person to the crime. The teenagers sued the city, and the case was settled in 2014.

A sixth teenager charged in the attack did plead guilty to robbery charges. His conviction was also overturned because there was no physical evidence connecting him to either the rape or the robbery, and because people who blamed the sixth teen later recanted.

From CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz

Trump on ending the Nord Stream pipeline

Former President Donald Trump claimed on Tuesday that he “ended” the Nord Stream pipeline.

“I ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and Biden put it back on day one,” Trump said. “But he ended the XL pipeline – the XL pipeline in our country, he ended that. But he let the Russians build a pipeline going all over Europe and heading into Germany; the biggest pipeline in the world.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim is false. He did not “end” Nord Stream.

While he did sign a bill that included sanctions on companies working on the project, that move came nearly three years into his presidency, when the pipeline was already around 90% complete – and the state-owned Russian gas company behind the project said shortly after the sanctions that it would complete the pipeline itself. The company announced in December 2020 that construction was resuming. And with days left in Trump’s term in January 2021, Germany announced that it had renewed permission for construction in its waters.

The pipeline never began operations; Germany ended up halting the project as Russia was about to invade Ukraine in early 2022. The pipeline was damaged later that year in what has been described as a likely act of sabotage.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale 

Trump falsely claims some states allow abortion after birth

Former President Donald Trump claimed that some states allow people to execute babies, in addition to allowing abortion in the ninth month, and he singled out the governors including Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz for his stance on the issue.

On Walz, Trump said, “He also says execution after birth – it’s execution, no longer abortion because the baby is born – is OK. And that’s not OK with me.”

“They have abortion in the ninth month. They even have – and you can look at the governor of West Virginia, the previous governor of West Virginia not the current governor he’s doing an excellent job. But the governor before, he said, ‘The baby will be born, and we will decide what to do with the baby,’ in other words, ‘We’ll execute the baby,’” Trump said.

Facts First: Trump’s claim about infanticide is false. No state allows for the execution of a baby after it is born.

That’s called infanticide, which is illegal in every state.

“Every state explicitly criminalizes infanticide,” Mary Ziegler, a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, said in June.

“There is no basis for this claim,” Kimberly Mutcherson, a professor at Rutgers Law School, also said at the time.

There are some cases in which parents choose palliative care, a kind of care that can provide relief for the symptoms and stress of a deadly illness or condition that gives the baby just minutes, hours or days to live. That is not the same as executing a baby.

Trump also misspoke. It was not the governor of West Virginia, it was the former Governor of Virginia Ralph Northam who made a controversial remark in 2019 that many Republicans said sounded like he supported infanticide. Northam, who is a pediatric neurologist, said his words were being misinterpreted. In any case, infanticide was not legal when Northam was governor of Virginia nor was it ever legal in West Virginia either.

As for abortions in the ninth month, Minnesota is one of a handful of states that allow abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, but it doesn’t mean that doctors perform them. Nationally, just 0.9% of abortions in 2021 – the latest year the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has data – happened at 21 weeks or later. Many abortions at this point in the pregnancy are necessary due to serious health risks or lethal fetal anomalies. More than 93 percent of abortions were conducted before the 14th week of pregnancy, according to the CDC. In Minnesota, according to state data for 2022, of the 12,175 abortions in the state, only two happened between the 25 and 30th week of pregnancy. None happened after the 30th week of pregnancy that year.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale and Jen Christensen

Trump on NATO funding

Former President Donald Trump claimed Tuesday that the US was “paying almost all of NATO” for years, until he “got them to pay up” by threatening not to follow through on the alliance’s collective defense clause.

“For years, we were paying almost all of NATO,” he said. “We were being ripped off by European nations, both on trade and on NATO. I got them to pay up by saying one of the statements you made before, ‘if you don’t pay, we’re not going to protect you.’ Otherwise we would have never gotten it.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim that the US was “paying almost all of NATO” needs context. Official NATO figures show that in 2016, the last year before Trump took office, US defense spending made up about 71% of total defense spending by NATO members – a large majority, but not “almost all.” And Trump’s claim is even more inaccurate if he was talking about the direct contributions to NATO that cover NATO’s organizational expenses and are set based on each country’s national income; the US was responsible for about 22% of those contributions in 2016.

The US share of total NATO military spending fell to about 65% in 2023. And the US is now responsible for about 16% of direct contributions to NATO, the same as Germany. Erwan Lagadec, an expert on NATO as a research professor at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs and director of its Transatlantic Program, said the US share was reduced from 22% “to placate Trump” and is a “sweetheart deal” given that the US makes up more than half of the alliance’s total GDP.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Trump claims Harris wants to get rid of private health insurance

In Tuesday night’s debate, former President Donald Trump once again claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris wants to get rid of private health insurance.

“But she won’t improve private insurance for people, private medical insurance,” Trump said. “That’s another thing she doesn’t want to give. People are paying privately for insurance that have worked hard and made money and they wanna have private – she wants everybody to be on government insurance where you wait six months for an operation that you need immediately.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim is outdated. While Harris did say in her first presidential campaign in 2019 that she wanted to eliminate private health insurance, the plan she rolled out later that year included a role for private insurers, and as vice president, she has supported bolstering the Affordable Care Act. Coverage on the Obamacare exchanges are offered by private insurers.

At a CNN town hall in January 2019, Harris, who was then a California senator vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, said that she would eliminate private health insurance as a necessary part of implementing Medicare for All, a government-run health insurance proposal promoted by Sen. Bernie Sanders. Harris was a co-sponsor of Sanders’ bill, which called for essentially getting rid of the private insurance market.

A furor erupted, and her national press secretary and an adviser quickly walked back her comment, saying she was open to multiple paths to Medicare for All. And private insurers were included in the plan she rolled out in July 2019.

“We will allow private insurers to offer Medicare plans as a part of this system that adhere to strict Medicare requirements on costs and benefits,” Harris wrote in a Medium post about her plan. “Medicare will set the rules of the road for these plans, including price and quality, and private insurance companies will play by those rules, not the other way around.”

Since she was named President Joe Biden’s vice president, she has supported his efforts to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, which has led to a record number of people signing up for 2024 coverage from private insurers on the individual market.

Harris’ campaign has confirmed that the vice president no longer supports a single-payer health care system.

From CNN’s Tami Luhby

Harris on manufacturing jobs

Vice President Kamala Harris claimed Tuesday that the economy has added over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs during the Biden-Harris administration.

Facts First: Harris was rounding up and was referring to labor market data available through July 2024, which showed the US economy added 765,000 manufacturing jobs from the first full month of the Biden-Harris administration, February 2021. Though it’s worth noting that the growth almost entirely occurred in 2021 and 2022 (with 746,000 manufacturing jobs added starting in February 2021) before a relatively flat 2023 and through the first seven months of 2024.

In August, the US economy lost an estimated 24,000 manufacturing jobs, bringing that tally down to 739,000, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics’ preliminary employment data released Friday.

The gain during the Biden-Harris era is, however, over 800,000 using non-seasonally-adjusted figures that are also published by the federal government – in fact, the non-seasonally adjusted gain is 874,000 through August – so there is at least a defensible basis for Harris’ claim. However, seasonally adjusted data smooths out volatility and is traditionally used to observe trends.

An estimated 172,000 manufacturing jobs were lost during former President Donald Trump’s administration, however, most of those losses occurred following the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020. From February 2017, the first full month that Trump was in office, through February 2020, the US economy added 414,000 manufacturing jobs, BLS data shows.

Presidential terms don’t start and end in a vacuum, and economic cycles can carry over regardless of party. Additionally, the ups and downs of the labor market and the broader economy are influenced by factors beyond a single president, although specific economic policies can influence economic and job growth.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale and Alicia Wallace

Trump claims he saved Obamacare

Former President Donald Trump claimed in Tuesday night’s debate that he saved Obamacare, his predecessor’s landmark health reform law that Trump repeatedly vowed to repeal and replace.

“I had a choice to make: Do I save it and make it as good as it can be, or do I let it rot? And I saved it,” Trump said.

Facts First: Trump’s claim is misleading. The only reason Obamacare wasn’t repealed was because congressional Republicans could not amass enough votes to kill the law in 2017. During Trump’s administration, he and his officials took many steps to weaken the Affordable Care Act, though they did continue to operate the Obamacare exchanges.

Within hours of taking the oath of office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at rolling back Obamacare – stating that the administration’s official policy was “to seek the prompt repeal” of the Affordable Care Act.

Although Congress failed to repeal it, Trump did manage to undermine the law, which led to a decline in enrollment. He cut the open enrollment period in half, to only six weeks. He also slashed funding for advertising and for navigators, who are critical to helping people sign up. At the same time, he increased the visibility of insurance agents who can also sell non-Obamacare plans.

Trump signed an executive order in October 2017 making it easier for Americans to access alternative policies that have lower premiums than Affordable Care Act plans – but in exchange for fewer protections and benefits. And he ended subsidy payments to health insurers to reduce eligible enrollees’ out-of-pocket costs.

Plus, his administration refused to defend several central provisions of the Affordable Care Act in a lawsuit brought by a coalition of Republican-led states, arguing that key parts of Obamacare should be invalidated. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the challenge and left the law in place.

Enrollment declined until the final year of his term, which was in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.

From CNN’s Tami Luhby

Harris on US military members on active duty in combat zones

Vice President Kamala Harris said Tuesday, “As of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century.”

Facts First: This claim is misleading. While US service members are not engaged in major wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, US service members have come under fire in the Middle East repeatedly over the last year and increasingly been in harm’s way since Hamas’ attacks on Israel last October.

There are currently roughly 2,500 US troops in Iraq, who have come under repeated fire since Hamas’ attacks on Israel on October 7. Also since October, more US troops have deployed to the Middle East, including on Navy ships to the Gulf of Oman and Red Sea. CNN cited two US officials in reporting Tuesday that the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group was last operating near the Gulf of Oman, and the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group is expected to leave the region this week after last operating in the same area.

Additionally, in the last several months, US service members have taken fire in the Middle East and been injured or killed. Last month, eight US service members were treated for traumatic brain injuries and smoke inhalation after a drone struck Rumalyn Landing Zone in Syria. In January, three US soldiers were killed, and dozens more were injured, in an attack on a small outpost in Jordan called Tower 22. The same month, two US Navy SEALs died after going missing one night at sea while trying to seize lethal aid being transported from Iran to Yemen.

From CNN’s Haley Britzky

Harris on manufacturing jobs

Vice President Kamala Harris said during Tuesday’s debate: “Donald Trump said he was going to create manufacturing jobs. He lost manufacturing jobs.”

Facts First: This needs context.

It’s true that the US lost 178,000 manufacturing jobs during Trump’s presidency – but the loss overwhelmingly occurred because of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. From the beginning of Trump’s presidency in January 2017 through February 2020, before the pandemic crash, there was a gain of 414,000 manufacturing jobs.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Harris on trade deficits

Vice President Kamala Harris said during Tuesday’s debate: “Let’s be clear that the Trump administration resulted in a trade deficit, one of the highest we’ve ever seen in the history of America.”

Facts First: This needs context.

It’s true that there were high trade deficits during the Trump administration. The seasonally adjusted 2020 goods trade deficit, about $901.5 billion, was the highest on record at the time.

However, Harris did not acknowledge that trade deficits have been even higher during the Biden-Harris administration. The seasonally adjusted goods trade deficit exceeded $1 trillion in each of 2021, 2022 and 2023.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

 

Medal

Posted on by
2

I am really, really angry about our former President’s comments that the Presidential Medal of Freedom is better than the Medal of Honor.

Most of you have watched or listened to what he said a few days ago, speaking of the Medal of Freedom:

That’s the highest award you can get as a civilian. It’s the equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, but civilian version. It’s actually much better because everyone gets the Congressional Medal of Honor, they’re soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they are dead. She gets it and she’s a healthy, beautiful woman. And they’re rated equal, but she got the Presidential Medal of Freedom.”  

She is the equal of soldiers who are “hit so many times by bullets or they are dead?”

What is it with this guy who shows no respect for honor, courage, or sacrifice, whose vacuousness regularly produces such instantly cringeworthy observations as his discussion of the Battle of Gettysburg?—

“What an unbelievable battle that was. The Battle of Gettysburg. What an unbelievable—I mean, it was so much and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible and so beautiful in so many different ways.  Gettysburg, Wow. I go to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to look and to watch. And the statement of Robert E. Lee—who’s no longer in favor, did you ever notice that? No longer in favor—‘Never fight uphill me boys, never fight uphill.’  They were fighting uphill. He said, “Wow, that was a big mistake.” He lost his great general, and they were fighting. ‘Never fight uphill, me boys,’  But it was too late”

Civil War historians have never found any verification that a native Virginian ever sounded like a native of Ireland in encouraging his soldiers to fight.  Uphill, downhill, or on flat land. Or that he said anything such as that or—

According to Trump, Lee said, “Wow, that was a big mistake.”

Wow?  Here is part of Lee’s report of the battle:

“The highest praise is due to both officers and men for their conduct during the campaign. The privations and hardships of the march and camp were cheerfully encountered, and borne with a fortitude unsurpassed by our ancestors in their struggle for independence, while their courage in battle entitles them to rank with the soldiers of any army and of any time.”

Lee lost. He did not say wow.  But he did honor his troops, living and dead, in the full report.

Sixty-four Union soldiers received the Medal of Honor for actions at Gettysburg.

Or his extensive knowledge of the American Revolution, shared in a July 4th speech in 2019 when he educated his audience this way:

“The Continental Army suffered a bitter winter of Valley Forge, found glory across the waters of the Delaware, and seized victory from Cornwallis of Yorktown. Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do. And at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory. And when dawn came, their Star Spangled Banner waved defiant.”

Fort McHenry and the Francis Scott Key’s poem about the flag are from the War of 1812, not the revolution.  And—what is his definition of “rampart.”  And seizing the airports????!!!

(There was no Medal of Honor in the American Revolution. George Washington established a Badge of Military Merit, the first medal applying to private soldiers, in 1782. The medal today is awarded for reasons Washington did not mention and is known since its formal establishment 150 years later as the Purple Heart.)

I’m getting too worked up as I go back over the uncounted instances of disrespect for those who have worn our country’s uniforms and the historical and scientific gibberish that he thinks is clever and smart and that far too many people who must be a whole lot smarter than him accept anyway. Let me get back to what I started to write.

I am not a veteran.  But I cannot describe the depth of gratitude that I have for veterans, whether they came under enemy fire or whether they were a clerk at a stateside base. I was honored to be asked to work with a dedicated group made up of veterans and Gold Star Family members (Gold Star families are those who have lost loved ones in wartime) to build a Gold Star Family Memorial Monument near the Capitol a few years ago. I provided the words carved into the memorial’s stones.

The Chairman of that group was my State Representative, Dave Griffith, a Special Forces veteran who has spent most of his life in positions of service to the public. We differ on some political issues—some—but that has not affected our friendship and our working on some legislation for next year that will restore millions of dollars in funding for our state veterans homes and for other causes.  It is an honor to associate with people such as him.  And it is that kind of respect that leaves me so angry when someone such as our 45th President diminishes the Medal of Honor and disrespects those who have received it as well as those who have served honorably whether on the front lines or in the back offices.

There seems to be nothing this candidate cannot cheapen with his words and his actions. He awarded 24 Presidential Medals of Freedom, fourteen of them to sports figures. He interrupted one of his State of the Union speeches to give one to Rush Limbaugh. The quotation at the start of this entry refers to the award to Miriam Adelson, a doctor known for her humanitarian work and donations to Jewish organizations.  But probably more important to him is that she and her late husband donated $20 million to his 2016 campaign and another five-million dollars to his inauguration fund, then a half-million more to a legal fund for Trump aides, another $100 million that went to conservative groups and Republican candidates in 2018. Open Secrets, which watches political donations, says the Adelson’s total giving to these causes and to a pro-Trump political action committee is close to $220 million dollars in 2019 and 2020. She’s also “a healthy and beautiful woman,” which most of us would not consider a qualification for a presidential medal.

Here’s an important difference between those who get the Medal of Freedom and those who receive the Medal of Honor:

Military members are encouraged to salute a Medal of Honor recipient who is wearing the medal, even if that person is wearing civilian clothes. The military custom is for junior offices to salute senior officers.  But the Medal of Honor recipient is entitled to receive a salute from anyone, regardless of rank.

No Medal of Freedom winner is entitled to that show of respect. The former President is correct that many recipients of the Medal of Honor are dead or have dealt with serious wounds.  To say that they are entitled to less respect from the President of the United States than someone who hits a baseball, shoots a basketball, hits a golf ball, or carries a football is unforgiveable—or gives a lot of money to his campaign and also is a good-looking woman—is beyond forgivable.

It is best to stop here rather than go on with the altercation at Arlington that was as much about honoring soldiers killed in the Afghanistan withdrawal (that he planned while in office) as staging a photo op at a D.C. church was about sincerely-held faith.

NO, ON SECOND THOUGHT IT IS NOT BEST TO STOP.

The above material was written last Wednesday.  On Thursday, he blamed the Arlington controversy on “very bad people” and suggested that the Gold Star families he was with made the video of the event public, not members of his campaign staff who have been accused of pushing a cemetery staffer out of the way when she tried to enforce the no-politicking rule for the area out of the way.

“This all comes out of Washington, just like all these prosecutors come out of Washington. These are bad people we’re dealing with,” he told an interviewer in Michigan. “They ask me to have a picture, and they say I was campaigning. The one thing I get is plenty of publicity… I don’t need the publicity.”

If he didn’t need the publicity, why did he have a video crew with him?

The Army has confirmed that the shoving incident happened when the staffer tried to keep a Trump campaign aide out of the area that has strict rules about media presence. The area is for recently-buried service members and regulations published by the Army and Arlington National Cemetery prohibit political activity there. The Washington Post reported that “ahead of the visit, Arlington National Cemetery officials had warned Trump’s team that he could visit the grave sites, but not as part of a campaign event. The cemetery made clear that while media could accompany Trump to a wreath laying at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, they could not accompany him into Section 60.”

Officials have told The New York Times the woman refused to press chages because “she feared Mr. Trump’s supporters pursuing retaliation.”  Trump Campaign Press Secretary Steven Cheung says she is “suffering from a mental health issue,” and senior adviser Chris LaCivita has called her a “despicable individual.

Trump’s campaign social media site shortly afterwards posted several pictures and videos that were taken during the visit, including a recording of him blaming President Biden for the deaths of American soldiers in the final hours of our occupation of Afghanistan.

When asked by NBC if his campaign should have published the images, Trump gave his familiar excuse: he knew “nothing about” that.  And when the reporter bored in with another question, he suggested parents of the dead servicemen distributed the images.

On HIS social media??????.

“I don’t know what the rules and regulations are. I don’t know who did it, It could have been them – it could have been the parents.”  When pressed even more, he said, “I really don’t know anything about it.”

The family that invited Trump was contacted by Trump nemesis Maggie Haberman, a New York Times reporter. She posted on X:

“Contacted by NYT, Michele Marckesano issued a statement from the family saying they support the families searching for accountability around the Abbey Gate bombing. However, she said, their conversations with Arlington officials indicated Trump staff didn’t adhere to rules.”

The Gold Star families are the “very bad people????”

There is a terrible irony to this deplorable incident at Arlington:

A 1998 law allows Trump, if he wishes, to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery—-

—-the burial place of more than 400 recipients of the Medal of Honor.

Surely, he wouldn’t——

would he?

(This entry was changed on September 2, 2024 to include Maggie Haberman’s post on X)

Just the Facts. Part Two 

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrats wrapped up last week the most creative and glitzy convention we can recall—by far. It was a convention in which the delegates seemed genuinely to be having fun that transcended the usual partisan enjoyment of a convention.

Monday, we relied on CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale and his staff, who evaluated the presidential debate in July, to point out the untruths that were spoken each night of the Republican National Convention.

Today we look at the work done by Dale and his staff in evaluating the Democratic National Convention. This entry will be shorter than Monday’s entry, not because there were no untruths of various degrees spoken at the DNC—-because there were—-but because there were fewer of them during the DNC, in good part because the Democrats have no match for the one-person nonstop generator of nonstop lies that the Republicans had.

But we are posting these evaluations because the personal discussions we have with others in the 70 days or so before the election are likely to rely on what was said during the political conventions.

Again, we offer these entries because words are cheap on both sides, because political commercials are more manipulative than they are honest, and because we hope this can be a reference for you in stating our own statements honestly and questioning honestly the statements of others.

And once again we remind you that The Washington Post and FactCheck.org (which is based at the Annenberg School for Communication Trust at the University of Pennsylvania), Politifact (part of the Poynter Institute which has a truth-o-meter than goes from zero to “Pants on Fire”), The Associated Press which has a webpage at Fact Check: Political & News Fact  Check, are among other fact checkers not only for politics but in some cases for other issues.

DEMOCRATS, FIRST NIGHT:

Democratic state and federal officeholders, including President Joe Biden, delivered some false, misleading or lacking-key-context claims on the first night of the Democratic National Convention on Monday.

Biden repeated misleading claims he has made in previous speeches about billionaires’ tax rates and foreign trade. He also overstated the extent to which his efforts to fight climate change are expected to reduce US carbon emissions in the next decade. He made an outdated claim about the number of Americans with health insurance. And he omitted key context about his administration’s infrastructure-building efforts, framing distant goals as if they were already achievements.

Speaking earlier in the night, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois denounced former President Donald Trump for having presided over a loss of jobs without mentioning the critical context that the losses occurred because of the Covid-19 pandemic that caused a global economic crash. A video played at the convention similarly left out important context on the respective job-related records of the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations.

Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow falsely claimed that the Supreme Court has made Trump “completely immune from prosecution,” significantly overstating the court’s recent ruling.

And Rep. Robert Garcia of California misleadingly described Trump’s widely criticized 2020 comments about the possibility of scientists studying the use of injected disinfectant as a Covid-19 treatment, wrongly saying Trump had instructed Americans to inject bleach.

Here is a CNN fact check of these claims and some other remarks made on Monday.

Biden on taxing billionaires

During his speech, Biden asked the audience if they knew what the average billionaire in the United States pays in taxes.

“We have a thousand billionaires in America. You know what the average tax rate they pay? 8.2%,” Biden said.

Facts First: Biden used this figure in a way that was misleading. As in previous remarks, including his State of the Union address in March, Biden didn’t explain that the figure is the product of an alternative calculation, from economists in his own administration, that factors in unrealized capital gains that are not treated as taxable income under federal law.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the alternative calculation itself; the administration economists who came up with it explained it in detail on the White House website in 2021. Biden, however, has tended to cite the figure without any context about what it is and isn’t, leaving open the impression that he was talking about what these billionaires pay under current law.

So, what do billionaires actually pay under current law? The answer is not publicly known, but experts say it’s clearly more than 8%.

“Biden’s numbers are way too low,” Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute think tank, told CNN in 2023. Gleckman said that in 2019, University of California, Berkeley, economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman “estimated the top 400 households paid an average effective tax rate of about 23% in 2018. They got a lot of attention at the time because that rate was lower than the average rate of 24% for the bottom half of the income distribution. But it still was way more than 2 or 3,” numbers Biden has used in some previous speeches, “or even 8%.”

In February 2024, Gleckman provided additional calculations from the Tax Policy Center. The center found that the top 0.1% of households paid an average effective federal tax rate of about 30.3% in 2020, including an average income tax rate of 24.3%.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Biden on carbon emissions

Speaking about his achievements on climate, Biden said his agenda made possible “cutting carbon emissions in half by 2030.”

Facts First: Independent analysis shows the US is off-track to meet an ambitious goal Biden set early in his administration of slashing US carbon emissions in half by 2030 – even with his climate law.

Biden’s climate target of cutting emissions 50-52% below 2005 levels (2005 was the historical peak for US carbon emissions) by 2030 was always going to be a tough goal to achieve. When the Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022, analysis suggested it would get the US most of the way toward its goal – about a 40% reduction in carbon emissions. The thinking was that regulations from agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency would help make up the rest of the goal.

But a recent analysis from the nonpartisan Rhodium Group found that the US isn’t on track to hit Biden’s goal of slashing US emissions in half by 2030. Rhodium estimates the US is currently on track to reduce emissions anywhere from 32-43% by that date. However, the report says the US could surpass Biden’s goal by 2035 if there are no major changes to current policies, finding that the US would likely pick up the pace of decarbonizing its transportation, power and heavy industry sectors in the 2030s compared to the 2020s.

One big impediment to Biden’s goal is the fact that the EPA’s marquee climate rules regulating emissions from vehicles and power plants are facing an onslaught of legal challenges and a skeptical US Supreme Court. And an even bigger question mark is the 2024 election and whether Biden will be replaced by another Democrat with similar climate ambitions or former President Donald Trump – who has vowed to reverse much of Biden’s climate agenda.

From CNN’s Ella Nilsen

Biden’s claim about removing lead pipes from schools and homes

Biden, speaking about his bipartisan infrastructure law, said: “We’re removing every lead pipe from schools and homes, so every child can drink clean water.”

Facts First: This claim needs context. While the administration is spending $15 billion and working on federal regulations to remove all lead pipes from public drinking water systems over a decade, they may not be able to replace all pipes and service lines on private properties.

Lead drinking pipes can be found all over the country; some national estimates say the total number of lead service lines is around 9.2 million. Lead in drinking water is a major health concern for babies and young children, and Biden has made eradicating it a major priority. The Biden EPA proposed a major rule that, if finalized, would compel water utilities to gradually get rid of 100% of their lead pipes and service lines over 10 years.

The EPA estimates this effort will cost utilities $20 billion to $30 billion over that decade; $15 billion of that could be covered by the bipartisan infrastructure law, and there is an additional $11.7 billion available through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund that could be used for lead removal as well. Cities with lead pipes, including New Orleans, are currently trying to locate all of their lead pipes.

Besides funding, the other issue is the EPA rule as currently proposed doesn’t cover lead pipes or service lines on private property. Replacing these smaller pipes on private property that go into homes could present an even more complex and costly challenge. Though the Biden initiative will make a major dent in replacing the country’s lead pipes, it’s unlikely to be able to replace every single one on both private and public property.

From CNN’s Ella Nilsen

Biden’s claim about trade ignores widening deficit under his presidency

In his speech, Biden said, “We used to import products and export jobs. Now we export American products and create American jobs right here in America.”

Fact First: This claim is misleading. So far this year, the United States has imported more goods than it has exported, leading to a seasonally adjusted trade deficit of more than $567 billion, according to figures from the US Census Bureau. 

In fact, the goods trade deficit has widened since Biden took office. In 2020, the nation’s goods trade deficit was $901 billion. After Biden’s first year in office, it increased to over $1 trillion and has stayed above that threshold every subsequent year.

The dollar’s strength has played a role in widening the goods trade deficit, making it more expensive for other countries to buy US-produced goods, and at the same time, cheaper for Americans to buy goods abroad.

From CNN’s Elisabeth Buchwald 

Biden on building electric vehicle charging stations

Speaking about his administration’s goal to create more clean energy jobs, Biden said IBEW workers were at work “installing 500,000 charging stations all across America” to power electric vehicles.

Facts First: This is more of a promise than a fact, but even so, it needs context. For a few reasons, it’s questionable whether the Biden administration will be able to meet its goal of installing 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations on US roads.

Installing 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations has long been one of Biden’s goals. The president initially proposed Congress spend $15 billion to make it a reality, but just half of that – $7.5 billion – passed as part of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. The latest data from the Department of Energy shows the United States is still a long way from that goal; there are currently more than 180,000 EV charging ports operating at over 66,000 station locations around the US.

Though the administration has said that could be backfilled by private investment, that change in funding could hinder the administration’s ability to meet the goal. The federal government has spent the last few years sending money to states; states can now unlock more than $900 million in funding for fiscal years 2022 and 2023, which the administration estimated will “help build” chargers across approximately 53,000 miles of US highways.

Over the next five years, the full $5 billion will be spent to build out a network of EV chargers on major highways. Another pot of $2.5 billion in grant funding is also available for states to apply to; in January, $623 million in grant funding went out the door to help counties, cities and tribes around the nation install new charging stations for electric vehicles and long-haul freight trucks.

But it’s been slow going. States are still in the process of selecting companies to actually build the charging stations, meaning it could still take months or even years to fully see the impact of the money around the nation.

There is also a wide range in how much different types of chargers cost, and individual states have a lot of leeway in deciding what kinds of chargers will go on their roads. DC fast chargers can charge a car to mostly full in 20 minutes to an hour and are meant to go on major highways and roads. Another kind of charger known as an L2 charger can take hours to charge a car to full. But DC fast chargers are much more expensive, costing around $100,000 compared to around $6,000 for an L2, Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, a senior resident fellow at the think tank Third Way, has told CNN.

From CNN’s Ella Nilsen 

Biden on number of people with health insurance

Biden touted his achievements in expanding health insurance coverage to more Americans.

“More Americans have health insurance today than ever before in American history,” he said at the Democratic National Convention.

Facts First: Biden’s claim is outdated. While it’s true that health insurance coverage hit a record high last year, fewer people were insured in the first quarter of this year than in the spring of last year – in large part because a federal law that prevented states from winnowing their Medicaid rolls lapsed last year.

Some 130 million Americans had public health insurance coverage, such as Medicare or Medicaid, in the first quarter of this year, but that’s down from nearly 138 million people in the second quarter of last year, according to the latest National Health Interview Survey. The loss outpaces the gain of just under 3 million people in private health insurance plans. (A small number of people have both types of coverage.)

At the same time, the number of uninsured Americans rose to 27.1 million in the first quarter of this year, up from 23.7 million people in the spring of 2023. That pushed the uninsured rate up to 8.2%, from 7.2%, over that time period.

One main reason why health insurance coverage hit a record high last year was because of a Covid-19 pandemic relief provision that barred states from involuntarily disenrolling residents whom they deemed no longer qualify in exchange for enhanced federal funding. That prohibition was lifted in April 2023.

Only 81.7 million people were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program this past April, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. That compares to 93.9 million people in March 2023, before the provision lapsed.

From CNN’s Tami Luhby

Biden claims Trump will do “everything to ban abortion nationwide”

Biden said Monday that “Trump will do everything to ban abortion nationwide. Oh, he will.”

Facts First: Biden is making a prediction that we cannot definitively fact check, but the claim does not reflect Trump’s most recent comments on abortion and needs context.

While Trump regularly boasts that he played a key role in getting the US Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that guaranteed abortion rights across the country, Trump says it should be up to the states to decide how and when to restrict abortion. Polls show that the majority of Americans are against a federal abortion ban.

Throughout this most recent campaign, Donald Trump has repeatedly ducked direct questions about his support for a federal ban on abortions, but he said in April that he would not sign a national abortion ban if elected to the White House again. That statement reversed what he said in 2016 when he was first running for the presidency and was the opposite of statements he made throughout his time in office.

Some scholars are concerned that conservative advisers to Trump have encouraged him to ban abortions by enforcing the 1873 Comstock Act, a method that could essentially create a federal ban without Trump needing to sign any legislation to do it.

The Victorian-era anti-vice law that is still on the books is not currently enforced. The law bans the mailing of “obscene” materials used to produce an abortion. Some scholars believe Trump could use the Justice Department to enforce a ban that would not just restrict people from sending the medication currently used in the majority of abortions through the mail, but would ban any kind of materials used to produce any kind of abortion.

Trump has not officially endorsed the enforcement of the Comstock Act, but it is a strategy some of his advisers have outlined as an option for Trump to restrict abortions nationwide.

From CNN’s Jen Christensen

California congressman’s misleading claim about Trump’s comments about Covid-19 and disinfectant

Garcia claimed, among other things, that Trump “told us to inject bleach into our bodies,” while criticizing Trump’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis.

Facts First: Garcia’s claim is misleading. Trump never portrayed his ill-informed 2020 musings about the possibility of using disinfectant to treat Covid-19 as actual advice to Americans. Rather, Trump was talking about the possibility of scientists testing the possibility of using disinfectant as a treatment.

During a press briefing in April 2020, Trump expressed interest in scientists exploring the possibility of whether Covid-19 could be treated using disinfectants inside people’s bodies, “by injection inside or almost a cleaning,” or by deploying powerful light “inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way.” Trump’s comments were slammed by medical experts as highly dangerous, and they prompted urgent warnings from public health authorities and companies that sell household disinfectants. But he never actually said he was suggesting citizens go and use such products.

Trump made the ill-informed remarks after Bill Bryan, the acting undersecretary of science and technology for the Department of Homeland Security, outlined tests in which he said sunlight or disinfectants like bleach and isopropyl alcohol quickly killed the coronavirus on surfaces and in saliva.

When Trump jumped shortly afterward to the dangerous idea of injecting disinfectants inside people’s bodies, he was talking about experts somehow testing that idea. He said: “And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So we’ll see.”

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Durbin’s missing context on Trump’s jobs record

Durbin of Illinois, the Senate Majority Whip, claimed of Trump: “He lost millions of jobs in America.” Durbin said shortly after that, “He is one of only two presidents in the history of the United States to leave office with fewer Americans working than when he started.”

Facts First: Durbin’s statistics are correct, but he left out some critical context about them. While there was a net loss of about 2.7 million jobs from the beginning of Trump’s four-year term to the end, there was a net gain of about 6.7 million jobs under Trump until the Covid-19 pandemic hit the country about three years into his term.  

Nearly 22 million jobs were lost under Trump in March 2020 and April 2020 when the global economy cratered on account of the pandemic. The US then started regaining jobs immediately, adding more than 12 million from May 2020 through December 2020, but not enough to make up for the massive early-pandemic losses.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale 

Beatty’s claim about the Biden administration’s expansion of the child tax credit

Ohio Rep. Joyce Beatty praised the Biden administration’s efforts to provide larger tax credits for families and lift more children out of poverty.

“Joe and Kamala have been expanding the child tax credit, and let me just tell you … cutting the poverty rate for our children,” she said.

Facts First: Beatty’s claim needs context. It’s true that the expanded child tax credit passed early in the Biden administration slashed the child poverty rate in 2021, but the benefit only lasted for the one year the temporary enhancement was in effect. Child poverty increased in 2022 to a rate roughly comparable to where it was in 2019.

The American Rescue Plan Act, which Democrats pushed through Congress in March 2021, increased the size of the child tax credit to up to $3,600 – from $2,000 – for eligible families, enabled many more low-income parents to claim it and distributed half of it on a monthly basis.

That helped send child poverty – as measured by the Supplemental Poverty Measure – to a record low 5.2% in 2021, a drop of 46% from 2020, when the rate was 9.7% according to the US Census Bureau. The child tax credit lifted 2.9 million children out of poverty in 2021, with the temporary enhancement accounting for 2.1 million of those kids, according to the Census Bureau.

The Supplemental Poverty Measure, which began in 2009, takes into account certain non-cash government assistance, tax credits and needed expenses.

But in 2022, child poverty soared to 12.4%, roughly comparable to where it was prior to the pandemic in 2019. It was the largest jump in child poverty since the Supplemental Poverty Measure began.

Earlier this year, the House passed a tax bill that would again expand the child tax credit temporarily, though the boost would not be as generous as it was in 2021. Senate Republicans blocked it from advancing in their chamber earlier this month.

From CNN’s Tami Luhby

Harris campaign video showcasing Trump’s ‘lies’ on the economy misses context

In a prerecorded video from Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign team, a staffer shared claims Trump has made about the economy seeking to disprove them.

“Let’s take a look at his track record on jobs before Covid, as compared to the Biden-Harris administration. What do you know? Hardly the most successful ever,” the staffer said as a screen displayed average monthly job gains under Trump from January 2017 to February 2020 compared to average monthly gains during the entire Biden-Harris administration.

“And about his supposed manufacturing miracle, Trump talked a big game, but actually lost 178,000 manufacturing jobs. And just to be clear, it wasn’t just Covid here either. Manufacturing jobs were already on their way down before the pandemic.”

Facts First: The numbers the campaign staffer shared are correct, but they lack crucial context. It’s unfair to compare the average monthly job gains Trump achieved up until March 2020 to that of the Biden-Harris administration. That’s because the average monthly gains achieved under their administration were propped up by some of the gangbuster job reports that came just as the economy was recovering from the pandemic. For instance, in July 2021, 939,000 jobs were added in just one month.

And while it’s true 178,000 manufacturing jobs were lost when Trump was president, Covid-19 did in fact play a big role. In the immediate months before the pandemic, manufacturing jobs were declining very slightly. From November 2019 to February 2020, 36,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. That hardly compares to the roughly 1.4 million manufacturing jobs lost from February 2020 to April 2020. That so many of those job losses were able to be recouped by the time Trump left office is noteworthy.

From CNN’s Elisabeth Buchwald

Rodriguez’s claim on Trump wanting to terminate the Affordable Care Act

Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez on Monday accused Trump of still wanting to kill the Affordable Care Act.

“Now, Trump is promising to terminate the Affordable Care Act,” Rodriguez said at the DNC.

Facts First: Rodriguez’s claim does not reflect Trump’s recent comments on the Affordable Care Act. He did appear to express renewed support for terminating the law in one social media post late last year, but he has since said he wants to improve it, not terminate it.  Most recently, he has said he will keep the law unless he can come up with an unspecified “better” plan.

Repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act was one of Trump’s top priorities in his 2016 presidential campaign and first term. However, even though Republicans controlled Congress and the White House the following year, they failed to unite behind a plan to do so, ending any serious attempts to completely overhaul the landmark health reform law, popularly known as Obamacare.

The former president revived the debate over the law’s fate in November 2023, when he wrote on his Truth Social platform that he’s “seriously looking at alternatives” and that the failure to terminate it “was a low point for the Republican Party, but we should never give up!”

Trump quickly walked back his comments, posting a few days later that he doesn’t “want to terminate Obamacare, I want to REPLACE IT with MUCH BETTER HEALTHCARE. Obamacare Sucks!!!”

In April, Trump said in a video posted to Truth Social: “I’m not running to terminate the ACA as crooked Joe Biden says all over the place. We’re going to make the ACA much better than it is right now and much less expensive for you.”

And at a North Carolina rally last week, he said: “(Vice President Kamala Harris) goes around saying, ‘Oh, he’s going to get rid of the health.’ No, no, I’m going to keep it unless we can come up with something that’s better for you and less expensive for you. Otherwise, we’re not doing it.”

However, Trump has yet to release a proposal on how he would make the Affordable Care Act better and less expensive.

From CNN’s Tami Luhby

Michigan state senator makes false claim about Trump immunity

During a speech at the DNC about Project 2025, McMorrow said that the conservative blueprint for a second Trump term aimed to greatly expand the power of the presidency “like no president has ever had or should ever have.”

The Democratic lawmaker went on to say that if anyone wondered if those potential new powers were legal, “Thanks to Donald Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court, he’s now completely immune from prosecution – even if he breaks the law.”

Facts First: McMorrow’s comment about the case Trump v. US is false. In their decision last month in the historic case, the six conservative justices granted Trump some immunity from prosecution, but not blanket immunity, as the former president had sought. The court said Trump could not be criminally pursued over “official acts,” but that he could face prosecution over alleged criminal actions involving “unofficial acts” taken while in office. 

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the conservative majority.

And while Trump appointed three of the justices who helped make up the six-justice majority, the other three, including Roberts, were appointed by previous Republican presidents.

The federal judge in Washington, DC, overseeing special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case against Trump must now examine the allegations against the former president to determine which ones are covered by the newly granted immunity.

From CNN’s Devan Cole 

DNC video leaves out context about Trump abortion comment from 2016

A video about abortion rights that was played at the DNC on Monday featured a short clip of former Trump agreeing, in a television interview, that women who get abortions should be punished.

Facts First: The video left out some important context: Trump made this comment more than eight years ago and retracted it hours after he made it. In an interview in April 2024, Trump declined to express an opinion on the idea of a state deciding to punish women for getting an abortion after it is banned, returning to his campaign refrain that abortion policy is now a matter for each state to decide.

Trump made the comment featured in the DNC video at an MSNBC town hall during the Republican presidential primary in 2016. Trump said that “there has to be some form of punishment” for abortion. When host Chris Matthews asked, “For the woman?” Trump responded, “Yeah, there has to be some form.” When Matthews pressed further, Trump said he didn’t know what the punishment should be.

Hours later, after facing widespread criticism, Trump issued a statement in which he said women should not be punished for getting abortions.

“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman,” Trump said in the statement. “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed – like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”

The next day on Fox News, Trump said, “It could be that I misspoke” during an abortion discussion he claimed was “convoluted.” He said that “if, in fact, abortion was outlawed, the person performing the abortion, the doctor, or whoever it may be that’s really doing the act is responsible for the act, not the woman, is responsible.”

In an April 2024 interview, Time magazine asked Trump if he is “comfortable if states decide to punish women who access abortions after the procedure is banned,” such as after a 15-week cutoff date. Trump said, “Again, that’s going to be – I don’t have to be comfortable or uncomfortable. The states are going to make that decision. The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.”

From CNN’s Daniel Dale