David Rothkopf Profile picture
Sep 17, 2020 23 tweets 4 min read Read on X
I've been doing a little thinking about the kind of questions that need to be asked at the upcoming debates. If you happen to be moderating one of them, you should really ask these:
--Mr. President, you've been accused of rape and sexual abuse dozens of times. @ejeancarroll has asked for your DNA. If you too the 30 seconds necessary to provide it, it could exonerate you. Why don't you take the test?
--The NY Times and others have made a compelling case that you have been lying about your wealth and guilty of tax fraud. Releasing your tax returns would immediately prove you were not. Why don't you release your tax returns?
--The Washington Post has reported that you have lied over 20,000 times since taking office. Why do you lie so often? Since each of these lies has been carefully documented, why should people trust anything you say?
--Bob Woodward reports that you knew how dangerous COVID was as early as January & yet you repeatedly & publicly dismissed the threat, resisted testing, suppressed data, promoted quack cures & undermined scientists. 200,000 are dead. Isn't your willful negligence a crime?
--You repeatedly say voting by mail leads to voter fraud. Yet there is not one single piece of evidence that supports that assertion. Can you give us any evidence to support your claim?
--For three years you have said you were about to reveal your health care plan. Yet you never offer any details. Your opponent has been clear about his plan. What's yours? Go on--name one detail from it.
--You have been reported by multiple sources as having repeatedly denigrated our troops. How can you credibly expect voters to believe you are an appropriate choice to be commander in chief when that is the case? How can they believe your denials when you're a proven liar?
--You said in Helsinki that you believed Russian intelligence sources rather than the unanimous conclusions of the FBI or the US intelligence community. Why? Why do you regularly take Russia's side, going as far as not punishing them for a putting a bounty on US soldiers?
--Have you or your organization ever received any funding from a Russian organization? From the Saudis? Be specific. Do you believe voters should support you if you did and then lied about it?
--You repeatedly say Mueller exonerated you. He did nothing of the sort. It indicated multiple instances of obstruction of justice by you and that it could not proceed with the conspiracy case because your administration refused to cooperate with it. Why do you lie about this?
--You have said you don't believe science knows the truth about climate change. You have said similar things about COVID. Why should voters believe you know better than scientists who devote their lives to the objective study of these issues?
--Will you release your academic grades? Did you get someone to take your SAT tests for you?
--Why won't you release records related to your health?
--Do you know what the emoluments clause to the Constitution is? You have repeatedly violated it. Isn't that corrupt?
--What do you mean Democrats will destroy the suburbs? Isn't this part of a long pattern of racism that has included your support for white supremacists? There are multiple reported instances of you using racist slurs. Do you believe a proven racist like you should be president?
--What did you mean when you said that if you didn't count deaths in blue states, the COVID death toll would be acceptable? Why wouldn't you count deaths in blue states? Are the deaths of those who oppose you politically somehow more acceptable?
--Do you know what the 22d amendment to the Constitution says? Do you know it limits you to two terms? Do you know you can't negotiate a third term? Why do you repeatedly say you will?
--If you serially violate the law, how can you be trusted to be the chief magistrate of the nation?
--Do you believe members of your administration owe their first loyalty to you or to the Constitution?
--Do you believe in the First Amendment? Why then is it ok to turn federal forces against peaceful protestors?
--Your administration has produced more indictments against its members and those associated with it than any other. Shouldn't this disqualify you from another term?
--Your family has profited from its high offices--including those gained inappropriately via nepotism. Isn't that corrupt?
--You said you wouldn't play golf. You have spent a third of your presidency at Trump properties & played more golf than any POTUS ever. How's that ok?
--Polls show America's standing in the world has plummeted to its lowest levels ever. You are ranked around the world as the worst leader of a major country. Historians regularly rank you as the worst president in our history. Isn't it about time to pack it in?
These may seem over-the-top, contentious. But not asking them, not confronting him about these egregious problems with his presidency gives him a pass, normalizes him by implicitly saying we're over them, they don't matter any more. It is not a journalist's place to do that.
Journalists must raise these questions because they are about the defining issues of this presidency. Anything less than that is malpractice.

And should they ask the toughest questions they can think to @JoeBiden? Of course.
But you see Biden isn't a corrupt, traitor, serial sex abuser, racist, unfit, incompetent, science-denying, pathological liar, narcissist, threat to our democracy.

And it is the role of these debates to make that distinction as clear as possible.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David Rothkopf

David Rothkopf Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @djrothkopf

Jun 13, 2023
I, for one, am a bit surprised at the general acceptance of the degree of deference that has been shown to Trump in this case. He was given far too much time and too many chances to return the documents he stole from the government.
As the subsequent seizure of the documents revealed, they were extremely sensitive in nature and put our national security at risk every moment they were held by Trump in the insecure locations he kept them or were referred to by him in meetings with visitors and associates.
Consequently, the deference could well have been deeply damaging. Similarly, if he was hiding documents at Mar-a-Lago it stands to reason some might have been at his many other residences. Why were they not searched? A normal person would not have received such a courtesy.
Read 11 tweets
Jun 11, 2023
The book on how to indict an ex-president has not been written--until now. Chapter One was by Alvin Bragg. Ch. Two was by Jack Smith, informed by Chapter One. Ch. Three, likely by Fani Willis, will be informed by the other two experiences. So by the time we get to Ch. Four...
which is probably the most consequential of the cases, about how Trump led an insurrection against the US government and a systematic effort to defraud American voters, there will be quite a lot to draw on, to help get each element right.
What is more, the shock factor will have been degraded quite a bit. The pearl clutching of Trump's supporters will be even less credible. There arguments that somehow Trump is being wronged will appear dramatically weaker (and they appear pretty darn weak now.)
Read 6 tweets
Jun 6, 2023
I regularly go through a debate in my mind about who is worse at their jobs, sports show analysts or political pundits. (You would think weather forecasters might be included in the mix, but the reality is that their predictions are vastly better than the other two groups.)
With the sports analysts, the level of BS is just shameless. Day-in and day-out they speak with great conviction, some of them banging the table or shouting at their guests or audiences, asserting they know what's going to happen next in one sports event or another.
And then when they're wrong they just move right on to a new equally certain prediction. And they do this week in and week out and they are wrong a lot. "I guarantee you Team X will sweep the series." "Of course, Team X lost game 1. The coach blew it...
Read 13 tweets
Jun 2, 2023
This debt deal will rank with the most significant legislative accomplishments of Biden's first term. In a situation that should not have happened, created by his opponents, with immense stakes, he and his team produced the best possible outcome for the country.
Like so many other Biden accomplishments-from the rescue package to the infra bill, from the inflation reduction act to the CHIPs act-Biden was underestimated, he achieved progress despite his opponents' obstructionism, he didn't play media games & let the work speak for itself.
Many scoffed and said he was out of touch when he spoke during the campaign of seeking bipartisanship and compromise wherever it was possible and consistent with his core principles and objectives. And again and again and again he has achieved it.
Read 9 tweets
May 31, 2023
I’m one of those crazy progressives who think supporting the most progressive president in roughly six decades is progressive, who thinks avoiding an economic disaster that would leave millions of the most vulnerable among us suffering.
I’m one of the woke mind virus sufferers who thinks progressive doesn’t mean letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, who thinks maintaining power is the key to advancing progressive goals.
I think protecting the progressive Biden agenda and initiatives of the past couple years from draconian cuts is progressive, that backing the one political leader who can defeat the enemies of democracy is progressive.
Read 5 tweets
May 30, 2023
Stealthily, without proportionate recognition, Joe Biden is not just having a good presidency, he's having one that is historic in its concrete achievements and successes. The fair & balanced types in the media won't characterize it fairly because to do so, would "feel" biased.
The opposition won't cover it because it is not in their interests to tell the truth. (It's why they never do.) Editors and producers will shy away from it because positive stories don't sell like conflict does. Consequently most of the media won't present the simple facts.
It should be said, Biden uses the lack coverage to his advantage. He let's the crazies & the partisans and the weathervane pundits and the people who have forgotten that the first job of journalists is to report the truth as it is, as a kind of shield while he just does his job.
Read 26 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(