Here’s a guide for ex-Trump officials for how to tell whether a politician might be telling a deliberate lie or just had a verbal stumble. They were quick to declare Biden was a deliberate “liar” last night on vaccine development. So here we go…1/6
Biden said on CNN: “it’s one thing to have the vaccine, which we didn’t have when we came into office, but a vaccinator — how do you get the vaccine into someone’s arm?” Yep, that’s wrong. Sounds bad. But did he mean it?...
A) Did he say something different elsewhere in the town hall? Yes, just minutes before: “We came into office, there was only 50 million doses that were available.” That’s a clue he knows the vaccine was created when he became president.
B) Is it different than what he said before? Yes, 1/26: “We want to give credit to everyone involved in this vaccine effort and the prior administration and the science community and the medical sphere — for getting the program off the ground. And that credit is absolutely due.”
That’s another clue. So the odds are this is a flub, not a deliberate falsehood. He contradicts what he said just moments earlier and what he has said in the past. As fact checkers, we look for patterns and context ....
I know it’s fun to snip a clip and act outraged on social media. But what’s more telling is if a politician over and over says the same falsehood, day after day, no matter how often he or she has been fact-checked. No going to mention any names, of course.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have to laugh at the folks who think we are no longer fact checking Biden. For the record, in the past week we have awarded 4 Pinocchios to Biden --> washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/…
We welcome all suggestions for fact checks. Some of our fans on the right (we see you @redsteeze@FDRLST) have been urging fact checks of “Biden lies” and so we thought we’d take an opportunity to explains what we think makes for a good fact check….
The best fact checks are pinned on a number, uttered by a politician. We then use that number to dig into policy issues. The last president was rather loquacious, speaking or tweeting without any prior fact checking, and much of it was not worth detailed fact checking….
We rarely fact check statements by PR people like Press Secretaries. We only did that once or twice during Trump and Obama. We have a high bar for such statements because we prefer to pin the Pinocchios on a policy-maker and hold her or her accountable for their words….
In the wake of the Jan. 6 electoral college count in Congress, I read "Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876," by the late chief justice William Rehnquist. A terrific, insightful history. I was curious because ... amazon.com/gp/product/037…
...Ted Cruz offered a 1876 commission as a possible compromise. And he was a Rehnquist clerk. But if you read this book, you see how crazy and cynical this proposal was. Is it possible Cruz never read this book? Or he did and just decided to ignore its lessons? ....
Moreover, Rehnquist makes clear that the vice president has literally no role but to announce the results for the individual states. So, again, the lie that Pence could have in some way blocked Biden's election is again exposed, in a well-explained history....
In the light the debacle concerning the distribution of the vaccine, worth recalling that for months Trump falsely said the military was going to distribute it. Here's an example from an Oct. 18 campaign rally: "Under my leadership, we are delivering a safe vaccine..." 1/2
"...we're all set to deliver it. We have the military ready to deliver it. It's going to be incredible. We have a General, that's what he does. He delivers soldiers and delivers everything. This is easy for them. It'll be delivered very, very rapidly." 2/2
and this during the 2nd debate with Biden: "We have our generals lined up. One in particular that's the head of logistics and this is a very easy distribution for him. He's ready to go as soon as we have the vaccine and we expect to have 100 million vials."
Is the Electoral College sustainable when Trump fights to overturn the results in a handful of states, in a vain hope to win, even though he lost the popular vote by more than 5 million votes? Bush in 2000, by contrast, only barely lost the popular vote. Moreover....
What if John Kerry challenged Bush in handful of states? Ford narrowly lost NY and would have beaten Carter if he had won. Nixon v. Kennedy was also close. But in each case, the loser accepted the result, quickly, and the country moved on.....
The system only works when all sides accept the result under the rules previously agreed to. Trump's refusal to accept the reality of his loss, despite losing by substantial margins in key states, underscores how undemocratic the Electoral College can be.