Trump's Lies


The New York Times is one of several news sources that have been almost entirely negative when it comes to President Donald Trump. Like many liberal leaning media outlets, during the campaign, they spent the better part of a year in a desperate attempt to convince the American public that Trump was not qualified to be President for any one of number of reasons.

In the end, they were overruled by the Electoral College and the American Republic told the Obama administration to clear out its desk. Since then, the media, now painfully aware that its hold on popular opinion is nowhere near
Some of the items below are color coded to indicate a scenario where the NYT is stating that Trump's comment, despite the fact that it pertains to the same issue, is, in fact, a different "lie." Depending on how you want to interpret that, it looks as though the NYT is merely "padding" their accusations.
what they thought it was, is determined to undermine the Trump administration.

It's difficult not to sense that there's a dispostion championed by the Left that says if you can't win an election, then you steal it. And if you can't steal it, then do your best to ruin the outcome.

I'm confident that this article is a part of that campaign.

The fact of the matter is, you can be wrong and not be guilty of lying. It's only when you're aware of the truth and you're intentionally saying something to the contrary that you can be rightfully accused of being a liar. With President Trump, he exaggerates in some instances but to accuse him of lying is inappropriate, especially when you look at some of these indictments and realize that it's the NYT who's lying and not Trump.

In the end, at the bare minimum, what I'm trying to demonstrate here is that there's a more comprehensive perspective to consider with each supposed indictment. With minimal "digging" you can uncover facts and truths that the NYT seems determined to either overlook or dismiss as irrelevant.

If you're going to accuse someone of lying, your justification better be more than just an intentionally casual analysis of the situation. Then again, if you don't expect anyone to pick up where you made a point of leaving off, perhaps your approach is purposeful which thus qualifies you as truly sinister and not merely irresponsible.

I hope that's not the case...


# date quote contradiction (according to NYT) rebuttal
1 1/21/17 I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq. He was for an invasion before he was against it. Rush Limbaugh had this to say about Trump's perspective on the Iraq War back in Feburary 15, 2016:

He jumped all over the Bush family and the Iraq war and claimed that he was on record way, way back as always being opposed to the Iraq war, that it was going to muddy up the Middle East and cause a quagmire. Nobody can find any record of Trump having opposed the Iraq war in 2001, 2002. They asked him about that, and he said (paraphrasing), "I wasn't a politician back then, so the things I was saying weren't getting noted like they would be had I been a politician, but I said it."

(Rush Limbaugh , Feb 15, 2016, commentary on GOP debate)
2 1/21/17 A reporter for Time magazine - and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine. Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times. Trump has been on the cover 11 times, but to try and twist what he said to a lie is to overlook the fact that he's obviously speculating and not attempting to establish a fact. As a side note, the cover that Time featured of Trump was a backhanded compliment at best. They referred to him as the "President of the Divided States of America" and they mentioned how in the past, different "Men of the Year" included Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and the Ayatollah Khomeini. (click here for more info)
3 1/23/17 Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote. There's no evidence of illegal voting. First of all, while progressives want to minimize the reality of voter fraud, it is very real. As far as how voter fraud figured into this past election, Progressives are very quick to say that there's no evidence, but that doesn't nullify the fact that some have come forward to say that there is fraud. In other words, it's not just the POTUS claiming that there's a propblem and with the recent nomination of Chris Kobach to head up the commision on voter fraud, the Progressives may find themselves in a very awkward position of having to concede that where there's smoke, there's fire.
4 1/25/17 Now, the audience was the biggest ever. But this crowd was massive. Look how far back it goes. This crowd was massive. Official aerial photos show Obama's 2009 inauguration was much more heavily attended. If you factor in online viewership, Trump's claim may be accurate. Aerial photos, however, make it evident that Obama's inauguration in 2009 was bigger. Still, from Trump's perspective on the platform, it may very well have looked larger than Obama's. Is Trump lying? Only if he knows that Obama's crowd was bigger and he's intentionally stating something to the contrary. Otherwise, he's exaggerating and while that may not be wise, it's not necessarily a lie.
5 1/25/17 Take a look at the Pew reports (which show voter fraud. The report never mentioned voter fraud. For the full transcript of the interview where President Trump referenced the Pew Report having documented evidence of voter fraud, click here. He didn't specify which report, he simply said that the Pew Report has documented evidence of fraud, which implies that, unless the problem has been solved, such fraud still exists. According to townhall.com, Indeed, registration irregularities are disturbingly routine. According to a 2012 Pew Center for the States report, 1.8 million dead Americans were registered to vote. Also, 2.75 million Americans were enrolled in two states each, while 68,725 were enrolled in three. Indeed, Pew found, "24 million - one of every eight - active voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate." For more info, click here
7 1/25/17 You had millions of people that now aren't insured anymore. The real number is less than 1 million, according to the Urban Institute. The topic here is the number of people who stand to be affected by Trump's new Affordable Health Care Act (ACA). Progressives are insistent that any change will result in over 20 million newly insured Amercians will lose their coverage. Trump responded by saying that number is an exaggerated figure - that it doesn't take into consideration the millions of people that aren't insured any more as a result of Obamacare due to their previous policy not living up to the new standards established by the Obama's ACA. In other words, there's room for interpretation, as far as the number of people that were positively affected by Obamacare and the new legislation - while it will undoubtedly make coverage unavailable for some who had it previously - will not have the monumental impact that Progessives are insisting will occur.

Where this will land has yet to be determined, the number the NYT quotes as a figure that contradicts Trump's statistic supposedly comes from the Urban Institute. Yet, if you look at that study on factcheck.org, the number is 2.6 million - a figure that proves Trump's comment to be accurate.
8 1/25/17 So, look, when President Obama was there two weeks ago making a speech, very nice speech. Two people were shot and killed during his speech. You can't have that. There were no gun homicide victims in Chicago that day. The date of Obama's farewell speech was January 10, 2017. There were two people killed the day before. The overall violent dynamic of Chicago is highlighted in an ABC article that references how 28 where killed on New Year's Day alone in 2017. On January 10th, 2017, the day of Obama's speech, the Chicago Tribune reported that 5 people were shot, though none died as a result of their wounds.

President Trump was wrong in his figures, at least as far as the data can be mined up to this point. The point that Chicago is an exceptionally violent city, however, is still valid and may prompt Trump to deploy Federal troops if the violence can't be reigned in. This is what he tweeted on January 27, 2017: "If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!" No one questions those stats which would imply that the problem in the Windy City is significant. But it would appear that the press would rather cite Trump's citing the wrong date as being more newsworthy than the fact that Chicago is a serious problem from the standpoint of violent crime.
9 1/26/17 We've taken in tens of thousands of people. We know nothing about them. They can say they vet them. They didn't vet them. They have no papers. How can you vet somebody when you don't know anything about them and you have no papers? How do you vet them? You can't. Vetting lasts up to two years. The Obama Administration has been guilty of a very casual approach to vetting in the past. Click here to read the article entitled, "UPDATE: Fearing 'Bad Public Relations,' Obama Administration Barred Officials From Screening Foreign Visa Applicants' Social Media."

In addition, on January 25, 2016 it was reported that the Obama Administration had lost track of thousands of individuals whose visas had been pulled due to links with international terrorism. Today, 1 in 4 US Immigrants are unauthorized. The vetting process may be two years, but that assumes that you're aware of their presence enough to vet them...

Trump is not wrong in what he's saying in that he's not addressing the vetting process exclusively as much as he's underscoring the fact that in 2014, you had over 11,000,000 illegal immigrants. That's a problem and, no, they're not being vetted.
10 1/26/17 I cut off hundreds of millions of dollars off one particular plane, hundreds of millions of dollars in a short period of time. It wasn't like I spent, like, weeks, hours, less than hours, and many, many hundreds of millions of dollars. And the plane's going to be better. Most of the cuts were already planned. The comment that President Trump made was in a Sean Hannity interview where he was referring to how our military is depleted and he wants to remedy that situation in a way that includes improving the way in which money is being spent. The example he cited dealt with the Lockeed F-35. He said, "I cut off hundreds of millions of dollars off one particular plane, hundreds of millions of dollars in a short period of time. It wasn't like I spent, like, weeks, hours, less than hours, and many, many hundreds of millions of dollars. And the plane's going to be better."

The NYT would have their readers believe that Trump is lying in an effort to make himself look better given the fact that these cuts were already in place, but the NYT is not telling the whole story which is evident based on the comment that came from Lockheed as quoted in an article by the Washington Examiner: "President Trump's personal involvement in the F-35 program accelerated the negotaionas and shaprened our focus on drivine down the price. The agreement was reached in a couple of weeks and represents savings over previous contracts."

Labeling Trump a liar in this instance is hardly justified. He had a hand in it. Period. He didn't say that he was flying solo in the process, but he's entitled to taking some credit.
11 1/28/17 The coverage about me in the @nytimes and the @washingtonpost has been so false and angry that the Times actually apologized to its dwindling subscribers and readers. It never apologized. Depending on your perspective on the NYT's letter to its subscribers, I would tend to side with Trump. Foxnews did an article on it. Here's a portion of that article:

The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising that the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year's election while rededicating itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly.

Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper's embattled publisher, appealed to Times readers for their continued support.

“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,” the letter states.


While the words, "I'm sorry" never occur in the letter, there is a very obvious repentant tone to the letter as it admits having "underestimated" Trump's support and goes on to "rededicate" itself to the "fundamental mission of Times journalism." They're certainly not patting themselves on the back...
12 1/29/17 The Cuban-Americans, I got 84 percent of that vote. There is no support for this. Different news outlets say different things depending on the poll and the organization conducting the survey. For NYT to state that there "is no support" for Trump's claim that he got 84% of the vote, they're overlooking some pretty significant dynamics in that Trump's margin "'...increased significantly after Obama's Oct. 14 announcement that the U.S. would not pursue regime change in Cuba and Trump's announcement that he would rescind Obama's Cuba policy,'" according to a release from Inspire America Foundation and America Teve." So, whether or not it was 84% or not, there was a paradigm shift and Cuban - Americans preferred Trump by a margin of 2-1.

I would say the NYT is intentionally glossing over that...
13 11/30/17 1Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage. 1At least 746 people were detained and processed, and the Delta outage happened two days later. The Delta computer outage happened on Sunday, January 29, 2017. The glitch resulted in hundreds of flights being cancelled and a new apprecation for the precarious nature of the IT component within the airline industry.

The issue here is how the media blamed Trump's executive order to limit those Muslims coming from areas that sponsored terrorism as the cause for the computer glitch. (CNN Money). Trump responded that only 109 people were detained of the 325,000 that sought entry into the US. His statement was a repeat of what the Department of Homeland Security had said previously, so he wasn't making those figures up.

Attempting to link Delta's technology problems with Trump's Executive Order necessitates a dynamic that applies, not only to Delta, but to all carriers since Trump's actions, by default, would impact every airline if that was indeed the problem. But that wasn't the case. What's more, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. In a Los Angeles Times article dated August 8, 2016, Delta is reported as having computer problems. The article begins by stating "Thousands of Delta Air Lines customers, stranded for hours Monday, can blame larger and more sophisticated airline computer systems, along with increased consolidation of air carriers." Obviously, Delta has yet to completely remedy their problem but the press isn't interested in referencing it now as a mere systemic flaw like it did during the latter part of 2016 - not when it can use it as additional fuel for their attack on Trump which seems to be the case here.

One thing is for certain: Trump wasn't lying. His numbers are accurate. The only way in which the NYT can say that he's lying is by insisting software problems had not affect on Delta travelers like they reported back in August of 2016. This time, software gliches had no impact. It was because of Trump's travel ban. It's not Trump who's pushing the boundaries of accuracy as much as it's the NYT.
14 2/3/17 Professional anarchists, thugs and paid protesters are proving the point of the millions of people who voted to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! (There is no evidence of paid protesters. "MoveOn.org confirmed that it helped promote the protest and paid for printing protest signs and a banner." (Wikipedia article on the Trump Rally held in Chicago in August of 2016). In addition, you've got an article on freebeacon.com that documents a leaked audio recording that proves a well organized anti-Trump movement designed to undermine and disrupt any display of support for President Trump.
15 2/4/17 After being forced to apologize for its bad and inaccurate coverage of me after winning the election, the FAKE NEWS @nytimes is still lost! It never apologized. Even with the words, "We're sorry" never came from the NYT, the letter written by publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. carries a very apologetic tone, so Trump isn't wrong. The NYT is doing their best to apologize without apologizing and anyone who cares enough to read the letter objectively can hear an undertone that says "We got it wrong and we're going to do better in the future."
16 2/5/17 quot;We had 109 people out of hundreds of thousands of travelers and all we did was vet those people very, very carefully. (About 60,000 people were affected. The only way in which the NYT can assert it's 60K figure is if they maintain that it was Trump's Executive Order that precipitated the problems in the travel industry and not the documented software problems that happened that day. This has already been discussed. Click here to see that issue.
17 2/6/17 I have already saved more than $700 million when I got involved in the negotiation on the F-35. quot; (Much of the price drop was projected before Trump took office. Again, this has already been discussed. Click here to view that subject again.
18 2/6/17 It's gotten to a point where it is not even being reported. And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. Terrorism has been reported on, often in detail. The White House published a list of 78 Terrorist attacks that it claimed the media ignored in February of 2017. On that list were some things that did get some coverage, but there were several that received little to no attention.
19 2/6/17 The failing @nytimes was forced to apologize to its subscribers for the poor reporting it did on my election win. Now they are worse! It didn't apologize. This has already been discussed. It's odd that the NYT keeps citing the same issue on multiple ocassion and claims each instance represents a separate falsehood. Click here to see this issue addressed in previous rebuttals.
20 2/6/17 And the previous administration allowed it to happen because we shouldn't have been in Iraq, but we shouldn't have gotten out the way we got out. It created a vacuum, ISIS was formed. The group's origins date to 2004. If you listen to the interview that Sean Hannity had with Rudy Gilliani, you'll hear him state how had President Obama listened to the counsel he had been given as far as establishing no fly zones over Syria and not taken our troops out of Aphganistan and Iraq, ISIS never would've emerged. You may want to disagree with President Trump, but referring to him as a liar when there are other parties who say the same thing is not a logical nor is it an ethical assessment.
21 2/7/17 And yet the murder rate in our country is the highest it's been in 47 years, right? Did you know that? Forty-seven years. It was higher in the 1980s and '90s. "The increase in the number of murders in the US from 2014 to 2015 was indeed the biggest since 1971, but the murder rate went up by more in 1979, 1986 and 1990." (BBC). It would look as though President Trump may have used the wrong terminology. The number of murders did go up, but in proportion to the overall population, the number wasn't as high as its been in the past. Trump may have been mistaken as far as his terminology, but he wasn't wrong in saying that there's a higher number of murders in our nation than what's been the case in a long time.
22 2/7/17 I saved more than $600 million. I got involved in negotiation on a fighter jet, the F-35. The Defense Department projected this price drop before Trump took office. Again, this has already been discussed. Click here to view that subject again.
23 2/9/17 Chris Cuomo, in his interview with Sen. Blumenthal, never asked him about his long-term lie about his brave'service' in Vietnam. FAKE NEWS! It was part of Cuomo's first question. Senator Blumenthal is a Connecticut Democrat who leaked comments supposedly made by Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch who had said comments made by Trump about a federal judge were "demoralizing" and “disheartening." Trump responded by pointing out how Blumenthal should not be considered a credible source in light of his having misrepresented his military service during the Vietnam war.

Back in 2008, Blumenthal was speaking to a group of veterans and made mention of his service in Vietnam when, in fact, he was stationed stateside and never went overseas let alone served in any kind of combat situation.

The first question Chris Como asked Blumental was, "What is your response to the President of the United States who says you should not be believed because you misrepresented your military record in the past?" Blumenthal never responded to that question. Rather, he simply said that there's no question as to what Judge Gorsuch had said to him.

Como never pressed the matter so, while he did bring it up, he didn't obligate Blumenthal to defend his credibility based on his having lied so shamelessly in the past. Trump is wrong in saying he never brought it up, but he's not wrong in that Como may have just as well never have asked the question in light of his allowing Blumenthal to duck the accusation.
24 2/9/17 Sen. Richard Blumenthal now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him? The Gorsuch comments were later corroborated. That depends on how you define "corroborated."According to Fox News: "But White House sources told Fox News that, while Gorsuch had indeed used the words "disheartening" and "demoralizing" during his meeting with Blumenthal, he was not specifically talking about Trump's public spat with the federal judge, and was instead speaking in generalities about attacks on the judiciary."
25 2/10/17 I don't know about it. I haven't seen it. What report is that? Trump knew about Flynn's actions for weeks. Assuming the NYT is talking about whether or not President Trump knew that Flynn had worked as a contractor for the Turkish government prior to being installed as National Security Adviser, it really depends on what sources you want to identify as credible and what you want to dismiss. In other words, the verdict on what Trump knew and when is not a open and shut case and there's good reason to believe that he didn't know based on other news sources.
26 2/12/17 Just leaving Florida. Big crowds of enthusiastic supporters lining the road that the FAKE NEWS media refuses to mention. Very dishonest! The media did cover it. If by saying the "media did cover it," the NYT is talking about articles such as the one featured on The Hill dated 2/12/207, you can see why Trump would've been somewhat exasperated. The Hill says this: "Trump didn't offer evidence of crowds "lining the roads." "A couple dozen" protesters did take to the streets around Mar-a-Lago over the weekend to protest the president, according to a pool report." Compare that to another article featured on CNN that talks about how Trump was getting "campaign rally" level adulation that same week.

What the media would have the public believe is that Trump has an incremental amount of supporters compared to a monumental number of protesters. Perhaps it depends on what event you want to attend and which direction you want to point your camera. One thing is for certain, however, Trump is not lacking for support. While you may not get that impression by looking at the polling that is emphasized by the media, the polls didn't accurately portray the election either.
27 2/16/17 We got 306 because people came out and voted like they've never seen before so that's the way it goes. I guess it was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan. George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all won bigger margins in the Electoral College. President Trump was mistaken, here, but to say he "lied" means that he knew what he was saying was a falsehood. There's an excellent chance he didn't know. Fact is, he won deciseively in the context of an aggressive media campaign that sought to demonize and mock him every step of the way. Given that kind of opposition, the fact that he won the Electoral College at all distinguishes him from Bush, Clinton and Obama given the way in which the media was far more friendly.
28 2/16/17 That's the other thing that was wrong with the travel ban. You had Delta with a massive problem with their computer system at the airports. Delta's problems happened two days later. Already discussed. Click here to read it.
29 2/16/17 Walmart announced it will create 10,000 jobs in the United States just this year because of our various plans and initiatives. The jobs are a result of its investment plans announced in October 2016. Not according to a townhall.com article: "Walmart has announced that it will invest $6.8 billion in the United States and create 10,000 more jobs for Americans in stores and e-commerce, a strong response to the victory of President-elect Donald Trump.
30 2/16/17 When WikiLeaks, which I had nothing to do with, comes out and happens to give, they're not giving classified information. Not always. They have released classified information in the past. The NYT isn't quoting Trump's comments in their entirety. He was referring to a specific volume of info that came from WikiLeaks, not WikiLeaks as a whole. Click here to read his statement in context.
31 2/16/17 We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban. But we had a bad court. Got a bad decision. The rollout was chaotic. The rollout was chaotic because of a corrupt court system. From the standpoint of how things were administered at the Oval Office, it was just fine. The "chaos" came from courts that refused to support the President.
32 2/16/17 They're giving stuff - what was said at an office about Hillary cheating on the debates. Which, by the way, nobody mentions. Nobody mentions that Hillary received the questions to the debates. It was widely covered. Depends on how you want to define the term "widely covered." Donna Brazile is an American author and political analyst. She is a member of the Democratic Party, briefly serving as the interim chairperson for the Democratic National Committee in spring 2011, and assumed that role again in July 2016, until February 2017. She was also a political analyst for CNN, but was fired when it became known that she had reached out to the Hillary Clinton campaign and alerted her to some questions that she would be having to field as part of the Presidential debates. Veteran Democratic operative Donna Brazile finally admitted that she used her former position as a CNN commentator to relay questions ahead of debates to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary. For months, Brazile has avoided confirming that hacked emails from the campaign showed her forwarding the questions, which were asked at separate debates. But in a new essay for Time magazine looking back on the hackings, she said it was true (see article in the Washington Examiner dated 3/17/2-17).

Ms Brazile's story was covered, but not as part of the way the debates were reported in terms of who won. On October 20, CNN reported ran an article with a headline that read, "Hillary Clinton wins third presidential debate, according to CNN / ORC poll." No mention of Brazile is mentioned despite the fact that she had resigned her position with CNN on October 14th, three days after Wikileaks had published her emails to the Clinton campaign.

CNN knew that Brazile had greased the wheels of the debate, yet made no mention of that in the way they reported the results. The did cover it, but not in a way that mattered in terms of how the public viewed the debate as a whole.
33 2/18/17 And there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. Refugees receive multiple background checks, taking up to two years. Here the the first three paragraphs from an article coming from Fox News dated October 12, 2016:

A recent report from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) found that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) erroneously naturalized almost 900 ineligible illegal aliens due to database errors. All of these individuals were ordered deported but subsequently applied for citizenship using a fake identity. Nearly all are from countries associated with terrorism and high levels of immigration fraud. Several of these fraudulent citizens have already obtained aviation or transportation credentials.

This information is disturbing but it simply confirms what those in immigration enforcement have known for years - our immigration vetting system is badly broken. But the availability and reliability of vetting information is only one of many systemic problems that plague USCIS: an assembly line mentality, over-politicization and ineptitude.

Attempting to vet individuals from the most dangerous regions of the world in less than three months is criminally irresponsible.


It can take up to two years - when it's done right. But it's not always done right and that's President Trump's point. He's not lying.
34 2/18/17 You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Trump implied there was a terror attack in Sweden, but there was no such attack. According to the BBC, Trump was referring to clip that had run on Fox News detailing violence happening in Sweden being conducted by refugees. He went on to say that their immigration program was a huge problem, which the liberal media dismissed as an irresponsible exaggeration as well.

This past April, Sweden experienced a terrorist attack that has its leadership vowing to retool the current immigration process. So, Trump wasn't lying in that he was referring to a report from Fox and given recent events, it looks like Trump was right to be concerned after all...
35 2/24/17 By the way, you folks are in here - this place is packed, there are lines that go back six blocks. There was no evidence of long lines. The event President Trump was referring to was the Conservative Political Action Conference that happened in Maryland from February 24th through the 27th. According to NPR, "...it is the largest annual gathering of conservative activists from across the United States. It's an event that keeps growing, with attendance topping the 10,000 mark in recent years." Unless this year's attendance was dramatically less then what's been the case previously, there's no reason to believe that there weren't lines of people waiting to get into the venue.
36 2/24/17 ICE came and endorsed me. Only its union did. The fact that the NYT would say, "Only its union did" is truly incredible. The fact that the union representing the nation's Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers endorsed a presidential candidate at all is genuinely historical in that it's not been done before. This comes from ICE's website:

The union representing the nation's Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and staff is throwing its support behind GOP nominee Donald Trump.

It's the first time ever that the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council has endorsed a candidate for president, according to a statement posted on Trump's campaign web site Monday.

"Donald Trump reached out to us for a meeting, sat down with me to discuss his goals for enforcement, and pledged to support ICE officers, our nation's laws and our members. In his immigration policy, he has outlined core policies needed to restore immigration security -- including support for increased interior enforcement and border security, an end to Sanctuary Cities, an end to catch-and-release, mandatory detainers, and the canceling of executive amnesty and non-enforcement directives," its statement says.


It makes sense given the way the Obama administration and the Hillary campaign has and / or would force agents to compromise their oath to protect our nation's borders. NYT's claim that Trump is lying or the fact that the ICE union is somehow distinct from ICE in general is nonsensical. His being endorsed by them is an indictment against Obama and Hillary and a huge vote of confidence in Trump's approach to national security. How the NYT could twist this into something unethical is a desparate attempt to mislead the American public andnothing else.
37 2/24/17 Obamacare covers very few people - and remember, deduct from the number all of the people that had great health care that they loved that was taken away from them - it was taken away from them. Obamacare increased coverage by a net of about 20 million. Obamacare was initially challenged in that the government cannot mandate a specific form of coverage when you have a free market dynamic in place. The Constitution does not include a clause that grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate -not when it's ultimately a matter of choice in terms of whether or not you want coverage and / or what kind of coverage you desire. Moreover, Obamacare includes the funding of abortion and contraceptive devices which flies in the face of Catholics who don't agree with the practice of contraception or anyone who sees abortion as an act of murder one in the name of convenience and a desire to absolve one's self of their duty to take responsibility for their actions.

To get around that hurdle, Obamacare was positioned as a form of tax legislation. You can't help but admire Obama in the way he was able to successfully pass his Affordable Health Care Act by exploiting the kind of loopholes he was able to uncover and veil the true essence of his agenda with noble sounding terminology and rhetoric that resonated as legally plausible. In the end, however, you still have an unconstitutional mandate and an invoice amounting to over 1 trillion dollars if not more, depending on which report you access. The bottom line is that Obamacare precipitates a level of debt that is as irresponsible as it is unsustainable.

Beyond the unconsitutionality of it and the heinous level of debt it incurs, however, you have some other dynamics in play that are just as disconcerting. The Daily Wire has a great article that outlines several falsehoods articulated by Obama pertaining to Obamacare that proved to be as financially lethal as they did morally reprehensible. Everything from being able to keep your current policy to keeping your current doctor to not adding any additional tax burden all turned out to be false and the fact that it could've been logically deduced at the beginning begs the question, "Did Obama know he was lying when he stated these terms, or was he that ignorant of the financial and practical realities that characterized his plan?"

Regardless, what President Trump is saying here is not wrong. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is what is often deferred to for stats pertaining to who is presently being insured under Obamacare and how overal coverage was increased by Obama's plan. The numbers are compelling on the surface, but pop the hood on what's really there and you have a different scenario entirely.

First off, in order to be covered, you have to have, not only opted to be insured, you also have to pay your first month's premium. From the very beginning, that has proven to be no slam dunk. So, just because a person has elected to be covered under the new Obamacare dynamic, doesn't mean they're actually insured.

In addition, a study done last year showed how many are better off with no insurance at all because of the crippling cost of premiums and out of pocket expenses: "Earlier this year, a report from the University of Pennsylvania found all but the most heavily subsidized Obamacare enrollees would be better off financially if they skipped coverage and pay for their own medical care out of pocket. The people whose incomes fall between 1.38 and 1.75 times the poverty level will spend about three times the amount on premiums for a Silver plan as they would have out of pocket had they remained uninsured. For those earning more than 250 percent of poverty, most will be worse off financially compared to having remained uninsured. By design, Obamacare is a bad deal for most people! Except for the unlucky few who experience catastrophic health complaints, the vast majority of Obamacare enrollees would be better off uninsured."

To read more about this, click here.
38 2/27/17 Since Obamacare went into effect, nearly half of the insurers are stopped and have stopped from participating in the Obamacare exchanges. Many fewer pulled out. First off, understand that "Obamacare Exchange" is a health insurance policy that meets the minimium requirements of an Obamacare plan, but without it being Obamacare. Another way to view it is to recognize that you have two players within the Affordable Health Care Act in terms of carriers: You have Medicaid, which is a government run insurance program, and you have private insurers such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, who provide insurance in a manner that is consistent with the terms articulated by the AHA legislation.

The next thing you want to understand is that Obamacare represents a huge drain on needed revenue because when you're told to insure those who either can't afford insurance or are bringing into the mix a collection of pre-existing conditions that weigh a particular demographic down with high risk conditions that typically cost a lot of money to treat, you're now having to cover those costs by either raising individual premiums or, you simply cease to provide insurance according to, what amounts to, unsustainable terms.

As of April, 2016, the number of insurers participating as Obama Exchange providers was 287 which was down from 307 in 2015 and represents even a bigger problem when you consider that, prior to Obamacare, you had 395 insurers in the market prior to Obamacare going into affect.

But here's the thing, while the above figures represent a 30% reduction in participation, it really depends on the metrics you want to use. If you wanted to limit your participating insurers to your biggest carriers, then Trump is not wrong. In many states, you've got some major carriers such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Assurant - have all either exited Obamacare entirely or have scaled back their participationg considerably.

You can click on this chart to see who all has left, but the bottom line is that Obamacare represents an unsustainable finanical model on several levels. Even if Trump is exaggerating, which isn't likely, he's not wrong.
39 2/27/17 On one plane, on a small order of one plane, I saved $725 million. And I would say I devoted about, if I added it up, all those calls, probably about an hour. So I think that might be my highest and best use. Much of the price cut was already projected. Already been discussed. Click here to read it.
40 2/28/17 And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that. NATO countries agreed to meet defense spending requirements in 2014. According to who? Trump pointed out that 23 out of the 28 nations in the NATO Alliance haven't paid their fair share in quite some time. Trump's argument is that since the agreement was struck back in 2014, the vast majority of NATO has reneged on their respective commitments: "NATO leaders pledged in 2014 to halt defense spending cuts and move toward a guideline target of 2 percent of gross domestic product within a decade. Only four other nations currently meet the target: Britain, Estonia, Greece and Poland." (click here to read full article)
41 2/28/17 The E.P.A.'s regulators were putting people out of jobs by the hundreds of thousands. There's no evidence that the Waters of the United States rule caused severe job losses. First off, according to an article dated February, 2015, some were speculating that EPA regulations could cost the country upwards of 300,000 jobs. So, Trump is not wrong in that the EPA, especially given some of Obama's directives, were not healthy for the job market.

As far as the WOTUS regulations specifically, 31 states have challenged it in court for reasons you can read about here. As far as how the EPA affects the job situation in general, Trump isn't the only one who sees it as unhealthy drain on our economy. Bottom line: He's not lying.
42 2/28/17 We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a five-year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials. They can't lobby their former agency but can still become lobbyists. First of all, understand that "lobbying" is defined as attempting to influence the decisions made in government in a way that benefits a special interest group. It's not illegal, but it's not always healthy in that the end result is not always in the best interest in the common good.

President Trump made mention of this practice which reeks of corruption and made good on his promise by signing into law a ban on any lobbying done by a former government official on behalf of the agency they worked for.

For the NYT to come back with an accursation that says Trump is lying is ridiculous. He signed into law a five year ban on lobbying. The statement that he makes is not a lie in that he's simply stating what has been put into law - nothing more, nothing less.
43 3/3/17 It is so pathetic that the Dems have still not approved my full Cabinet. Paperwork for the last two candidates was still not submitted to the Senate. OK. Two candidates. What about the other nominees that have not been confirmed due to what is, admittedly a delay on the part of Dems to approve Trump's selections? Trump is not lying.
44 3/4/17 Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! There's no evidence of a wiretap. Wrong. "Now, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (who previously said he knew of no evidence to support the allegation) has disclosed that he has seen evidence that Trump presidential transition officials had their communications monitored during the Obama administration (though Nunes later suggested that he might not have actually seen the evidence of the surveillance)." (click here to read the full article from thehill.com that was published on March 24, 2017)
45 3/4/17 How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy! There's no evidence of a wiretap. Discussed in the context of accustation #44.
46 3/7/17 122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision! 113 of them were released by President George W. Bush. From snopes.com: President Trump's tweet was posted shortly after the airing of a segment on the “Fox & Friends” program about a former Gitmo detainee, Yasir al Silmi, who was killed during a 2 March 2017 U.S. raid in Yemen. “Fox & Friends”, which correctly stated that al Silmi had been released under the administration of President Obama, ended the segment by noting that 122 detainees discharged from Guantanamo Bay had subsequently engaged in terrorist activities. But the “Fox & Friends” segment did not specify when those prisoners were set free, creating the mistaken impression among many viewers (including, apparently, President Trump) that all 122 of those prisoners had been released during the White House tenure of Barack Obama.

President Trump was wrong in blaming the Obama administration, but his mistake was not an uncommon one. To say that he's lying mandates that he knew Obama had not released them. He was obviously mistaken but it's not a given at all that he was knowingly stating something false.
47 3/13/17 I saved a lot of money on those jets, didn't I? Did I do a good job? More than $725 million on them. Much of the cost cuts were planned before Trump. Already discussed. Click here to view.
48 3/13/17 First of all, it covers very few people. About 20 million people gained insurance under Obamacare. 20 million people signing up does not equate to 20 million people actually insured. Trump is not lying. Click here to read more about this.
49 3/15/17 On the airplanes, I saved $725 million. Probably took me a half an hour if you added up all of the times. Much of the cost cuts were planned before Trump. Already discussed. Click here to read about it.
50 3/17/17 I was in Tennessee - I was just telling the folks - and half of the state has no insurance company, and the other half is going to lose the insurance company. There's at least one insurer in every Tennessee county. That's funny. Here's an article published in March of 2017 that says there are several counties in Tennessee that don't even have one insurer: News Channel 3 | Memphis, TN
51 3/20/17 With just one negotiation on one set of airplanes, I saved the taxpayers of our country over $700 million. Much of the cost cuts were planned before Trump. Already discussed. Click here to read about it.
52 3/21/17 To save taxpayer dollars, I've already begun negotiating better contracts for the federal government - saving over $700 million on just one set of airplanes of which there are many sets. Much of the cost cuts were planned before Trump. Already discussed. Click here to read about it.
53 3/22/17 I make the statement, everyone goes crazy. The next day they have a massive riot, and death, and problems. Riots in Sweden broke out two days later and there were no deaths. Already covered in the context of accusation #34. Click here to review.
54 3/22/17 NATO, obsolete, because it doesn't cover terrorism. They fixed that. It has fought terrorism since the 1980s. Trump's claim that NATO was obsolete was based on their collective lethargy when it came to financing legitimate measures to combat terrorism. This was addressed earlier with #40. As an aside, things have since improved as is evidenced by members of the Transatlantic Alliance having supported the military action against Syria in response to their having recently used chemical weapons against their own civilian populace. Read more by clicking here.
55 3/22/17 Well, now, if you take a look at the votes, when I say that, I mean mostly they register wrong - in other words, for the votes, they register incorrectly and/or illegally. And they then vote. You have tremendous numbers of people. There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud. The only way you can deny their being evidence of widespread voter fraud is if you turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the obvious. This has already been discussed. Click here to read more.
56 3/29/17 Remember when the failing @nytimes apologized to its subscribers, right after the election, because their coverage was so wrong. Now worse! It didn't apologize. This has already been discussed. It's odd that the NYT keeps citing the same issue on multiple ocassion and claims each instance represents a separate falsehood. Click here to see this issue addressed in previous rebuttals.
57 3/31/17 We have a lot of plants going up now in Michigan that were never going to be there if I - if I didn't win this election, those plants would never even think about going back. They were gone. These investments were already planned. That depends on how you define the term "investments." According to a Reuters article dated January 24, 2017: "With flattening U.S. auto sales and excess capacity in the United States, U.S. automakers have been reluctant to open new U.S. auto plants in recent years. GM and Ford last built new U.S. assembly plants in 2004, while Fiat Chrysler opened a new transmission plant in Indiana in 2014." Trump is not wrong. This same article goes on to say "Ford's Fields said automakers wanted to work with Trump to create a "renaissance in American manufacturing" and that Trump's economic priorities were encouraging, including his move on Monday to formally bow out of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact championed by Obama. "The mother of all trade barriers is currency manipulation. And TPP failed in meaningfully dealing with that, and we appreciate the president's courage to walk away from a bad trade deal," Fields told reporters after the meeting.

There were things in place on the part of US Auto Manufacturers to increase production in the US, but not to the extent that is now being facilitated through the President's efforts to improve the domestic business climate. President Trump is not wrong.
58 4/2/17 And I was totally opposed to the war in the Middle East which I think finally has been proven, people tried very hard to say I wasn't but you've seen that it is now improving. He was for an invasion before he was against it. This has already been discussed. Click here to review.
59 4/2/17 Now, my last tweet - you know, the one that you are talking about, perhaps - was the one about being, in quotes, wiretapped, meaning surveilled. Guess what, it is turning out to be true. There is still no evidence. It is the NYT that is lying! Click here to review.
60 4/5/17 You have many states coming up where they're going to have no insurance company. O.K.? It's already happened in Tennessee. It's happening in Kentucky. Tennessee only has half coverage. Half the state is gone. They left. Every marketplace region in Tennessee had at least one insurer. Not true. Click here to re-read what has already been discussed.
61 4/6/17 If you look at the kind of cost-cutting we've been able to achieve with the military and at the same time ordering vast amounts of equipment - saved hundreds of millions of dollars on airplanes, and really billions, because if you take that out over a period of years it's many billions of dollars - I think we've had a tremendous success. Much of the price cuts were already projected. Already discussed. Click here to read about it.
62 4/11/17 I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late. I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve. He knew Steve Bannon since 2011. They were introduced to one another in 2011, but that hardly suggests a mature relationship. As far as Trump saying that Bannon didn't become a part of his campaign until later in the game, that's true. Bannon came on board in August after Trump had already secured the nomination.
63 4/12/17 You can't do it faster, because they're obstructing. They're obstructionists. So I have people - hundreds of people that we're trying to get through. I mean you have - you see the backlog. We can't get them through. At this point, he had not nominated anyone for hundreds of positions. That depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about the President's Cabinet, you're looking at the Vice President and 15 heads of executive departments. But according to a 2012 Congressional Research Service study there are an estimated 1200-1400 positions that the President appoints that require Senate confirmation. If this is what President Trump is referring to, then he's not lying.
64 4/12/17 The New York Times said the word wiretapped in the headline of the first edition. Then they took it out of there fast when they realized. There were separate headlines for print and web, but neither were altered. March 24, 2017 in a townhall.com article: On Jan. 19, The New York Times reported on the FBI's investigation into suspected contacts between Russian interests and members of Trump's team, a probe that continues. The online headline read: "Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates." In the next day's print edition, the story's headline read: "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aide."

Weeks later, columnist Andrew McCarthy of the conservative National Review accused the newspaper of going back and changing "wiretapped" to "intercepted" on the online story to play down the level of snooping by the Obama administration. But the paper never revised its headlines. When the story was first published, it had simply used different words online and in print in its headlines, which is common. McCarthy later said his accusation was wrong, apologized to the paper and asked his publication to retract the column.


But Trump continued to repeat the error in the Time interview, conducted Wednesday.

Trump was mistaken, but he wasn't wrong in that there was a difference in the headlines. However common that may be, there was still a disparity.
65 4/12/17 The secretary general and I had a productive discussion about what more NATO can do in the fight against terrorism. I complained about that a long time ago and they made a change, and now they do fight terrorism. NATO has been engaged in counterterrorism efforts since the 1980s. Being "engaged" doesn't change the validity of what President Trump is saying as far as NATO not collectively doing their share. This has already been discussed. Click here to read about it.
66 4/12/17 Mosul was supposed to last for a week and now they've been fighting it for many months and so many more people died. The campaign was expected to take months. Newsweek article dated April 19, 2016: U.S. President Barack Obama has estimated that Iraq's second-largest city Mosul, held by the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) since June 2014, will be recaptured by Iraqi forces by the end of the year.

It wasn't.

Now, consider this article from townhall.com dated July 11, 2017: Now, after only a few months into Trump's presidency, and with the U.S.'s partners in Iraq, "we've routed them from the place where they created the new caliphate," Gorka said.

When co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked how that was accomplished, Gorka pointed to the rules of engagement.

"We did something that's absolutely essential to success," he said. “We allowed our troops in theater to use the rules of engagement that are standard. We jettisoned the idea of micromanagement from the White House, the idea that you have, like during Vietnam, the 8,000 mile screwdriver that we're gonna sit here telling people what to do in theater."

That mentality, he added, is "insane" and an approach former President Obama took.


Trump may have been exaggerating, but given the fact that the campaign was referenced at one point as something that would "take weeks, if not months," the point that he's making is valid as far as it being something that wasn't going to take more than a year.
67 4/16/17 Someone should look into who paid for the small organized rallies yesterday. The election is over! There's no evidence of paid protesters. Already discussed. Click here to review.
68 4/18/17 The fake media goes, 'Donald Trump changed his stance on China.' I haven't changed my stance. He did. In economics, protectionism is the economic policy of restraining trade between states (countries) through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, restrictive quotas, and a variety of other government regulations. Trump, along with his Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has accused China of that very thing in the past.

A lot of this tension is a result of the trade deficit that exists between our nation and China. In other words, it costs more money to import goods from China than what we profit in the context of what we export to China. One example is the way in which the US will ship things off to China to be assembled due to the way in which the Chinese work for less money than their American counterparts. But then, it will cost us more money to have the assembled product shipped back to us because at that point, it's technically an import. This difference in cost is due in part to the way in which China is capable of manipulating the market - something Trump has been very critical of in the past.

But as of April this year, that trade deficit is down significantly. This is due in part to the way in which Trump met with Chinese business mogul Jack Ma in January of this year and the two agreed to create one million new U.S. jobs over the next five years.

It's pretty evident that if Trump's concern over China has changed, it's probably due to the fact that China has changed and is more cooperative than they have in the past. That's not him being inconsistent, that's him being resolved and successful.
69 4/21/17 On 90 planes I saved $725 million. It's actually a little bit more than that, but it's $725 million. Much of the price cuts were already projected. Why the NYT continues to cite the same issue as yet a different example of Trump supposedly lying suggests that they're hoping no one really looks at what they've listed. Click here to read the rebuttal to the accusations being made.
70 4/21/17 When WikiLeaks came out I've never heard of WikiLeaks, never heard of it. He criticized it as early as 2010. The comment that President Trump made was part of an AP interview that you can read by clicking here.

The NYT found a quick, 2010 exchange between Trump and Brian Kilmeade where Brian asked for Trump's opinion pertaining to WikiLeake's recent publication of thousands of classified documents. Trump said it was disgraceful and a crime worthy of the death penalty.

To what extent he was replying to the situation of a security breach in general or was responding specifically to the involvement of WikiLeakes is subjective. It's not outrageous to suggest that Trump was not even thinking of "WikiLeakes" per se as much as he was simply condemning the publication of classified material.

Again, accusing someone of lying requires more than just the appearance of impropriety. Given the way in which the NYT is obviously very willing to edit the parameters that define the truth, it's ironic that they would be so quick to accuse Trump of lying based on the impression that he was familiar with WikiLeakes in light of a general comment he made seven years ago.
71 4/27/17 I want to help our miners while the Democrats are blocking their healthcare. The bill to extend health benefits for certain coal miners was introduced by a Democrat and was co-sponsored by mostly Democrats. Here's the thing: As is often the case, there's more to this issue than what publications like the NYT would disseminate in order to cast President Trump in a bad light.

Between 2011 and 2015, the Obama administration paid nearly $1 billion into health care funds of the United Mine Workers of America, including tens of millions of dollars to unverified and sometimes dubious beneficiaries and undocumented union administrative expenses, according to a U.S. government audit. Furthermore, the issue of coal miner protection became even more acute during the Obama Administration's notorious anti-carbon "war on coal," which deliberately sought to shrink faltering coal production even further, leading to more coal miner bankruptcies that further complicated worker protection finances. In short, it's a mess.

Those benefits were slated to come to an end in April of 2017. The Republicans propsed a bill that would extend their benefits for a few months. Democrats oppose it because they believe that the miners' benefits should be extended indefinitely. This is the opposition that Trump refers to and he's not wrong.

The problem is that if you bail out this pension fund, inevitably Congress would be asked to bail out others and that's not a sustainable let alone responsible course of action. Democrats don't see that as a problem, but more sensible people who understand that you can't spend money you don't have do see it as a problem.

Bottom line: Trump isn't lying. And as far as who proposed the bail out for Coal Miners, who's to say that was a wise move and given the way in which the Obama Administration exacerbated the situation, the Democrats are the last group of folks who should be complaining let alone insisting on being applauded.

Click here for more info.
72 4/28/17 The trade deficit with Mexico is close to $70 billion, even with Canada it's $17 billion trade deficit with Canada. The U.S. had an $8.1 billion trade surplus, not deficit, with Canada in 2016. The United States has the world's largest trade deficit. It's been that way since 1975. The deficit in goods and services was $502 billion in 2016. It occurred because imports were $2.7 trillion and exports were only $2.2 trillion. The largest trade deficits are with Canada, Mexico and Germany.

The NYT is accusing Trump of lying about the trade deficit figure Trump stated in April of 2017. He's speaking in the present tense, yet the NYT is processing it as a 2016 value.

According to current statistics, Mexico represents a 63 billion dollar deficit which is consistent with Trump's statement. Canada is 11 billion. While Trump says its 17 billion, the bottom line is that you're dealing with significant deficits not surpluses like the NYT is proclaiming.

Trump isn't lying!
73 4/28/17 She's running against someone who's going to raise your taxes to the sky, destroy your health care, and he's for open borders - lots of crime. Those are not Jon Ossoff's positions. Regardless of his "positions," he's a Democrat and has voted in a manner that's consistent with party lines his entire career. Trump is neither lying nor exaggerating.

Earlier this year, he called Trump an "embarassment and a threat to prosperity and health, justice and security." In order for those kinds of convictions to be in place, you need to be diametrically opposed to the Republican platform which is tighter security, less regulation on healthcare and lower taxes.

Trump is not lying.
74 4/28/17 The F-35 fighter jet program - it was way over budget. I've saved $725 million plus, just by getting involved in the negotiation. Much of the price cuts were planned before Trump. Again, this has been discussed. Click here to read the rebuttal.
75 4/29/17 They're incompetent, dishonest people who after an election had to apologize because they covered it, us, me, but all of us, they covered it so badly that they felt they were forced to apologize because their predictions were so bad. The Times did not apologize. That depends on how you want to process the words of the NYT. It certainly sounds like an apology. Click here to review what has already been discussed.
76 4/29/17 As you know, I've been a big critic of China, and I've been talking about currency manipulation for a long time. But I have to tell you that during the election, number one, they stopped. (China stopped years ago. It would be interesting to hear the NYT defend their statement that "China stopped years ago." The two biggest contributors to our country's trade deficit is Japan and China and, as previously mentioned, it's been that way since 1975.

And as far as the current situation is concerned, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, in a commentary in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, outlined a slew of grievances against both China and the European Union that he said contributed to the global U.S. trade deficit in goods of $725.5 billion in 2016.

So much for China having stopped "years ago."
77 4/29/17 I've already saved more than $725 million on a simple order of F-35 planes. I got involved in the negotiation. Much of the price cuts were planned before Trump. Already discussed. Click here to read about it.
78 4/29/17 We're also getting NATO countries to finally step up and contribute their fair share. They've begun to increase their contributions by billions of dollars, but we are not going to be satisfied until everyone pays what they owe. The deal was struck in 2014. This has already been addressed. Click here to read about it.
79 4/29/17 When they talk about currency manipulation, and I did say I would call China, if they were, a currency manipulator, early in my tenure. And then I get there. Number one, they - as soon as I got elected, they stopped. China stopped in 2014. Previously discussed. Click here to review.
80 4/29/17 I was negotiating to reduce the price of the big fighter jet contract, the F-35, which was totally out of control. I will save billions and billions and billions of dollars. Most of the cuts were planned before Trump. Again, this has been discussed. Click here to read the rebuttal.
81 4/29/17 I think our side's been proven very strongly. And everybody's talking about it. There's still no evidence Trump's phones were tapped. Discussed in the context of accusation #44.
82 5/1/17 Well, we are protecting pre-existing conditions. And it'll be every good - bit as good on pre-existing conditions as Obamacare. The bill weakens protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Obamacare has already been discussed in the context of previous questions / accusations (), but as far as the way in which the media seeks to undermine any kind of Republican alternative to Obamacare, an objective review of their reporting and rhetoric can only be summarized as being irresponsible and even unethical. Consider the following four layers of protection offered by the American Health Care Act (AHCA):

Layer One: Insurers are required to sell plans to all comers, including those with pre-existing conditions. This is known as "guaranteed issue," and it's mandated in the AHCA. No exceptions, no waivers. I spoke with an informed conservative news consumer earlier who was stunned to learn that this was the case, having been subjected to 24 hours of unhinged rhetoric from the Left.

Layer Two: Anyone with a pre-existing condition and who lives in a state that does not seek an optional waiver from the AHCA's (and Obamacare's) "community rating" regulation cannot be charged more than other people for a new plan when they seek to purchase one -- which, as established above, insurers are also required to sell them.

Layer Three: Anyone who is insured and remains continuously insured cannot be dropped from their plan due to a pre-existing condition, and cannot be charged more after developing one. So if you've been covered, then you change jobs or want to switch plans, carriers must sell you the plan of your choice at the same price point as everyone else. Regardless of your health status. This is true of people in non-waiver and waiver states alike.

Layer Four: If you are uninsured and have a pre-existing condition and live in a state that pursued (and obtained after jumping through hoops) a "community rating" waiver, your state is required to give you access to a "high risk pool" fund to help you pay for higher premiums. The AHCA earmarks nearly $130 billion for these sorts of patient stability funds over ten years.

The left depends on the emotional response that comes from statements such as "The bill weakens protections for people with pre-existing conditions," in order to demonize any kind of solution to the problem of a piece of healthcare legislation that is financially unsustainable, morally reprehensible and commercially irresponsible. The media has gone as far as to say that anyone who supports the AHCA is signing a death warrant for sick women and children.

Feel free to learn more and gain a more indepth understanding of the elements the left intentionally distorts by clicking here. As far as accusing Trump of lying in this context, he's not. It's only because the NYT and the left in general don't want to concede the fallacy of their platform and have to smear the character of anyone who disagrees with them simply because they can't refute the substance of their argument.
83 5/1/17 The F-35 fighter jet - I saved - I got involved in the negotiation. It's 2,500 jets. I negotiated for 90 planes, lot 10. I got $725 million off the price. Much of the price cuts were planned before Trump. Again, this has been discussed. Click here to read the rebuttal.
84 5/1/17 First of all, since I started running, they haven't increased their - you know, they have not manipulated their currency. I think that was out of respect to me and the campaign. China stopped years ago. Previously discussed. Click here to review.
85 5/2/17 I love buying those planes at a reduced price. I have been really - I have cut billions - I have to tell you this, and they can check, right, Martha? I have cut billions and billions of dollars off plane contracts sitting here. Much of the cost cuts were planned before Trump. Again, this has been discussed. Click here to read the rebuttal.
86 5/4/17 Number two, they're actually not a currency [manipulator]. You know, since I've been talking about currency manipulation with respect to them and other countries, they stopped. China stopped years ago. Previously discussed. Click here to review.
87 5/4/17 We're the highest-taxed nation in the world. We're not. Discussed in the context of #101.
88 5/4/17 Nobody cares about my tax return except for the reporters. Polls show most Americans do care. That depends on what polls you're looking at. Newsmax had a poll that showed only 45% cared one way or another. Even if that seems high, it's still less than half. And given the fact that it's the liberal news community that's polling people, it's not outlandish to think they're going for a particular mindset when they ask the question so as to create mathematical reinforcement for their vitriol.
89 5/8/17 You know we've gotten billions of dollars more in NATO than we're getting. All because of me. The deal was struck in 2014. Already discussed. Click here to read about it.
90 5/8/17 But when I did his show, which by the way was very highly rated. It was high - highest rating. The highest rating he's ever had. Colbert's Late Show debut had nearly two million more viewers. Colbert's show featuring Donald Trump is his most watched show apart from his debut. If Trump is omitting Colbert's debut, he's absolutely correct.
91 5/8/17 Director Clapper reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows - there is'no evidence' of collusion w/ Russia and Trump. Clapper only said he wasn't aware of an investigation. "Testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday morning, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made it clear Russian hacking didn't change the outcome of the 2016 presidential election." (from an article by Katie Pavlich dated January 5th, 2017.

The fictional account of there being collusion on the part of the Russians where Trump's election is concerned has been revealed as such on multiple occasions.

It's interesting that Clapper is part of a correction the NYT had to make recently pertaining to their outrageous claim to indict Trump by falsely stating that 17 intelligence agencies had arrived at the same conclusion that Trump was guilty of colluding with the Russians to win the election. Clapper himself said that there were only three agencies involved.

So, not only is Trump not lying, but it would be fair to say that the NYT is lying about what's being said by whom...
92 5/12/17 Again, the story that there was collusion between the Russians & Trump campaign was fabricated by Dems as an excuse for losing the election. The F.B.I. was investigating before the election. According to Newsweek, March 29, 2017: "Well before the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) accused the Russian government of tampering with the U.S. election in an October 7 statement, Comey pitched the idea of writing an op-ed about the Russian campaign during a meeting in the White House Situation Room in June or July." The idea wasn't well received because it didn't have the kind of substance that an official report backed by several intelligence agencies would have.

What this says is that from the very beginning, the idea of a Trump / Russia collusion lacked any real credibility. Comey pitching the idea of an op-ed doesn't equate to an investigation and even if it could somehow be twisted into something worth considering, the lack of evidence that's been the case from the very beginning makes the NYT's accusation of Trump lying in this case appear as nothing more than yet another attempt to explain away Hillary's defeat as the result of a criminal act rather than a loss resulting from a fair election.
93 5/12/17 When James Clapper himself, and virtually everyone else with knowledge of the witch hunt, says there is no collusion, when does it end? Clapper said he wouldn't have been told of an investigation into collusion. Perhaps that depends on when you talked with Clapper. Clapper was head of National Intelligence until January 20th. Allegations of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia began in the summer of 2016 then accelerated in the Fall. So, Clapper was there for most of the investigation. Anything that's happened since he left office may very well be unknown to him, but when he came out March 5, 2017 and :

...admitted that he does not know of any evidence that proves collusion, or even points toward collusion. "Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?" NBC's Chuck Todd asked Clapper.

"We did not include any evidence in our report ... that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians," Clapper answered. "There was no evidence of that included in our report."
(click here to read more....

Not sure what the NYT is referring to or how it could take away from what Clapper has said in the past, but Trump has a point and he's certainly not lying.
94 5/13/17 I'm cutting the price of airplanes with Lockheed. The cost cuts were planned before he became president. Already discussed. Click here to read about it.
95 5/26/17 Just arrived in Italy for the G7. Trip has been very successful. We made and saved the USA many billions of dollars and millions of jobs. He's referencing an arms deal that's not enacted and other apparent deals that weren't announced on the trip. Not sure which "arms deal" the NYT is referring to, but if their referring to the arms deal that Trump struck with Saudi Arabia, it's a historic agreement that could reach upwards of 350 billion which represents the largest such deal in American history (click here to read more.... Doesn't seem like Trump is exaggerating let alone lying...
96 6/1/17 China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can't build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. The agreement doesn't allow or disallow building coal plants. What President Trump is referring to in this statement is the Paris Climate Control agreement. Under this agreement, China and India are considered developing countries, which means these two nations are not bound to reduce their carbon-dioxide emissions. Instead, China has promised to "peak carbon dioxide emissions ‘around' 2030." However, it is doubtful China will actually follow through on this pledge, because China has a history of lying about its coal use. For example, in 2015, it was discovered China was burning 17 percent more coal than it had reported.

What the NYT is implying is that while the Paris Climate Control agreement doesn't implicitly prohibit or encourage coal production for developing countries, it does, however, require countries such as the US to scale back its use of fossil fuels. The problem with this is that the whole issue of "climate control" is anything but substantial. Even if the United States were to stop all its carbon-dioxide emissions-an idea that is pure fantasy, because oil, coal, and natural gas account for 81 percent of all the energy used in the United States, while wind and solar only generate 1.8 percent and 0.4 percent, respectfully-it would only avert 0.2 degrees C of warming by 2100, an amount too small to make a difference. Meanwhile, the financial drain on the US economy is crippling.

Trump is not lying. It's the NYT and their liberal counterparts who are making a point of telling only half the story and in a way that is detrimental to the US economy.

To Put America First, Trump Must Exit the Paris Climate Agreement
97 6/1/17 I've just returned from a trip overseas where we concluded nearly $350 billion of military and economic development for the United States, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Trump's figures are inflated and premature. As far as the arms deal he made with Saudi Arabia, it was partially blocked by the Senate as of June 13th. Suggesting Trump was lying after he initiated the deal isn't accurate and given the way he was hampered in the congress, regardless of how optimistic his figures were, he shouldn't be held accountable for the voices in the Senate that rejected the deal. In short, he wasn't lying...

As far as overall job growth, as of August, 2017, Trump has added a million jobs to the American economy. Apparently, however, that isn't news worthy...
98 6/4/17 At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is'no reason to be alarmed!' The mayor was specifically talking about the enlarged police presence on the streets. The Mayor of London is a man named Sadiq Khan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadiq_Khan). In September of 2016, he said that the threat of terror attacks is "part and parcel of living in a big city.". To label terrorism as a "part of living in a big city," is to take a very irresponsible and casual view on what it is and who it is that's perpetuating these acts.

The fact that last Ramadan – the Muslim holy month during which ISIS called for “all-out war” on “infidels” – an Islamic terrorist attack occurred once every 84 hours. The fact that far-left Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted mistakes in admitting millions of refugees into her country. And the fact that 65 percent of all people convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses in the U.S. were foreign-born, pointing to a clear, inextricable link between immigration and terrorism.

It's a very real problem so when your country is attacked in a manner that results in 7 people dead and 50 people wounded, while it may not be on the same level as the Twin Towers, saying that there is "no reason to be alarmed" isn't necessarily appropriate especially in light of the way Mayor Khan has glossed over the lethal substance of militant, Islamic terrorism in the past.

Trump's not out of line and he's certainly not lying. It's not just the presence of additional police officers, it's the overly relaxed perspective that Khan has demonstrated in the past that is now being implied by his admonishment to not be overly worried.
99 6/5/17 The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C. Trump signed this version of the travel ban, not the Justice Department. On March January 27, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order that tighted up the process whereby which immigrants could gain entry into the US. Click here to read the actual order.

It's a logical and sensible move on the part of the President to restrict people coming from nations that sponsor terrorism from entering the US. Yet, the Left doesn't see it that way. His order was met with a firestorm of criticism citing examples of families being separated and people being unjustly profiled. As a result, several changes made in an effort to accommodate those who insisted the President was flawed in his understanding of the issue of terrorism as well as his efforts to curb America's institutional willingness to admit potentially sinister people into the country.

On March 22nd the President signed a new travel ban that represented an edited version of his original order on January 27. Given the way in which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals resisted his original order and the opposition he faced, it was a wise move to make some concessions in order to get an improved process in place. But there concessions nevertheless and the only reason they were required is because of the ridiculous and nonsensical objections of the Left.

President Trump is not lying nor is he forgetting the fact that he signed what is currently in place. What he's saying is credible in that he was obligated to make changes because of the opposition that refused his original order.

BTW: There's nothing noble or legitimate in the Left's opposition to Trump's efforts to tighten immigration laws and processes. As long as you ask the wrong questions, you inevitably arrive at all the wrong conclusions. And when you do that intentionally for the sake of an unhealthy political agenda at the expense of national security, you are either a fool or a fiend. However you might want to argue that, for the sake of this particular indictment, Trump is neither lying nor is he wrong.
100 6/21/17 They all say it's 'nonbinding.' Like hell it's nonbinding. The Paris climate agreement is nonbinding - and Trump said so in his speech announcing the withdrawal. Trump's perspective on the Paris Climate Agreement as being "binding" is based on the way in which climate activists are indirectly empowered with international authority to determine who's making a legitimate effort to effect global climate change and who isn't. While those on the Left are insistent that this is nonsense, Trump isn't alone in his perspective. The following comes from Lucas Bergkamp and Scott J. Stone:

If the collective efforts appear to fall short of achieving the Paris Agreement's objectives, the judiciary is likely to be dragged into climate policy-making. Climate action groups or executive governments supporting ambitious action will charge the body politic with impotence, declare “government failure,” and seek the help of the courts to get governments to “do the right thing.” To support their claims, they can invoke the admissions and objectives set out in the Paris Agreement. (excerpt from the The Trojan Horse of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change: How Multi-Level, Non-Hierarchical Governance Poses a Threat to Constitutional Government)

Obama circumvented the normal legislative process to ratify this Treaty back in 2015. Perhaps this was intentional given the fact that many would've objected to it given the enormous finanical and economic burden that it foisted upon the US in the way it would've caused industries to retool the way they manufactured goods and services. In addition, under the agreement, the US was expected to send financial aid to to poorer countries to the tune of 100 billion a year.

The Paris Climate Agreement is based on questionable science and turns a deaf ear and a blind eye to the way in which it would've had a large, detrimental impact on our economy. While the verbiage is non-binding, it neverthelss positions the US in a precarious position in the way it must potentially answer to a subject global judiciary, not to mention a Progressive legislature in a manner that is neither healthy or responsible as far the overal good of the nation.

Trump is not wrong, nor is he lying. In the words of Ben Shapiro: "The Paris Accord was a meaningless sham, designed mainly to shame the United States into harming its own economy for the vicarious pleasure of others." Be thankful that Trump recognizes this.

(click here to read more...
101 6/21/17 Right now, we are one of the highest-taxed nations in the world. We're not. The NYT is not alone in their criticism of Trump on this point. Articles like this one published by the "Committe for a Responsible Federal Budget" show the US as being one of the lowest taxed nations in the world. But while the article does refer to "total tax revenue," it's not especially clear as to whether or not they're referring to total federal and state income taxes or if they're referring to the total and complete landscape of the 97 different taxes an American citizen is confronted with. If there is, indeed, an intentional limitation to the kinds of taxes being considered, Trump may very well be accurate in what he's saying.