Read on Twitter
One of the things pro-Trump media has tried to do since the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville has been to claim that Trump didn't *actually* say there were "fine people on both sides."
I'm already starting to see that same approach play out here.
I'm already starting to see that same approach play out here.
You'll see them refer to it as the "Charlottesville hoax."
Before I highlight how that applies here, let me lay out what happened with Trump's "fine people" comments. (thread)
Before I highlight how that applies here, let me lay out what happened with Trump's "fine people" comments. (thread)
Here's the video:
The pro-Trump media argument hinges on an argument that Trump wasn't saying that there were "fine" neo-Nazis and white nationalists because he clarified that he was talking about the non-Nazis who were on the Nazis' side.
There's an acknowledgement that there were two sides. One side had neo-Nazis and white nationalists in it. So the argument goes that when Trump said "fine people on both sides," he was referring to the "fine people" who were on the side with the Nazis.
When asked to elaborate, Trump specified who he was talking about:
"The night before" that he's referencing was the infamous tiki torch march where neo-Nazis marched around chanting "Jews will not replace us."
That's what he was specifically referring to: the tiki torch march.
"The night before" that he's referencing was the infamous tiki torch march where neo-Nazis marched around chanting "Jews will not replace us."
That's what he was specifically referring to: the tiki torch march.
Now... if you show up to a protest and you notice that everyone around you is throwing up Nazi salutes and chanting "Jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil," do "very fine people" stick around?
Seriously, watch this clip of them marching and chanting. "Fine people?" No. If you were in that group, you are not a "fine person."
The PragerU video making this argument says that the "New York Times confirmed" that there were "good people in Charlottesville to protest the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue."
See if you can find the problem with this in the transcript.
See if you can find the problem with this in the transcript.
The problem with that is that it wasn't NYT "confirming" that there were good people, it was NYT quoting someone who participated in the rally saying "Good people can go to Charlottesville."
It was someone self-identifying as a "good person" (who happened to go to a Nazi rally)
It was someone self-identifying as a "good person" (who happened to go to a Nazi rally)
Should NYT have run that quote? Probably not! Few people will be like, "Yes, I'm a total evil monster." "Person thinks they are good" is not news.
But it was them quoting someone else, not them reaching a conclusion.
But it was them quoting someone else, not them reaching a conclusion.
(But that goes to show what the endless stream of sympathetic "let's understand Trump supporters" pieces can do...)
Here's a @KatzOnEarth blog post about that https://katz.substack.com/p/how-the-new-york-times-made-the-charlottesville
I mean... this is what the flyers for that event looked like. They're horrific.
This is also possible because Trump often contradicts himself when he talks. He can go, "no, no, I'm not defending them," but then goes on to defend people in their group, and his supporters eat it up.
The same is happening with how people are responding to Trump's response to the attack on the capitol yesterday.
Trump ended his rally by instructing people to march over to the capitol building. But his defenders point to the fact that he used the word "peacefully."
But saying that once in an 40 minute speech in which you repeatedly tell your supporters lies about how you actually won the election and it was being stolen from you and that the country is under siege and that they need to encourage "boldness" ... doesn't really cut it.
Trump *eventually* recorded a video, which his supporters point to as a way to absolve him of guilt.
"Look, he said 'we have to have peace. we have to have law and order!' He told them to go home!"
Give me a break. He repeated lies about it being "stolen."
"Look, he said 'we have to have peace. we have to have law and order!' He told them to go home!"
Give me a break. He repeated lies about it being "stolen."
So long as Trump and other Republicans keep lying about the election results, they are at very least enabling violence that comes out of it.
I'm loathe to ever credit lawmakers for doing the bare minimum, but there's just no arguing with Romney's point from last night in response to people who argue that this is about restoring public confidence. It's not.
"No congressional led audit will ever convince those voters, particularly when the president will continue to claim that the election was stolen. The best way we can show respect for the voters who are upset is by telling them the truth."
(also, typo a couple tweets up. I mean "loath," not "loathe")
Until Trump says, "look, i'm sorry for lying to you. I lost the election. I think there were some things that weren't fair, but I lost," then he's not actually trying to deter violence.
(Now, of course, people will go, "BUT OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE ARGUED THAT THEY WERE CHEATED!" and okay, but how many kept it up for months — posting about it daily — and literally telling people to march on the capitol)
You can't sanitize Trump's record on this. You can't sanitize the records of the people who continue to stick by him. It's proof that we live in a sick world that people like Cruz and Hawley see objecting to electoral votes as good for their careers. It should end their careers.
So, before the "Trump didn't encourage violence!" narrative takes off too much and becomes just as much of a right-wing belief as the "he didn't say nazis were 'fine people'!" thing... just... no. Don't try it.
