Political Irony

We are being bombarded by “news” about the horserace that is the presidential election, and are pretty much sick of it. Unfortunately, this means that we are ignoring the real stories behind the headlines. I mention this because we are missing a potentially generous serving of irony.

For example, the headlines are blaring the news that Donald Trump managed to raise $51 million during the month of June, compared to the paltry $3.2 million he raised in May. But I haven’t seen any news pointing out that Trump has completely flip-flopped on his promise to self-fund his campaign so that he will not be beholden to special interests. You know, special interests like fellow casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who has promised to donate $100 million to Trump’s campaign. We already know that Trump will do almost anything for money. Who donated all this money to Trump, and what will he give them in return?

Another example is the announcement by FBI Director James Comey that Hillary Clinton did not break any laws by using a private email server. But then Comey did something unprecedented — he proceeded to attack Clinton for being “extremely careless”, stupid, and arrogant. As Electoral Vote puts it:

That is not the way the FBI is supposed to work. If someone is innocent, then the FBI is not supposed to besmirch that person’s reputation. If the target is guilty, then he or she should be indicted; otherwise, the investigation should be closed with a simple statement that no charges will be brought. Until now, this was always the way the FBI worked.

But Comey, who was originally appointed by George W Bush, didn’t stop there. He also said that

the FBI uncovered no “direct evidence” that foreign powers had hacked Clinton’s email server. Did he have indirect evidence? Any evidence at all? If not, how is that different from his saying: “In another investigation, we have uncovered no ‘direct evidence’ that Donald Trump paid millions of dollars in bribes to the mafia for labor peace at his construction sites.” If there is no evidence, the FBI is not supposed to even bring up the subject.

As a former director of the Justice Department public affairs office pointed out, Comey ignored the rule of law and blatantly politicized what was supposed to be a non-partisan investigation. It is not up to the FBI to decide guilt or innocence, that is reserved by our constitution for the courts. When the FBI decides it does not have enough evidence to bring charges, “it has the responsibility to not besmirch someone’s reputation by lobbing accusations publicly instead.”

He recklessly speculated that Clinton’s email system could have been hacked, even while admitting he had no evidence that it was. This conjecture, which has been the subject of much debate and heated allegations, puts Clinton in the impossible position of having to prove a negative in response.

Why did Comey do this?

Comey argued that his statement was appropriate because this case was a matter of unusual public interest. But the department investigates cases involving extreme public interest all the time — suspected terrorist acts, alleged civil rights violations by police and possible crimes by financial institutions, for example. It is for precisely these situations that the rules exist, so that the department cannot speak outside the bounds of court when it does not bring charges.

One might claim that Clinton should not receive special treatment from the government, but that works both ways. The rule of law also means that she should not get worse treatment than anyone else, either. Instead Comey took himself outside the rule of law, becoming not just the police, but also prosecutor, judge, and jury. That is a very dangerous precedent in a country that prides itself on guaranteeing that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (and not in the fickle court of public opinion).

With the primaries essentially wrapped up, PolitiFact did an analysis of the 2016 presidential primaries and the statements from all the candidates. It is an interesting read.

The primaries lasted 465 days (100 days more than a year), and PolitiFact published 650 fact checks (1.4 checks a day).

The first conclusion is somewhat unexpected — the rating given the most to statements from political candidates was “Mostly True”. So those who think that all politicians lie all the time are being a little too cynical. In addition, if you divide the ratings into two groups, they are almost evenly split between those that rate True, Mostly True, and Half True, and those that rate Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire. In fact, the “truthy” ratings slightly outnumber the “falsey” ones.

But when they compare the two last politicians standing (Trump and Clinton), the results are sadly expected. Donald Trump received more “Pants on Fire” ratings than all the other candidates for president combined. And 78% of all his ratings were “falsey”.

On the other hand, 73% of the ratings received by Hillary Clinton were “truthy”. She only received one “Pants on Fire” rating (she claimed she was the only presidential candidate — on either side — who had ads run against her by Wall Street).

Bottom line? “Donald Trump lies. A lot. Even for a politician.”

One of the things that Trump lies about is his generosity and charity. He keeps claiming to have given lots of money to charities, even when the charities have no record of him making any donations.

But it is much worse than that. Four years ago, at a charity fundraiser, Trump bought a Denver Bronco’s helmet autographed by Tim Tebow, and a Tebow jersey. The $12,000 he paid went to the Susan G. Komen foundation (which itself has been the subject of controversy).

The problem is that Trump used money from his Trump Foundation to pay for the helmet and jersey, and then kept the items himself. The Trump Foundation is largely funded by other people’s money — at the time of the fundraiser, Trump had not put any of his own money in the foundation for at least three years.

That’s right, Trump took money that other people had donated to his “charity” and used it to buy a rather expensive gift for himself. So Trump not only lies, he steals. And despite Trump’s claim to be a good businessman, now that Tebow is no longer quite as famous, the helmet and jersey that Trump bought for $12,000 can be bought online for about $415.

Actor Aziz Ansari recently published an opinion piece in the NY Times titled “Why Trump Makes Me Scared for My Family“. Ansari isn’t a religious person, but he is the son of Muslim immigrants.

You should read the whole article, but I just wanted to quote one thing. Mainly because it supports my theory that the nasty things that Donald Trump says about other people really apply more to Trump himself.

Xenophobic rhetoric was central to Mr. Trump’s campaign long before the attack in Orlando. This is a guy who kicked off his presidential run by calling Mexicans “rapists” who were “bringing drugs” to this country. Numerous times, he has said that Muslims in New Jersey were cheering in the streets on Sept. 11, 2001. This has been continually disproved, but he stands by it. I don’t know what every Muslim American was doing that day, but I can tell you what my family was doing. I was studying at N.Y.U., and I lived near the World Trade Center. When the second plane hit, I was on the phone with my mother, who called to tell me to leave my dorm building.

The haunting sound of the second plane hitting the towers is forever ingrained in my head. My building was close enough that it shook upon impact. I was scared for my life as my fellow students and I trekked the panicked streets of Manhattan. My family, unable to reach me on my cellphone, was terrified about my safety as they watched the towers collapse. There was absolutely no cheering. Only sadness, horror and fear.

Mr. Trump, in response to the attack in Orlando, began a tweet with these words: “Appreciate the congrats.” It appears that day he was the one who was celebrating after an attack.

© David Horsey

I don’t get it. If Bill Clinton wanted to compromise the Benghazi investigation by having a sneaky private conversation with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, why would it happen in a public place?

And after dozens of Republican investigations into Benghazi, why does anyone even listen to this noise anymore?