Same tactics the liberal MSM used against me.
It was the most predictable thing, and for me, a very familiar thing as well. The New York Times, which might as well be the official newsletter of the Democrat Party and the Hillary campaign, goes around and interviews every woman it can find who’s ever had contact with Donald Trump – then writes a story that drips with implication he treats them boorishly and in a sexist manner.
But there’s one problem: Their star witness immediately came forward and said the Times completely misrepresented what she told them. Case in point: She showed up at a pool party Trump hosted without a swimsuit, so he offered her one and suggested she changed into it. How does that Times present that? They tell us Trump “suggested she change out of her clothes.
Yeah. They do stuff like this. And I should know because it’s the same thing the liberal media tried to do to me. They start digging into your entire life’s history and talk to anyone they can find who might portray you in a negative way. Then they take whatever they get and package it in the most unflattering way possible. Suddenly someone who’s never had a problem with anyone is this awful, sexist monster who routinely goes around offending and upsetting women.
I was glad to see that Trump’s attorney demanded a retraction. I doubt the Times will comply, and given the way libel laws work it’s almost impossible for a public figure to win a lawsuit on the matter. But what matters here is not really that Trump win a legal action. It’s that people understand the Times lies. Note what I’m telling you here: They didn’t just get it wrong. They didn’t just make a mistake. They lied. You don’t so dramatically misrepresent what a source tells you – to the point where she’s going on TV to denounce you for the way she was portrayed – if you were just making a little mistake.
I’m sure the Times realizes it has a problem with this whole Trump-mistreats-women narrative that it’s trying to create. That is the fact that nothing they could remotely suggest Donald Trump has done can compare to the things we know Bill Clinton has done, and that Hillary has helped enable by covering up the truth and, in at least one case, threatening a woman if she did not remain silent about what happened.
Maybe the Times is hoping to create an equivalence between Trump and Bill Clinton on this issue because they know Bill’s behavior (and Hillary’s enabling of it) is a real problem for Hillary. Maybe they think that if they can sell people on the idea that Trump behaves in exactly the same way, they can neutralize the problem for Hillary or perhaps even turn her into some sort of sympathetic victim.
The problem with all this, of course, is that in order to accomplish any of this they first have to lie to you. They have to present events in a way that does not reflect what really happened, in order to make a man seem to be what he really is not. The media has tremendous power to create narratives – particularly false ones – just by continuing to use certain words and repeat certain insinuations. Most of the general public has neither the time nor the inclination to fact-check all these insinuations to ensure they’re true. But they hear them, and they make an impression.
They did it to me. They’re trying to do it to Donald Trump. The good news, though, is that Trump doesn’t take this stuff lying down – and he’ll use his platforms on social media and elsewhere to fire back with both barrels. Good. The New York Times tends to believe the cliché that you shouldn’t pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel – and of course, the Times is the one with all that ink. Who would fight them?
This is one of the ways Donald Trump is changing the rules of the game, and that badly needs to happen.