Those of you who still read mainstream media organs like the Washington Post will have noticed the prevalence in reports about statements by Donald Trump of the words “false,” “baseless, “and “without evidence.” I dare say the majority of Trump's comments, as reported by the MSM, are accompanied by one of those words/phrases. A fair number of assertions by other Republicans are, as well.
There’s no question that many of Trump’s assertions are, indeed, false. But many are not, or at least have not been demonstrated to be.
To question as many of these statements as possible, the MSM resorts to calling them baseless or without evidence. And in order to do so, it has adopted what might generously be called an idiosyncratic view of what constitutes evidence. To put it less generously, many of the media’s claims that Trump statements are “without evidence” are simply false.
Consider this article by the Washington Post’s “fact checker,” Glenn Kessler. Based on a poll by the Post, the article argues that (1) Republican voters are more inclined to believe false claims by Trump than they were in 2018 and (2) Republican voters have diverged from other Americans about “the meaning of honesty, itself.”
At the end of this post, I’ll discuss the first claim. What I want to focus on, though, is how Kessler’s piece shows that he and other anti-Trump reporters have diverged from the ordinary understanding of what “evidence” means.
Consider this passage:
Trump’s claim — without evidence — that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not have invaded [Ukraine] if Trump had remained president has resonated with Republicans.
In fact, there is clear evidence that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump had remained president. Putin has long had designs on Ukraine. Putin invaded and annexed a portion of Ukraine when Barack Obama was president. Putin invaded Ukraine after Joe Biden became president. Putin did not invade Russia when Trump was president.
Under any proper understanding of “evidence,” this is evidence that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump had remained president. Indeed, short of a statement by Putin to this effect, it’s difficult to see what better evidence there might be to support this kind of statement about a counter-factual situation (Trump, of course, did not remain president).
This evidence may not persuade Kessler. Frankly, it doesn’t persuade me. I have no firm opinion about whether Putin would have invaded Ukraine in a second Trump term.
But the “before-and-after” facts are evidence that supports Trump’s claim. If presented to a jury, they would be admitted as such. People have always used this sort of reasoning when they think about what would have happened “if.”
Now consider this passage:
Without evidence, Trump claims Biden is responsible for the myriad criminal cases brought against the former president.
“Without evidence?” Two of the four criminal cases against Trump have been brought by the Biden Justice Department. In my view, Biden is responsible for any major action the DOJ takes.
It’s possible that Biden did not review or approve the bringing of the criminal cases against Biden. As far as I’m aware, there’s no evidence that he did.
But Biden appointed Merrick Garland to run the Justice Department. And I don’t think there’s any dispute that Garland reviewed and approved the criminal cases. Thus, I would argue that Biden is responsible for bringing the cases because the man he appointed Attorney General reviewed and approved them.
One can disagree with my view of presidential responsibility in this context. But to say there’s no evidence that Biden is responsible for the federal prosecutions of Trump is to dismiss, without discussion, a plausible and commonly held theory of presidential responsibility.
I’ll conclude by discussing Kessler’s view, based on findings in the Post’s poll, that Republican voters are more inclined to believe false claims by Trump than they were in 2018. The poll focused on two propositions the Post considers false.
The first is about Russian interference in the 2016 election. In 2018, 27 percent of Republicans said they believed Trump’s claim that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election. Today, more Republicans, 37 percent, say they believe this claim.
Does this mean Republicans are more gullible now than in 2018 — more easily duped by Trump? Possibly.
However, in 2018, the 2016 election was fresh in people’s minds. Six years later, it’s a distant memory. It’s not clear to me why it’s probative to ask people about an election that occurred years ago.
It may also be significant that, between the time of the two polls, claims of anti-Trump organs like the Post about alleged collusion in the 2016 election between Trump and Russia were shown to be without real support. This, not gullibility, may explain why Republicans in the second poll were more likely to believe what Trump has to say about Russian involvement in the 2016 election, and less likely to believe his critics.
The other poll question was about whether there was widespread voter fraud in the 2016 election. Six years ago, 26 percent of Republicans believed that this was the case. Now, 38 percent of Republicans hold this belief.
Again, a poll in 2024 about what people think happened in 2016 isn’t worth much. I would also point out that the rules for voting in the 2020 election were relaxed, thus increasing opportunities for fraud. It’s possible that some who were polled think the 2020 rules were in place in 2016. This confusion, rather than gullibility or blind faith in Trump’s utterances, might explain the increase in the number of Republicans who believe fraud was widespread in 2016.
I understand why Kessler and other media-appointed, anti-Trump guardians of the “truth” are unhappy that, if anything, people are more inclined to believe what Trump says than they once were. All that media huffing and puffing — so little to show for it.
I don’t want to tell Kessler and his colleagues how to do their job (he doesn’t see my stuff these days, anyway), but here’s a suggestion: Stop overplaying your hand.
Trump makes plenty of false statements. There’s no need to redefine the meaning of “evidence” in order to make him look worse than what the evidence, correctly defined, supports.
Great. The leftist MSM and "fact" checkers are particularly galling when they're crickets in the face of Biden lies. In the 1988 campaign Biden's lies and plagiarism drove him from the presidential race. He lies about most everything, like where he went to and how he did in college, claims he lowered the deficit, his inflation is lower than Trump's, the border is secure, he can't do anything about the border without congressional action, he was never involved in Hunter's schemes, and many other things. And there's substantial evidence he was party to egregious Biden family influence peddling. Fact checkers and the MSM never call Biden on any of this, a blatant double standard when you consider their treatment of Trump. It's often been mentioned Trump, like Cleveland, is seeking a non-consecutive term, but Trump mirrors Cleveland in a more relevant way. For both Cleveland and Trump, many voters "love him for the enemies he makes." Jim Dueholm
They will never learn. They have dropped even a pretense of journalistic standards in their efforts to get Trump and literally NO ONE outside their own bubble believes anything mainstream media says but tweets and other forms of revelation brought directly to those who oppose Democrats simply enrages them more and makes them more likely to support Trump. The media has built Trump's support among Republicans for 8 years now die to their dishonesty. It's helped solidify his cultish base which sees him as a media victim and thus won't abandon him no matter what so as not to give a victory to the media. If there was ever a chance of a non lunatic Republican like DeSantis or Haley getting the nomination the media helped ruin it. Now Biden is so horrible Trump might actually beat him. Tue media will spend the next four months telling Democrats what they already believe and further enraging Republicans.