Fact Checking “Journalist” Rachel Scott’s Trump Interview

It will almost always be more effective to use a single … compelling … argument … than [the] “shotgun” approach [of] multiple weaker arguments

Harvard Guide to Writing a Philosophy Paper

In her recent interview with Donald Trump before the National Association of Black Journalists, Rachel Scott of ABC began with a shotgun approach of opening smears, that many people feel it’s not appropriate for Trump to even be there and that he has pushed false claims, followed by 5 confused accusations of racism.   The first is that Trump “pushed” the false views that Barack Obama and Nikki Haley were not born in America.  The second is that he told four women of color” to go back where they came from.  The third is that he called black DA’s names like “rabid” and “animal”. The fourth is that he called black journalists “losers” and said they asked racist questions.  The fifth is that he had dinner with a white supremacist at Mar-a-Lago.   After smearing him, she asks the fake question, which is actually the disguised assertion that black voters should not trust him. Typically, all of Scott’s smears are either outright false, misleading or lacking context. 

Scott’s first accusation, that Trump “pushed” the views that Obama and Haley were not born in America is false.   First, some “fact checkers” have stated the false view that the Hillary Clinton campaign did not begin the rumor about Obama.  Although it is not proven that Hillary herself began that rumor, that rumor began with her campaign staff.  As Politico reports: “The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics”. After the rumour was started by the Hillary campaign, Trump merely asked the question whether it was true and set out to investigate.  After his investigation, Trump admitted that Obama was born in Hawaii.  Asking questions used to be something permitted in the United States, especially when the questioning is begun by the Hillary campaign, but whether one is now permitted to ask questions depends on whether one is a Democrat or not.

Trump never “pushed” the view that Nikki Haley was not born in America.  He questioned whether, given her parent’s immigration status, she is disqualified from being president of the United States.  He was wrong about that, but Scott’s claim that Trump said she was not born in America is flat out false.  One is not advised to hold one’s breath waiting for Scott to apologize and correct the record.

Trump did not tell 4 “women of color” to “go back where they came from (their country of origin)”.  Here are Trump’s precise words (should anyone still be interested in the truth),

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came?  Then come back and show us how it is done.“

A competent high school student should be able to think this through.  If, after taking criticism from my know-it-all neighbor about my child’s behavior, I tell her to go back to her house and solve her child’s behavior problem and then come back and fix my child’s behavior problem, I have not kicked her out of my house.  I have actually said she can come back to my house after she solves her own problems.  Trump’s statement is actually a euphemism, an “indirect” way of referring to his neighbor’s hypocrisy and limitations.  Telling “the Squad” to go and solve the problems in their ancestral countries and then come back and solve ours is just an euphemism for saying that they actually don’t know how to solve anything, that they are very good at complaining and not good at solving real problems!

Her third accusation is that Trump called certain black DA’s nasty names, e.g., he called black Atlanta DA Fani Willis a “rabid partisan” and called black New York DA Alvin Bragg a “Soros-backed animal”.   It is true that Trump called these DA’s these nasty names.  First, however, Scott’s accusations illustrate a common sophistry used by the Left (Democrats).  Calling a black DA a nasty name is not racist unless one called them that name because they are black and, of course, Scott provided no evidence whatsoever that the race of the DA’s played any role in Trump’s choice of words.  In fact, Trump’s harsh language is race-neutral.  Trump’s harsh words about these black DA’s were a response to the absurd political nature of the lawsuits brought by these DA’s.  Indeed, one need only look at what has happened to all of these partisan lawsuits since the time that Trump used those harsh words.  All have turned into embarrassing circuses.   Bragg did manage to get a conviction with an overwhelmingly Trump-hating Democrat jury in New York but that was undercut by the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity (in addition to the absurd and lawless nature of the case from the beginning involving $130,000 “hush money” payments to a porn star).

Scott’s message here, the Democrat’s standard message, is clear.  We Democrats can literally drum up absurd political indictments to ruin your political campaign and put you in prison for decades but you are not allowed to call us nasty names for doing so.  Typical!

Scott’s fourth accusation is that Trump said certain black “journalists” asked stupid and racist questions.  One of these was CNN’s Abby Phillip’s who asked Trump if he asked Acting AG Matthew Whittaker to “reign in” special prosecutor Robert Mueller (who was appointed to harass Trump over the Trump-Russia collusion hoax).  Trump called this a “stupid question” because it is actually not a question but a disguised attempt to smear him.  Trump could answer this question either “Yes” or “No”.  If he answers “Yes” then he has admitted to wrong-doing.  If he answers “No”, the only answer he can reasonably give, then Phillip has managed to suggest that he is refusing to admit that he did something inappropriate.  Instead to saying it was a “stupid question,” Trump should, perhaps, have said that it was a smear disguised as a question.

Scott’s fifth accusation is that Trump had dinner with a white supremacist, Nick Fuentes, at Mar-a-Lago.  Unfortunately, Scott forgot to mention the context, that Trump had planned a dinner with his black friend former rapper, Kayne West, who, unknown to Trump, invited Fuentes along.  And it is not clear, except to morally confused demagogues, why Trump should be blamed for something West did on his own.  West has not denied that it was he who invited Fuentes along.

Scott uses the “shotgun” approach of opening with 5 superficial and vague smears making it impossible for Trump to get a fair hearing.  If Scott had been interested in the truth, she would have made each accusation one at a time and given Trump the opportunity chance to respond.  But Scott made very clear that her aim was not truth.  It was to smear Trump for her Party.  The most important point, however, is that in doing so, she damaged her black audience who should have been given the right to hear Trump defend himself in a free and fair discussion, a concept no longer found on the Left.  What are Democrats always afraid of? 

At this, smearing, Scott is good, but “to call them ‘journalists’ is a misnomer.”

Agree/Disagree with the author(s)? Let them know in the comments below and be heard by 10’s of thousands of CDN readers each day!