Trump News Conference: Watch It For Yourself
The full, unedited Trump news conference with comments on Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, Joe Biden, January 6th, stolen election, and more that is making headlines. Come for the greatest hits of Trump speak, stay for the going down with Willie Brown helicopter story…
From the Washinton Post:
The news conference marked an attempt by Trump to reclaim the spotlight after several rough weeks for his campaign, with advisers and allies calling for changes amid tightening polls. A national survey from Marquette Law School found Harris with a narrow lead over Trump among registered voters. In Georgia — a state where Trump had a polling advantage against Biden — a new poll found Trump and Harris tied in a head-to-head matchup among likely voters.
Trump himself has grown frustrated, people close to him said, with the media attention on Harris, along with her rising poll numbers. When he heard his team had summoned reporters to Florida for a briefing without him, he asked them to arrange for buses to take them to his club so he could hold a news conference, people familiar with his campaign said. Like others, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private deliberations.
His frustration was visible throughout. When asked about Jan. 6 and the violent rioters who stormed the Capitol to stop the certification of his 2020 reelection loss, he repeatedly bragged about the large crowd he drew to the National Mall.
Trump falsely claimed there was a peaceful transition “last time” and that “nobody was killed,” despite the fact the violent attack left five people dead, including a police officer and a woman shot by police. Two other officers on duty that day later died by suicide, and more than 100 officers were injured. Trump also fixated on the size of the crowd that saw him speak near the White House before the attack, claiming without evidence that it was bigger than when Martin Luther King Jr. spoke from the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington.
“Same real estate, same everything,” he said. “We actually had more people.” He suggested without evidence that pictures of his crowd that day were suppressed.
He expressed repeated frustration about Harris becoming the Democratic nominee, grumbling extensively about Biden leaving the race even as he claimed he was not complaining. At one point, he even falsely said it was unconstitutional for Harris to become the nominee.
At times, he did not hide his visible frustration. “What a stupid question,” he said, when asked why Harris was campaigning more frequently than he was.
“I am doing tremendous amounts of taping here. We have commercials at a level I don’t think anybody has ever done before,” he said.
Trump commented on abortion medication after a reporter asked him about the possibility that he would direct his Food and Drug Administration to “revoke access” to mifepristone, a key abortion drug. Trump did not rule out doing so in his response, despite previously praising a Supreme Court ruling that maintained access to the drug.
Trump said he was less concerned now about Democrats using the reversal of Roe v. Wade, made possible by his appointments to the Supreme Court, to win the election in 2024. Democrats have said they plan to make abortion a focal point of their campaign and have had success in recent elections by elevating the topic.
“That issue … is very much subdued,” Trump said.
He declined to say how he would vote in a Florida abortion referendum that he predicted liberals would win.
Trump attacked Harris in personal terms, mispronouncing her name, as he has done before, and hinted again at criticism of her multiracial identity. Trump last week falsely accused Harris, who was born to a Jamaican father and Indian mother, of once hiding her Black heritage.
“I’ve known her a long time,” Trump said, noting he donated to Harris earlier in her political career. “To me, it doesn’t matter. But to her, from her standpoint, I think it’s very disrespectful to both really, whether it’s Indian or Black.”
Trump’s willingness to do one of these is refreshing, compared to what we’ve seen for the last few months from Biden.
It’s a real opportunity for Kamala to show him up and give an even stronger one.Report
Trump didn’t do this to demonstrate anything. he did it because he hates not being the center of attention. And he lied, deflected and dodged just like he always does.
Frankly, after the media ran Biden off for less, some of us expected more form the press then being stenographers of a rambling looser. We should have known better.Report
His intentions are unrelated to epiphenomenon that swirl around the outcomes of his actions?
Wow. I didn’t know that. I just — you’re telling me now for the first time.Report
Allegedly Harris did a couple of minutes answering rapid fire questions from her pool reporters in Michigan but there were no slip ups so it wasn’t reported on widely. A start but not enough obviously- she did say she’s going to do a full sit down interview before month end.Report
They should really publicize that footage.
I’m being serious.Report
What’s the concern here? That she can’t answer questions?Report
That she’ll answer them poorly in a way that makes her look petty and stupid.
For example, here’s her interview when she was being questioned about her failures in her role as Border Czar back in 2021 in an interview with Lester Holt.Report
Well, we have plenty of evidence of Presidential candidates answering interview questions in ways that make them look petty and stupid (or worse!) so definitely something to be concerned about!
Since you asked, here’s video of her fielding questions on the tarmac: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4819670-harris-trump-press-conference-michigan-arizona-reporters-questions-interview/amp/
Opinions will vary, I’m sure.Report
Great news!
I’m sure that she’ll benefit from something like that going viral.
I understand that she’ll do a full interview somewhere between now and the end of August.Report
Thank you Kazzy. I’m not surprised it didn’t get wider play because it was a perfectly solid couple of exchanges. No slip ups.Report
FWIW… this site is the only place I’m seeing anyone fretting about her media presence to date.Report
It’s certainly being talked about by a wide range of folks though it’s certainly focused among Harris’ detractors. Fortunately it’s easily enough dealt with by simply doing some media stuff which happily also is something ya have to do to run for President.Report
I’m sure folks are talking about it but in the Meat World — where most folks I know are Kamala-backers or at least Trump-haters — I haven’t seen it give anyone pause.
But, yea, it’ll sort itself out. As I said elsewhere, lotta sour grapes right now.Report
She interviewed with Rolling Stone. I’m not inclined to give the media the self-regard they have for themselves.Report
Me neither the media is overfull of themselves but Harris will still need to do a lot more interviewing.Report
“Harris will still need to do a lot more interviewing.”
Or else what?
One of the things that 2016 and 2020 proved is the value of bypassing the mainstream media outlets and communicating directly with voters via social media and alternative outlets like Rolling Stone and Teen Vogue.
So long as Harris is riding a wave of enthusiasm and energy and getting good press on social media and alternate outlets, she doesn’t seem to need to bother with NYT or WaPo.Report
I didn’t say she needs to do anything at all with the Wapo or the Grey Lady (fish em) but she does need to engage with the media generally. She has some time to do it but it needs to be done. It’s part of the job of being a candidate and she needs it both to practice her communication and to hone her messages. It’s not 2020, covid isn’t raging and she needs to control how she’s defined. If she doesn’t do it then her enemies will do it for her- just because they haven’t so far doesn’t mean they can’t, especially if she cedes the job to them.Report
The reason I make a point of it is that I keep seeing all these pundit pieces offering unsolicited campaign advice – “The 5 Things Harris Must Do” or “Here’s What The Democrats Must Do” or “Here’s Who Harris Must Pick As VP”.
To which I ask, “Or else what?” What happens if she ignores their advice?
The premise of most of these articles is that the pundit is a Savvy Politics-Knower and has a keen grasp of how to win elections and a deep understanding of what the public wants and how they feel.
Except…recent events have demonstrated how utterly absurd this thinking is.
Only a month ago the Conventional Wisdom was that if Biden were to step aside, Harris would perform only about as well, or maybe worse and really, there would be no big upset or change.
I thought this, you thought this, everyone here at OT thought this, all the major pundits thought this.
I was wrong, you were wrong, everyone was wrong. No one predicted the sudden change in attitude towards Harris, no one saw the underlying hunger in the Dem electorate or understood how they were feeling.
So I just don’t see that Harris needs anyone’s advice on what she needs to do. She seems to be doing just fine as she is.Report
What happens if she ignores their advice?
What happens if the Democrats ignored the unsolicited advice to have Biden step down due to his age?
What happens if the Seahawks followed the unsolicited advice to run Marshawn Lynch instead of going for a pass at Super Bowl XLIX?
everyone here at OT thought this
Not everyone. I can think of at least one person who thought that “a chance” was preferable to “not a chance”.Report
No you didn’t.
You didn’t foresee what the consequences of Biden stepping down would be.
You were taken by surprise just like all of us were.Report
“You didn’t think that Harris would knock it out of the park!”
“You’re right. I didn’t. But your claim was that nobody thought that Harris would be better than Biden.”
I thought, and argued, that since Biden vs. Trump was likely to give us Trump that Biden vs. What’s In The Box was preferable. Even if Harris was What’s In The Box… because a chance was preferable to no chance.
And I was arguing against people who were explaining that Biden was the best that the Democrats could do.Report
This seems a pretty tepid defense against my charge of pundits claiming knowledge and expertise they really don’t have.
Another example is Vance flopping spectacularly. Who saw that coming? Where are all the essays “The One Person Trump Must Not Pick (And The Name Rhymes With “Dance”)”?
And yet Vance’s weirdness and creepiness and coterie of freak show advisors like Thiel and Curtis Yarvin were visible for all to see years ago.
Yet almost all major pundits are today acting shocked that the “Weird” charge is so potent. Why didn’t they foresee this?Report
I’m not entirely sure that Vance has flopped spectacularly and I’m not entirely sure that Kamala is hitting it out of the park.
I do think that she is doing better than I expected her to but I also know that the press is doing a lot of work and using kid gloves.
If the gloves ever come off, I don’t expect Harris to do as well.
In the meantime, Trump is spending a lot of time in front of journalists being asked hostile questions.Report
“ I also know that the press is doing a lot of work and using kid gloves.”
“ In the meantime, Trump is spending a lot of time in front of journalists being asked hostile questions.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…. [catches breath]… BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Report
Kazzy, there’s a video at the top of this page.
It shows Trump spending an hour with journalists being questioned.
(Or is your contention that the press isn’t treating Kamala with kid gloves?)Report
It’s that your comment made me literally laugh out loud!
Want some cheese with that whine? Must be what the sour grapes were put towards.Report
I’m not sure that you fully appreciate the complaint.
I’m complaining that Trump looks like he’s opposed by the journalists and Harris looks like she’s supported by them.
My complaint is not “this is unfair!”
It’s that it’s noticeable and noticing it is to Trump’s benefit.Report
Looks like…to who?
Other than internet commenters named “Jaybird” who exactly thinks things look this way?Report
Does the AP count?Report
Your link doesn’t support your assertion.
Nothing in it suggests “Trump looks like he’s opposed by the journalists and Harris looks like she’s supported by them.”
In fact, the article is just a whine by AP and NYT reporters that Harris doesn’t give enough facetime to to AP and NYT reporters.Report
Oh, the assertion I made about Trump is supported by the video in the post above. The one where he is taking questions for an hour.
As for what is suggested by the article, here’s a paragraph from the middle:
But it’s not the first two paragraphs so I understand if you missed it.Report
OK so the assertion that the press is opposing Trump and supporting Harris really is just your personal opinion.
That’s OK! No shame in that.
But you need to realize that other people are watching that same video and saying “Hey the dudes naked!”Report
Well, it’s not just *MY* personal opinion. It’s also the opinion of people watching Trump interact with a hostile press. (Unless you want to argue that, from the video, it looks like the relationship is somewhere between neutral and cordial.)
I absolutely understand how someone watching Trump interact with the press will come to conclusions about him. Absolutely.
My point is about whether folks will notice that they’re not coming to conclusions about Kamala interacting with the press.
As for “supporting Harris”, well, I already talked about the AP mentioning it and the AP article talked about a recent NYT editorial mentioning it.
Which, I believe, answers your question about “who other than Jaybird thinks this?”Report
The AP piece said nothing about the press supporting Harris.Report
Reporters aren’t going to talk about that. They have the illusion of neutrality to project. All you have to do is watch/read the reporting over a few years and it becomes clear that the regular media has a favorite. Even NPR was shown to have a bias towards Hillary-it was evident when she lost and the press was stunned Trump won.Report
At this point, denying media bias or incompetence should probably be treated the same as denying the moon landing. We can prove media bias both systematically and in reference to particular incidents, but considering we’ve just come through the experience of the press missing the Biden story, I don’t see how it’s not a given.Report
On this, we agree.Report
I suspect you disagree on the direction the bias runs.Report
Pinky wrote: “At this point, denying media bias or incompetence should probably be treated the same as denying the moon landing.”
A fatal problem with that comparison is that denying the moon landing is denying a specific event that happened on a specific date and involved specific people. It’s solid and sharply defined.
By contrast, “denying media bias or incompetence”…that’s about as a solid as a mist.Report
There are people who are in charge of letting the country know things such as whether the president’s health is failing. These people didn’t do their job. Within five minutes of public viewing of Biden, the country realized that he wasn’t fit for the job any more. If you want to maintain that the press was biased, or incompetent, you can argue either – I think both. But you can’t claim that they do their job well.
Note that this side discussion was about whether the press was allowing the Democratic vice-president to keep a low profile for her own political sake. It’s reasonable to compare that to the press allowing the Democratic president to keep a low profile for his own political sake. You can choose your operative word in that phrase.Report
“in charge of”
“allowing”
Are you sure you’re properly estimating how much power the press has compared to how much power the Executive Branch has?Report
Bias as you say, is difficult to pin down because what is objectively true versus subjectively opinion is also difficult to pin down.
Not to mention what is newsworthy and notable versus commonplace and not worth reporting is also itself a subjective judgement call.
Like reality itself, objectivity and neutrality is really just defined by consensus. Everyone agrees that the earth is round, so most media outlets cover flat earthers like amusing oddballs and cranks rather than serious people.
Most media people from outlets like NYT or CNN adhere to the consensus view of the upper middle American educated class and their reporting reflects that bias.
But media outlets like Fox or Sinclair or Politico don’t. They reflect the minority view of the American conservatives.Report
The difficulty in talking about objectivity is that people tend to treat it as an absolute that either is or is not (like a moon landing that either did or did not happen), rather than as one end of a continuum from objectivity through shades of subjectivity to pure bias (I want to say “solipsism” rather than “bias”).
I have studied and/or worked in four fields–journalism, history, librarianship, and now data analysis–in which objectivity is a professional goal, embedded in professional standards [*]. I strongly believe that the existence of those standards, and the training practitioners undergo to meet those standards, makes the work those practitioners do LESS SUBJECTIVE than it would otherwise be, and that is all for the good. But, no, we’re not objective.
One crucial difference between, say, the New York Times and, say, Fox News is that the New York Times binds itself by the professional standards of journalism (however much it falls short of those standards at times), whereas Fox News appears to have no standards at all. That doesn’t result in the New York Times being “objective” or always being right. It results in it being, on the whole, less solipsistic and much more worth the time to engage than Fox News is.
[*] I’m not sure data analysts have official professional standards yet, but I’ve heard proposals being kicked around, and objectivity is a central tenet.Report
An institution with the intention of objectivity has a higher potential. But I’m not even sure that the NYT claims to have a strong division between news and opinion any more. Much of the analysis and social media presence is blurry at best. DEI policies specifically dismiss objectivity. And the worst stuff on FNC is labeled opinion, or at least “news and opinion”.Report
Sorry I walked away from this discussion for a few days!
The NYT in both print and online has a separate Opinion/Review section, so it does continue to recognize a division between the two.
FNC recently shelled out $787 million in damages for doing such a poor job of labelling opinions. If they’ve been doing a better job since…good for them!
The DEI materials I am familiar with “dismiss objectivity” in more or less the same way you dismiss it, Pinky. You focus on the press not being objective. DEI materials state that no one else is objective, either. You and those materials both go further in dismissing objectivity than I would go, but I don’t have a fundamental problem with either of your views.Report
Eh, I’d compare it to listening to a play-by-play guy on the radio calling a ball game and a color guy.
I want to hear the color guy talk about how awesome the Tigers are and how crappy the Cubbies are and how the Tigers pitching has really stepped up in the last two years but the refs are blind as a bat and can’t call a strike to save their lives.
And I want to hear the play-by-play guy give me the numbers. The Tigers and the Cubs have played in Tiger Stadium 28 times in the last two years and the Cubs have beaten the Tigers 20 of those matchups.
Okay. Now I have context and can listen to the color guy with even more enjoyment. Oh, the pitching has not, in fact, turned around in the last two years. Go fig.
I don’t mind a play-by-play guy getting excited at a home run he didn’t see coming. I don’t mind a color guy laughing when the umps screw up a call in the favor of the Tigers.
But I do want to know that the play-by-play guy is giving me the *RIGHT* numbers. I want to trust his numbers.
I don’t need a game with two color guys yelling at me about how great the Tigers are and how the Cubbies barely even won.Report
This analogy doesn’t help because in politics, the choice of what number to report, and even what constitutes a “number” is itself subjective and colored by adjectives and framing.
There is a current headline at WaPo:
Trump falsely accuses Harris campaign of fabricated AI crowd photos
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/11/trump-falsely-accuses-harris-campaign-fabricated-ai-crowd-photos/
Is this an objective “number” that is being reported?
Or should it be:
Harris campaign accused of fabricated AI crowd photos
or
Clouds darken Harris campaign, dogged by accusations of fabricated AI crowd photos
or
Trump launches deranged tirade accusing Harris campaign of fabricated AI crowd photos
or
Questions arise over Trump’s mental state after deranged tirade accusing Harris campaign of fabricated AI crowd photos
Each of these is objectively true, but colored by adjectives and passive versus active voice.Report
We just can’t say whether there was AI used to make those photos, can we?
Not objectively, anyway.
Any attempt to try will be colored by motivated reasoning.
So maybe they did, maybe they didn’t.
But we know that the people who say that they did are partisan like *THIS* and the people who say that they didn’t are partisan like *THAT* and the people who say we don’t know (and, indeed, *CAN’T* know) are partisan in a third, secret way.Report
Yes, we can absolutely say what objective truth is.
It is objectively true that Harris had a lot of people at her rally.
It is objectively Trump that Trump lied about it.
It is objectively true that Trump shows signs of mental instability.
The choice of what truths to tell, is a subjective decision. WaPo stated the first two truths in their article, but left out the third one, letting readers infer it for themselves.Report
Wait, so there are objective facts that can be objectively reported without it being partisan?
This is so confusing, Chip.
All I wanted was a play-by-play guy to give me numbers that I could trust.Report
I like the play-by-play/color analogy, Jaybird. Thank you for writing it up.Report
The executive branch certainly has the power to hide the executive from the press. That’s for sure.
The only thing the press can do under those circumstances are stuff like “yell about it” or “write articles explaining why this is okay”.Report
Yeah, my phrasing was overly aggressive. But I remember the day counts during the Iran hostage crisis, and the day and body counts after a Bush event had a “Mission Accomplished” banner, and I know that journalists can at least go toe-to-toe against an administration if they decide to as a group.Report
Hey, two questions:
Do you think that Trump is currently mentally competent in that rambling speech?
Do you think the media has a job to inform people if the president is rambling about nonsense and not remembering pretty basic things?
The media at least has an excuse to have not reported Biden’s slowing(1): Biden actively hid that.
What is their excuse for not reporting Trump’s? He’s doing it in front of everyone.
1) Point of fact, Biden’s health is not ‘failing’. He’s just old. Too old, yes, and has slowed to a level that he cannot campaign and cannot be president for another four years, but that isn’t the same as ‘failing health’.Report
I watched the first 11 minutes of the video, his opening statement. It was bizarre, half of it was ridiculous, and nearly every word of it he wouldn’t have been able to say if he had any sense of shame. So yeah, it was an average Trump speech, no different than any over the last eight years. This is the person that the voters wanted and the electors certified in 2016.Report
Sure, it’s Jonathan Chait, but even a stopped c;lock is right twice a day:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/medias-bias-kamala-harris-donald-trump-double-standard.htmlReport
Is it me? Because I thought that.
I will admit, my prediction was actually ‘Biden’s support will get worse and worse because he’s just going to keep doing badly, whereas Harris will probably start out the same as Biden is currently, but she will stay roughly there if everything stays the same. And it’s even possible she’s actually do something useful to pull ahead, as she will have not already given up, unlike Biden’.
So I didn’t foresee this, but I certainly thought she would do _better_ than Biden (mostly because Biden was facing a slow slide to nothingness) and said as much.
And under no circumstances whatsoever did I think what you said elsewhere in the thread, that Biden was somehow the best the Democrats could do. Biden was never a particularly good candidate, he was only run because it was ‘his turn’, and he mostly won because he wasn’t Trump.Report
He is losing it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/us/politics/trump-helicopter-willie-brown.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Bk4.JcCw._4-K1z1DIapT&smid=url-share
Former President Donald J. Trump told a jaw-dropping story on Thursday about nearly dying in a helicopter ride with Willie Brown, the former California politician and ex-boyfriend of his rival, Vice President Kamala Harris.
There was only one problem with the story. Or maybe two. Or maybe three.
It wasn’t the famous former San Francisco mayor on the helicopter flight at all. It was Gov. Jerry Brown, the former governor of California, who bears little resemblance to Willie Brown.
There was also no emergency landing, and the helicopter’s passengers were never in any danger at all, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was also on the flight.
Jerry Brown, who left office in January 2019, said through a spokesman, “There was no emergency landing and no discussion of Kamala Harris.”
“I call complete B.S.,” Mr. Newsom said, laughing out loud.
Mr. Trump’s errant account, delivered during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, came in response to a reporter who asked a leading question about Ms. Harris’s past relationship with Willie Brown, and whether Mr. Trump thought it might have had something to do with her career trajectory.
The two dated in 1994 and 1995, while she was a prosecutor in Alameda County, which includes Oakland, and he was the speaker of the California State Assembly, and he appointed her to two state boards. He was — and still is — married to Blanche Brown, but they have long lived separate lives.
“Well, I know Willie Brown very well,” Mr. Trump responded. “In fact, I went down in a helicopter with him.”
He went on to tell a cinematic tale of a close call with death — and of politically advantageous gossip on death’s door:Report
And yet there’s no media drumbeat for him to go is there?Report
TFG’s getting Jerry and Willie Brown confused reminds me of this Miller Lite commercial:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=miller+lite+commercial+frank+and+brooks+robinson#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d57f4770,vid:LOz9JIPjAMk,st:0Report
People are wondering if he’s okay: https://outsidethebeltway.com/is-donald-trump-okay/
Unfortunately, the media is incentivized to look the other way.Report
Being the leader of a cult of personality means never having to say you’re sorry.
Or, you know, anything remotely coherent.Report
At this point Queeg stops, realizing how he sounds. Trump, not so much.Report
https://x.com/Esqueer_/status/1821948487577022838?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1821948487577022838%7Ctwgr%5E963ebc0214d4ac539b29eda4d7ea307b7cbbf576%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdisqus.com%2Fembed%2Fcomments%2F%3Fbase%3Ddefaultf%3Dlawyersgunsmoneyblog-comt_i%3D14362820https3A2F2Fwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com2F3Fp3D143628t_u%3Dhttps3A2F2Fwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com2F20242F082Fyour-compliment-is-sufficient-lewist_e%3DYour20compliment20was20sufficient20Lewist_d%3DYour20compliment20was20sufficient20Lewis20-20Lawyers2C20Guns202620Moneyt_t%3DYour20compliment20was20sufficient20Lewiss_o%3Dascversion%3D4cca83b0da0691f931ef86061fb7db43Report
Did this also come from LGM? What’s going on over there? I thought they were a sister site so I assumed they had some decency.Report
The most vile indecency is quoting conservatives verbatim.Report
Deranged Street Person Or Presidential Candidate?
Has anyone noticed that Kamala CHEATED at the airport? There was nobody at the plane, and she “A.I.’d” it, and showed a massive “crowd” of so-called followers, BUT THEY DIDN’T EXIST! She was turned in by a maintenance worker at the airport when he noticed the fake crowd picture, but there was nobody there, later confirmed by the reflection of the mirror like finish on the Vice Presidential Plane. She’s a CHEATER. She had NOBODY waiting, and the “crowd” looked like 10,000 people! Same thing is happening with her fake “crowds” at her speeches. This is the way the Democrats win Elections, by CHEATING – And they’re even worse at the Ballot Box. She should be disqualified because the creation of a fake image is ELECTION INTERFERENCE. Anyone who does that will cheat at ANYTHING!Report
Wait, is that something he actually said?Report
I believe he “Truth’ed” it. But it is attributed to him in multiple places.Report
That is a verbatim quote from his Truth Social post.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112944255426268462Report
Not for nothing – in the debate about the objectivity of the AI enhanced crowd lie that TFG keeps telling – but I am led to understand by my colleagues working in AI that such an image would have meta data that would allow its veracity to be objectively tested. Meaning if you looked the the data about the data that make up the photo you’d know it was faked.
Sadly I suspect the media is too dense to realize that would be a story worth pursuing.Report