Washington Post fact-check's Harris' 'little history lesson' about Lincoln: 'Wasn't exactly true'
By: Joseph Wulfsohn (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Vice President repeatedly asks Kamala Harris if Democrats will expand size of high court.
The Washington Post offered a sharp rebuke to the "little history lesson" Sen. Kamala Harris shared during Wednesday night's vice presidential debate, which apparently "wasn't exactly true."
During an exchange with Vice President Mike Pence on the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Harris suggested that one of the most revered Republican presidents would be in favor of allowing a newly elected president to fill a vacant seat instead of rushing a confirmation in the heat of an election.
She made her argument in response to Pence saying that President Trump's appointment is following precedent.
"I'm so glad we went through a little history lesson. Let's do that a little more," Harris told Pence. "In 1864... Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection. And it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln's party was in charge not only of the White House but the Senate. But Honest Abe said, 'It's not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person will be able to select who will serve on the highest court of the land."
Well, according to a report from The Washington Post on Thursday, Harris did not accurately describe what took place under Lincoln when filling the vacant seat of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.
"Harris is correct that a seat became available 27 days before the election. And that Lincoln didn't nominate anyone until after he won," the Post wrote. "But there is no evidence he thought the seat should be filled by the winner of the election. In fact, he had other motives for the delay."
According to Lincoln historian Michael Burlingame, Lincoln told his aides he wanted to delay his Supreme Court confirmation process because he was "waiting to receive expressions of public opinion from the country," though the Post noted, "that didn't mean he was waiting for ballots so much as the mail."
"The overarching effect of the delay is that it held Lincoln's broad but shaky coalition of conservative and radical Republicans together," the Post explained. "Congress was in recess until early December, so there would have been no point in naming a man before the election anyway. Lincoln shrewdly used that to his advantage. If he had lost the election, there is no evidence he wouldn't have filled the spot in the lame-duck session."
The Post concluded, "So Harris is mistaken about Lincoln's motivations in this regard."
National Review senior writer Dan McLaughin went even further, accusing Harris of "dishonesty" with her Lincoln anecdote.
"Lincoln, of course, said no such thing," McLaughlin refuted the Democrat Wednesday night. "He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December."
He added, "Kamala Harris is simply inventing history."
Joseph A. Wulfsohn is a media reporter for Fox News.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
101 visitors
She got away with it anyway. Kind of like when the well-educated Obama thought Lincoln was the "founder" of the Republican Party. That was when PBS covered up for him. At least here the Post told the truth - 2 days later!
I'm surprised the Post bothered to address it, much less expose it. Good for them.
Shall we grant them a modicum of decency?
Seriously, Vic?
A Trumpist complaining about someone else's lies?
That's hilarious!
Something someone said -
"There are none so blind as those who will not see"
The media has done most of it.
It's time to face facts.
It is time for you to face reality.
Why do you want to subject this country to four more years of this daily utter chaos? It's not going to get better. Trump is unfit to hold office and he will be opposed 24/7 every day he is there.
You claim to love your country, so come to your senses. He is not fit to hold office and everyone knows it, including his voters.
First of all Donald Trump is off topic.
Second, it is China and the American left that has created all the violence, misery and chaos. Anyone that thinks that it will go away by simply doing what the left wants is out of their minds!
Donald Trump is not fit to hold office and that will never change. Find other Republicans to carry your banner. People who continue to support Trump in the face of overwhelming evidence he is not fit will destroy this country.
We will destroy the American left - that I promise!
The Trump cult is strong.
What would you all have done if Trump never ran for office? Mass suicide?
THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR ACCUSATION "IT IS CHINA" SO IT IS VERY MUCH ON TOPIC.
China CREATED all the violence, misery and chaos? Really? How did they create it? Did they send their PLA to America to whip up the violence? Was it ordered by Xi Jinping and the Americans obeyed?
Trump says blame China, so blame China. And the Pied PIper has his loyal followers. A virus may have developed in China. Even after Trump waited too long to do anything at all WHEN HE KNEW ALL ABOUT IT he stopped SOME travellers from China, but thousands more from China still came to the USA, but blame China.
You misquoted me. I said: "Second, it is China and the American left that has created all the violence, misery and chaos."
China's part of that was the misery (and death) caused by that pandemic it allowed to infect the world.
Trump says blame China
I blame China because they let it happen. Nothing you say can ever deny that fact!
They actively tried to cover up the virus. Who doesn't think they should be blamed for that?
At the very least. Dr Yan says it was deliberate!
Vic,
This is a common mistake. It is even listed in wiki that way, and there have been many articles (albeit poorly researched) that have said that he did it for the reasons that Harris said. Even your explanation is not right.
Here is the full explanation:
I fact-checked several comments made during the debate, and several from both candidates were wrong. Hardly the first time this has happened.
First off, it's not a common mistake. Kamala Harris attributed a quote to Lincoln which was never stated.
Even your explanation is not right.
My explanation? I don't believe that I gave one.
I fact-checked several comments made during the debate, and several from both candidates were wrong.
I assume you declared it a draw. I call it a TKO by Pence, despite what appears to be a growing suspicion that Harris had knowledge of topics & questions.
Let's not vote for Biden-Harris because Harris told a lie. Let's vote for Trump-Pence, whose head of ticket has told tens of thousands of lies.
That is some snappy logic.
I read it myself on Wiki, so it is a common mistake.
You know what I mean. The article YOU posted.
I do declare it a draw. And I'm sorry, but I am not going to buy into some conspiracy that she got the questions first, especially when at first YOU declared that the moderator was fair.
If it's logic, it is yours. I vote on what individuals do.
Don't we take Wiki with a grain of salt? Anyone can post there.
You know what I mean. The article YOU posted.
Thank you. I just wanted to make that clear. It is fair to say that Abraham Lincoln's actions were based on the politics of the 1860's and what he was able to do. He never made the statement Kamala Harris alleged. Despite Fox News or the Washington Post trying to correct it 2 days later, most people believe what they heard - that's the problem.
I do declare it a draw.
See, I knew you were going to say that.
And I'm sorry, but I am not going to buy into some conspiracy that she got the questions first, especially when at first YOU declared that the moderator was fair.
I did. In the CNN case it wasn't the moderator who gave Hillary the questions.
How is Vic' s article "not right?"
Ah yes... now we have reached the point where those who believed lying made trump unfit for office and were willing to lie themselves about the number of lies trump has supposedly made, now defend lying by Democrats.
it just goes to show, all the histrionics about trump and his lies were a show. Democrats are happy when they are lied to, if it’s a democrat lying. Should Biden win, they will do nothing but play the “but trump” card as today’s supposed worst person in the history of the world becomes their new standard for a president.
' love you, too, Sean !
[deleted]
Republicans were for Lincoln before they opposed him!
When did Republicans oppose Lincoln?
Must I administer another history lesson?
The question they dare not answer. Mike Pence has now made it a campaign issue. There may not be any more debates but I'm sure the question lingers in the minds of independent voters.
As far as education goes - I really have to wonder what's going on? Barak Obama graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. I realize that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President (the GOP was founded in 1854 - 6 years before Lincoln's election). Yet how does anyone with that kind of education make such a blunder?
Some are beginning to question if Harris knew what the questions would be:
How did Kamala Harris know that VP Pence’s answer was “a good seque” into the next question, if she didn’t already have the questions beforehand? In this clip she agrees aloud with confederate Susan Page. Listen closely.
Conspiracy much?
Why would you, of all people resort to a leftist auto reply. On the tape she can clearly be heard saying "it would be a great intro into our next topic, despite the moderator still talking. That makes it a valid question. If Trump did it it would be on the front page of the New York Times. Especially since there has been a history of this. Do you recall when Donna Brazile worked at CNN and secretly she gave a town hall question in advance to Hillary Clinton?
I'm not convinced yet, but why else would she say what she did? And with such apparent knowledge and anticipation on her face?
That's pretty weird. What the hell?
Isn't it? A slip of the tongue?
Lincoln wanted to keep the seat open for his own political advantage. It was a carrot. The leading candidates were all republicans with independent power bases. Lincoln wanted them all to believe they could be the choice if he won and working for his election, rather than sulking at being passed over. The eventual nominee, salmon chase, who had been working to unseat him, campaigned diligently for him.
the senate confirmed chase the day they received the nomination. Is Harris mad they didn’t follow that precedent?
Correct. He calculated every political move he ever made.
He calculated every political move he ever made.
So does Trump. The Dems are collectively too dumb to realize it
Lol, I wish I could agree with that. Lincoln waited for a major victory before delivering his Gettysburg Address and then a bit later his Emancipation Proclamation. He got two big victories in one weekend - the victory at Gettysburg and the fall of Vicksburg. I can't help thinking how President Trump would somehow get in the way of such good fortune.
Pence laid out the administration's entire program of responses to the pandemic Wednesday night. Trump never defended himself so well. All he ever says is "I stopped flights from China right away!" He did a lot more than that and it should have been articulated months ago!
That wasn't the only lie the smirking, snarky senator made.
The same could be said about fly on the head Pence:
As the seeder already reminded another user, this seed is about Kamala Harris, not Vice-President Mike Pence.
Perrie, that's not you - you're above that.
To continue with the fact checking:
The five biggest whoppers Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) told during her Wednesday night debate with Vice President Mike Pence:
1. "The president said [coronavirus] was a hoax."
This claim has been out there for a while, circulating among liberal news sites — but the Washington Post gave the claim "four Pinocchios."
"He never said 'coronavirus, this is their new hoax,'" the Post wrote in March.
"Rather," the Post found, "Biden's ad clipped a large part of Trump's speech to make it seem as though he had. Here's the president's full quote (emphasis added to show the omission):
'Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They're politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs, you say, "How's President Trump doing?" "Oh, nothing, nothing." They have no clue, they don't have any clue. They can't even count their votes in Iowa, they can't even count. No, they can't. They can't count their votes. One of my people came up to me and said, "Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia." That didn't work out too well. They couldn't do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they've been doing it since he got in. It's all turning, they lost. It's all turning, think of it, think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know we did something that's been pretty amazing. We have 15 people in this massive country, and because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that.'
PolitiFact concluded: "Biden's video is inaccurate. We rate it False." FactCheck.org said: "Trump said that when he used the word 'hoax,' he was referring to Democrats finding fault with his administration's response to coronavirus, not the virus itself."
2. "The truth and the fact is, Joe Biden has been very clear, he will not raise taxes on anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year."
That's Biden claim, but several analyses have found otherwise.
The Tax Policy Center found that Biden's "proposals would increase taxes on average on all income groups."
"Taxpayers in the middle income quintile would see an average tax increase of about $330," the center said.
The Tax Foundation e stimated Biden's plan would lead to "about a 1.7 percent decline in after-tax income for all taxpayers on average."
The American Enterprise Institute determined that "households at every income level" would face higher taxes.
3. "We now know because of great investigative journalism that Donald Trump paid $750 in taxes."
That blockbuster New York Times story broke late last month but was quickly eclipsed by reports that the president had contracted COVID-19. Still, journalists looked into the expansive report, and Brietbart's John Carney found some interesting facts.
"The New York Times' claim that President Donald Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 is wrong," Carney found, "based on a flawed understanding of how taxes are paid. The figures below, drawn from the New York Times's own analysis of Trump's tax-return data for 2017, show that Trump paid $7,435,857 in taxes in 2017."
Carney cited The Times' story, which said this:
"But tax laws gave him one more line on which to reduce the A.M.T. Mr. Trump had $22.7 million in General Business Credit, much of it carried forward from prior years, that he could apply. The credit is a smorgasbord of tax incentives and givebacks to business owners, and in Mr. Trump's case they ranged from credits of $322,926 for Social Security and Medicare taxes paid on employee tips to at least $1.5 million related to rehabilitating the Old Post Office in Washington.
The business credit cannot be used to get a refund; it can only be applied against taxes owed. Mr. Trump had more than enough to cancel out his $7,435,857 tax bill. But on the Form 3800 for the General Business Credit, his accountants subtracted $750 from his allowable credit. Why they did that is not clear. But the result was a total federal income tax liability of $750."
"In other words," Carney wrote, "Trump paid the full amount of his taxes but spent $7,435,107 of his tax credit and $750 of cash. Both cash and the credit are government liabilities that the U.S. government accepts as payment for taxes. Paying the credit is not the equivalent of not paying taxes."
4. "The American people know that Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact. That is a fact."
Biden is on record — many times — as vowing to get rid of fracking.
In a March debate among Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said: "I'm talking about stopping fracking ... I'm talking about telling the fossil fuel industry that they are going to stop destroying this planet. No ifs, buts and maybes about it."
Biden said emphatically: "So am I."
On Jan. 24, while talking with a New Hampshire voter, Biden said he would stop fracking. A woman voter asked, "But like, what about, say, stopping fracking?"
Biden answered, "Yes."
Harris herself is on record as supporting the elimination of all fracking, all fracking, saying "There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking."
5. "In 1864 … Abraham Lincoln was up for re-election, and it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln's party was in charge not only of the White House but of the Senate. But Honest Abe said that it's not the right thing to do."
With the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Supreme Court vacancy popped up just before a presidential election. Trump almost immediately nominated a replacement, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Democrats have demanded that the vacancy be held until after Jan. 20, 2021, when a newly elected president will be sworn into office. So Harris's claim that Lincoln did so supports their case.
But he didn't — at least, not out of principle. Lincoln didn't nominate a replacement because the Senate was out of session (this is, remember, before their were cars). More than that, in the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln was concerned about the political consequences of filling the seat.
The Senate was out of session from Independence Day through Dec. 5 in 1864. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney died on Oct. 12.
"As ever, Lincoln was the shrewd politician and in October of 1864 he saw no profit in alienating any of the factions of his political support by making a selection before the election," presidential historian Michael Kahn wrote . "There is no evidence that he seriously considered announcing his choice before he was re-elected."
And for the record, Lincoln sent Salmon Chase's nomination to the Senate the day it came back into session — Dec. 6.
Courtesy of
Kamals Harris wants the presidency so bad she does not care what she has to do or say to eventually achieve it.
Willie Brown would know.
Yep.
Wouldn't it have been fair to post an article that fact checked BOTH Harris and Pence, since neither of them was perfect?
I suppose it would. I think you should do the honors.
Great idea!
Who said it had to be fair? This article simply points the lies of the left, which are worse than those allegedly attributed to Trump
That is a matter of opinion.
I agree, but as I looked at mainstream news outlets - TV and newspaper - I tended to see very one-sided fact checking. Typical of the trend, I looked at the Los Angeles Times that night and they had fact-checked five things Pence said, but not one thing that Harris said.