The “Charlottesville Hoax” Hoax
Trump’s supporters are trying to gaslight you. Again.
Robert Tracinski
Apr 01, 2019

I RECENTLY LAMENTED that the Democratic party’s embrace of antisemitism was helping Donald Trump get off the hook for referring to white nationalists rioting in Charlottesville as “very fine people.” I expected, and received, furious replies from Trump supporters who deny that the president ever said any such thing.

This has become official dogma on the Trump-supporting right and has solidified into a name, the “Charlottesville Hoax.” Steve Cortes recently called it that, drumming the message home by calling it a “damnable lie,” a “calumny,” and a “willful deception.” I was not surprised to see the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway link to this approvingly and pontificate, “I have personally witnessed how difficult it is for smart, thoughtful people to accept what Trump actually said, instead of what they ‘remember’ him saying, but it’s really important that we speak accurately here and criticize for real things, not fake.”

Personally, I found this deeply ironic, because I watched in disbelief over a period of about a year as my then-colleagues at the Federalist did precisely that: rewrite this story in their minds to create a more palatable version that would fit comfortably with their support for Trump.

Hemingway has accused the media of “gaslighting” the public. But that’s exactly what she’s doing here, trying to make us think we are suffering from some kind of False Memory Syndrome when it comes to Trump’s Charlottesville comments.

So let’s do what Trump’s apologists keep asking us to do and look at what he actually did say.



Trump’s defenders point to his insistence in his August 15, 2017, Trump Tower news conference that when he said “very fine people” he was “not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” Case closed, right?

The problem is that Trump is not a very reliable source on what he is and is not talking about, and he had in fact just been talking about white nationalists. Let’s take a closer look at that transcript and see exactly who he was referring to when he was talking about “very fine people.”

Here’s the actual “very fine people” comment:

You have some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group—excuse me, excuse me—I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
So when he says “very fine people” he is referring to a specific group of protesters, and not only does he keep emphasizing this, but he gets more specific about them.

But not all of those people were Neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee. So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson’s coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you all—you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop? But they were there to protest—excuse me. You take a look, the night before, they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.

And later in the press conference:

There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people—neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know—I don’t know if you know, they had a permit.

He keeps going back to this idea that there was a separate group of protesters that weekend in Charlottesville, ordinary people who merely opposed the removal of Lee’s statue, and he keeps giving that group a specific time and place: in Charlottesville “the night before,” that is, the night of Friday, August 11.


 
Cortes claims that “Trump’s ‘fine people on both sides’ observation clearly related to those on both sides of the Confederate monument debate.” In other words, it was just a vague, general observation that good people can disagree on the issue. But as we’ve just seen, that’s not what Trump was saying. He was referring to a specific group of protesters present in Charlottesville on the night of August 11. And this was the context in which Trump denied that he was talking about white nationalists.

And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
All right, so who are these people who were just there to protest the removal of the statues? Who was the group protesting “the night before”?

Well, here they are:

 
That’s right. The people marching in Charlottesville the night before were the guys with torches chanting “blood and soil” and “Jews will not replace us.”

So you can see where the mainstream view of this statement comes from. Cortes describes Trump’s words as “unambiguous” but his actual words are the very definition of ambiguity: He is denouncing the Nazis out of one side of his mouth, then calling them “very fine people” out of the other. He is saying, in effect, that he condemns the white nationalists but also that the people marching with torches and shouting at the Jews were very fine people. Do you find that a convincing “condemnation”? Would you find it convincing if any other politician said it?


 

What if there really was another group of protesters there that day, and that’s who Trump was referring to? Well, there’s the problem. No such group exists. This mythical second group of protesters is like the “second shooter” in conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination. I’ve found people who insist to me that such a group was there because the “Charlottesville Hoax” mythology requires it to exist—but I haven’t found a single shred of actual confirmation. It’s almost as if they have adopted a false memory.

That’s what originally set me off about this Trump claim. I live in the Charlottesville area, and I know very fine people who oppose the removal of the monuments based on high-minded notions about preserving history. I’m one of them. So I know that we weren’t there that night. Only the white nationalists were there.

If you’re counting, we’ve already busted two parts of the “Charlottesville Hoax” myth. Trump was not talking generally about people on both sides of the statue controversy, he was talking about a specific group—and there was no specific group other than the white nationalists present at the events Trump was referring to.

At this point, the only argument in Trump’s defense is one that I would regard as fairly plausible: Trump was, once again, blustering about a subject he didn’t understand, while insisting that he knew it better than anyone else. (You can see why this defense is not widely employed, because it doesn’t serve the purpose of making people feel more comfortable about the man in the White House.)

There’s also the fact that Trump repeatedly insisted in his Trump Tower press conference that he had painstakingly gathered the facts. “When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts.” He repeated, “unlike you and unlike the media, before I make a statement, I like to know the facts.”



 
But what really gives the game away is when Trump insists that the “very fine people” who were there to protest “had a permit.” There was only one protest permit issued that weekend, and it was well documented because there was a court battle over it. That wasn’t for the Friday night’s tiki-torch Nuremberg, which was unannounced, but for the “Unite the Right” rally on Saturday. So were there “fine people on both sides” of the permitted rally? Let’s take a look at which parts of the “right” this rally was supposed to unite. One source describes them as “the alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and various militias”—in other words, different variations on the theme of white nationalism. If you think that’s an unfair summary, check out the poster for the event and notice that the headline speaker was prominent white nationalist Richard Spencer.

 
 So this was not some kind of big-tent rally for supporters of the monuments that just happened to be hijacked by white nationalists. It was a rally organized specifically by, and for, white nationalists. Which is why the Virginia ACLU had to go to bat for their right to protest.


The best—the very best—one could say about Trump’s comments on Charlottesville is that he did not intend to praise Nazis but merely blundered into a statement that ended up being disastrously ambiguous. Yet this was hardly the first time. The Trump Tower press conference was his third public statement about Charlottesville, which was necessary because he had already bungled the first two. His wishy-washy first statement, in which he blamed the violence in Charlottesville on “hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, on many sides,” had set the tone.

We all know that a president who was basically competent and gave a damn could have delivered an unambiguous condemnation of white nationalism and appealed to unifying American values. We know because we’ve seen it before.


The fact that Trump couldn’t do this implies to me that he didn’t really care all that much about the subject. In fact, throughout his whole Trump Tower press conference, he kept begging the reporters to ask him questions about infrastructure spending. He clearly wanted to talk about something, anything, else.

That’s why Trump’s Charlottesville statement deserves to be remembered as a dangerous sign. It shows the corruption in Trump’s outlook on the world that makes him unwilling to deal with a clear threat to American values—and, in the coiled obfuscations of the “Charlottesville Hoax” myth, it shows how he corrupts the minds and values of his apologists.

The “Charlottesville Hoax” Hoax - by Robert Tracinski

The very first words that came out of Trumps mouth that Saturday afternoon was to blame both sides.  After three days he was still blaming both sides.  Why? Because he knew that if he didnt his base wouldnt like it. 

What if there really was another group of protesters there that day, and that’s who Trump was referring to? Well, there’s the problem. No such group exists. This mythical second group of protesters is like the “second shooter” in conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination. I’ve found people who insist to me that such a group was there because the “Charlottesville Hoax” mythology requires it to exist—but I haven’t found a single shred of actual confirmation. It’s almost as if they have adopted a false memory.

 He is saying, in effect, that he condemns the white nationalists but also that the people marching with torches and shouting at the Jews were very fine people.

Only if you struggle with reading comprehension or are simply dishonest could you walk away with this belief. 

There were no "fine people on both sides". 

As the writer says, that was a myth , mainly but not only propagated by Trump because it served his purpose.  Both Friday night and Saturday were entirely white supremacist rallies.  The refusal of the right to understand this would be harmless but for the fact that seven years later you are still trying to use this as an example of how he is mistreated. 

Yes, you've made that clear that's what you believe. You want to impose your claimed facts and ignore the actual words trump used. 

Even if your claim is 100% true and you could somehow magically  prove it by looking into the motivations of every single protester, all you've done is prove Trump "wrong."  He claimed there were different groups there and specifically excluded "neo-nazis and white supremacists" from the people he described as very fine.  There's no honest way in the world to go from that specific statement into claiming he said the opposite..  It's intentional dishonesty to warp his words that way. 

All you can argue is that there were no "very fine people there."  The smear, the lie, that Democrats have run with that Trump called neo-nazis and white supremacists very fine people is still a lie even if you can show that every single protester at Charlottesville was the most neo-nazis of neo-nazis.  Because then he's just wrong about their being different groups.  That's it. 

Were there fine people on both sides?  

If you think there were show us some evidence of that. 

Nobody smeared Trump, its just that some people knew one side was entirely white supremacist, and the other "side" misinformed themselves (mainly through Trumps comments). 

Trump did not want to offend the white grievance crowd that had helped him win the election less than a year earlier. He knew that was his political base.  He made no effort to gather facts about what was happening in Charlottesville,  he just knew there was a statue of Robert E Lee there that was scheduled to be taken down. There was no rally other than the white supremacist Unite The Right rally.  "Fine people" dont go to such rallies, and none did. 

Trump is a lazy ignoramus and was seven years ago too.  He knew he had to blame both sides or his base wouldnt be happy.  That is what happened, as the writer of the Bulwark article says, and what I have been saying for years, after I started reading about this. 

Trump is not a victim of a Charlottesville 'hoax.' 

Were there fine people on both sides? 

I didn't interview everyone there.  Did you?

The point that you aren't grasping is it doesn't matter.  YOu have to pay attention to what he actually said, not your feelings. 

 He made no effort to gather facts about what was happening in Charlottesville,

So even when you are arguing your own point, you make mine for me.

ere was no rally other than the white supremacist Unite The Right rally

Lol.  This is such a disingenuous claim.  Guess who organized Iraq war protests, BLM marches and pro-ceasefire demonstrations?  You would never, ever, claim every person in one of those  crowds subscribed to all of the the motivations of a demonstration's organizers.   Was every single person who went to an  anti-Iraq war protest a literal communist?   

rump is not a victim of a Charlottesville 'hoax.' 

Of course he is. Every single person who claims Trump called neo-nazis or white supremacists is as big a liar as you claim Trump is.  They are intentionally distorting words to mean their opposite.  It's gaslighting. 

No surprise the left is bringing this up again after so many years.

They have nothing else to run on and "racist" "racist" "racist" is their only go to. 

Their new spokesperson is an idiot by the name of Crockett, that, if you can believe it, is even more dumb than AOC. 

Keep it up, leftists. You are ensuring a Republican federal government for a very long time to come. 

Was there white supremacists there? Of course.

Were there people protesting the taking down of statues because it is part of a southern heritage.  Of course. I felt the same way when my town wanted to take down the Columbus statue.

Were there people there protesting against the wokeness that seemed to be taking over the country at the time? Of course.

Were their people there because they were curios as to what was going on? Of course.

Only one of those groups are white nationalists.  In other words some of them were good people.

There were no "fine people on both sides".

Correct.  

Both sides were lawless thugs looking for a street fight. 

They found one. 

Quelle surprise.

Only one of those groups are white nationalists.

I only saw one large crowd of white nationalists marching in lock step with their tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us!". There was no organized march by anyone else that day in Charlottesville, just some disparate anti-fascists and peaceful protestors like Heather Heyer until a white nationalist rightwing bigot, desperate to save a racist confederate statue because he clearly identified with the confederacy, rammed his car into the peaceful protesters.

There were many good people on one side, those standing up for the winners of the civil war. And there were many sacks of useless shit, many violent enraged bigots flying confederate flags alongside swastikas, on the other side defending the racist losers in the civil war, marching side by side with Neo-Nazi's shouting antisemitic slogans while literally carrying torches in an apparent homage to their bitter angry dumb fuck racist mobs of the past that used to hunt down escaped slaves.

The fact that there are some still trying to defend the indefensible is just sad. But that's where we are in this country. On one side you have those who support equality, inclusion and diversity celebrating all our differences and recognizing that's what makes us a great nation. And on the other side you have those who selfishly despise equality, inclusion and diversity and want to sterilize our nation and get rid of our differences in order to streamline a lean America government that only works for those who assimilate into and adopt rightwing conservative Christo-fascism, and as Charlottesville proved, they're willing to kill for their ideology and should be considered domestic terrorists.

The fact that there are some still trying to defend the indefensible is just sad. But that's where we are in this country. On one side you have those who support equality, inclusion and diversity celebrating all our differences and recognizing that's what makes us a great nation. And on the other side you have those who selfishly despise equality, inclusion and diversity and want to sterilize our nation and get rid of our differences in order to streamline a lean America government that only works for those who assimilate into and adopt rightwing conservative Christo-fascism, and as Charlottesville proved, they're willing to kill for their ideology and should be considered domestic terrorists.

That is just total hateful bullshit.  

Along with saying there are good people on both sides Trump could have said there are hateful bigot spewing shit on both sides.

Your position is way too nuanced for some. 

They saw pictures of white nationalists on Friday night, therefore every single person who attended a rally against removing a statute on Saturday is a neo-nazi. That's the level of thought they have. 

Totally agree.  I am sure people taking those pictures were careful to take only pictures that would fuel that exact narrative.  I am surprised so many people bought it hook ,line and sinker.  I didn't realize independent thinking was so rare.

Only one of those groups are white nationalists.

Protesters

American militia movement

Only one of those groups are white nationalists.

The  League of the South  ( LS ) is an American  white nationalist ,  neo-Confederate ,  white supremacist  organization  that says its goal is "a free and independent Southern republic".

==================

Identity Evropa  ( / juːˈroʊpə / ) was an American  far-right ,  neo-Nazi ,  neo-fascist ,  and  white supremacist  organization established in March 2016. 

====================================

Traditionalist Worker Party

Does everyone who attends a march for a ceasefire in Gaza support the extermination of all Jews because the march's organizer does? 

www.thedailybeast.com   /its-not-a-hoax-trumps-very-fine-people-in-charlottesville-did-not-exist/

It’s Not a ‘Hoax’—Trump’s ‘Very Fine People’ in Charlottesville Did Not Exist

Anthony L. Fisher 9-12 minutes   8/12/2022

Nothing you've pasted changes the uncontestable  fact that Trump specifically denounced and condemned the  White nationalists and neo-Nazis at Charlottesville.  All you are doing is  trying to justify a patheticly transparent attempt to take what he said out of context and claim he said the opposite of what he did.  No one who respects the english language can read what Trump said and claim he called neo-nazis very fine people. It's impossible to do so in good faith. 

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THERE WERE "PEACEFUL PROTESTERS" AMONG THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS. 

Trump wanted to think so and you want to think so, but it didnt happen.

Trump predetermined who was there, in his own mind. He didnt actually know jack shit about it. 

When Trump said there were fine people on both sides one of those sides were white racists and Nazis, and thats all.  Its not people who criticize him fault if he's a lazy ignorant sob. 

what Trump said and claim he called neo-nazis very fine people. It's impossible to do so in good faith. 

Who were the fine people on the Nazi racist side? 

You want to defend someone who literally didnt know what he was talking about in a very volatile situation. But what else is new. All you do is defend Trump and attack the left. 

Trump said the "fine people" protesting the statue had a permit to be there. That is 100% untrue. The only permit to be there was given to a white supremacist who had to go to court to secure the permit. 

Trump was WAY out of line when he talked about Charlottesville. Period. 

Does everyone who attends a march for a ceasefire in Gaza support the extermination of all Jews because the march's organizer does? 

The simple answer is yes. Of course, the question you pose is complete horse shit rhetoric because as far as I know, there were no marches "for a ceasefire in Gaza" in the US organized by someone or even a group of someone's calling for the "extermination of all Jews". If you have such evidence other than "But that group called for Israel to stop bombing Gaza! They must be calling for the extermination of the Jews!" then please do link credible evidence of groups organizing marches that actually called for the extermination of the Jews, not just some mental contortions done by some phony bigots trying to villainize some folk for simply not supporting the indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

So again, if there are known groups, you know, like Nazi's and racist confederate sympathizing simps, who organize a march and have expressed in no uncertain terms that they are calling for the extermination of the Jews, like the Nazi's have of course done, or even such antisemitic chants such as "Jews will not replace us!", if you march with them, then you're supporting those Nazi's or other antisemites ideology. It's as simple as that.

Trump wanted to think so and you want to think so, but it didnt happen.

Trump predetermined who was there, in his own mind. He didnt actually know jack shit about it. 

When Trump said there were fine people on both sides one of those sides were white racists and Nazis, and thats all. 

If you truly know that much about what Trump is thinking you should probably be very concerned

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THERE WERE "PEACEFUL PROTESTERS" AMONG THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS.

Well, yeah. There wouldn't be, would there? No good people would have joined their ranks, even if they felt taking down the statues was the wrong thing to do. As I recall, Trump said there were fine people on both sides of the ISSUE, not among the violent protestors of either side or the white supremacists. 

What you seem to be doing is trying to convince people that because the white supremacists opposed the taking down of the statues, anyone who also opposed it necessarily had the same motives as the white supremacists. To my mind, that has less to do with rational, thoughtful thinking and more to do with trying to paint anyone who doesn't agree with your position as supremacists simply because disagreement can't be allowed. 

There was no organized march by anyone else that day in Charlottesville,

That's simply factually incorrect.

The counter protesters had permits to assemble at McGuffey Park and Lee Park.  

There were many good people on one side, those standing up for the winners of the civil war.

Who left their permitted area, protested illegally, went looking for a fight, and continued long after the assembly had been ruled an unlawful riot.   

So in the real world, you had one group of precious little snowflake shitheads attempting to violate the 1st Amendment rights of another group of precious snowflake shitheads, and then everybody was somehow surprised at the consequences.

Attempting to defend the behavior of ANY of these idiots is ridiculous.

f you march with them, then you're supporting those Nazi's or other antisemites ideology.

Google is your friend. 

It takes two seconds to find marches like this npr organized by a group that "lauded the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel as a “historic win for the Palestinian resistance,” praised the Hamas terrorists as “martyrs,” and endorsed Hamas’ deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians and its calls for the death of all Jewish people. 

An SJP toolkit distributed to campus chapters in the days after the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks overtly stated that “Responsibility for every single death falls solely on the Zionist entity” and that the attacks “are the natural and justified response” to poor conditions for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. "

ajc

So I guess anyone who marched for a ceasefire supports hamas murdering jews and their anti-semitic ideology.  Similar to how anyone who attended a anti-Iraq war march organized by ANSWER supports all of their communist beliefs.  Guilt by association sure is easy and I can see why people consumed with hate use it so frequently. I guess it's less dishonest than taking something someone said and pretending he said the exact opposite in order to claim he thinks Nazis are very fine people at least.  

are you really asking to see those videos of trumpsters chanting "Jews will not replace us" during their Nazi torchlight parade, while flying the stars and bars, the swastikas, and wearing maga hats? happy to oblige if you want ...

It's very easy to find on Google

yeah, but maga seems to still have difficulty grasping the concept of recorded audio and video ...

he could benefit from a refresher course in the history of his church and judaism the last 1000+ years too ...

Worthwhile article. Thanks.

x

pssssttttt...I keep myself away from those types

removed for context by charger

Deny EVERYTHING! ALWAYS!

The Ministry of Truth...

The only people  denying  reality are those who ignore what Trump actually said. 

In doesn't get more Orwellian than claiming someone specifically saying a group "should be condemned totally" actually claimed that group consists of very fine people. That might even be too dishonest for the Ministry of Truth. 

I'm not going to say this a thousand times, although apparently that might be necessary. Trump said there were fine people on both sides, which is not true.  One side was neo Nazis and racists. Therefore when he said there were fine people on both sides he was talking about Nazis. 

The fact that he may be too stupid (and lazy) to understand that doesnt put him in a better light.