Trump makes an interesting observation
Last night in an interview with Fox's Sean Hannity, President Trump disputed whether Abraham Lincoln got worse press than Trump did. Please note the President's words. He has made that statement before. Yet the media covers it by removing the reference "by the press" and adding to Abraham Lincoln - who was assassinated, thereby making it seem as though President Trump was comparing the overall hostility the two leaders faced!
The interview:
I thought it was an interesting comparison. Obviously Lincoln was a focal point of national division in his time, since he represented the young abolitionist party (the GOP's first policy goal was the end of slavery) and the southern states seceded from the Union as soon as Lincoln was elected President. Lincoln then presided over a bloody Civil War which was waged throughout his Presidency. Clearly no other President faced such adversity, but to be fair Trump made his comparison based on press coverage.
Without even looking back to see what the newspapers of the day said about Lincoln, we know that in the 1860's there was no internet, social media, TV or radio. News was only carried by newspapers. To avoid the usual effort to contradict minute details I shall without debate assume there was a good literacy rate throughout the country in the 1860's and let us also assume that all the coverage was negative. There still wasn't a 24 hour news cycle with tv screens blasting the President 24/7. Lincoln never faced any questions about his loyalties to the United States of America. There was no false narrative about a conspiracy with a foreign power. There was no question of Lincoln's legitimacy. BTW, like Trump, Lincoln did not win a majority of the popular vote. (The four candidates running for the Presidency has become well known - no need to use it here)
When those factors are considered Trump's gut feeling makes sense. I have to give him the nod on this one.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
82 visitors
Ya, they hit you with everything and you keep fighting back! Still winning.
Gratuitous smearing of the President will be deleted as trolling
Winning what?
[DELETED} that's about it...
[DELETED]
'To avoid the usual effort to contradict minute details I shall without debate assume there was a good literacy rate throughout the country in the 1860's and let us also assume that all the coverage was negative. '
You assume much.
Do you want to debate that? Are you saying the literacy rate in the 1860's was low? Or that some of Lincoln's coverage was positive?
If that is your goal I'm more than willing to hear it
Do you want to debate that? Are you saying the literacy rate in the 1860's was low? Or that some of Lincoln's coverage was positive?
If that is your goal I'm more than willing to hear it
'To avoid the usual effort to contradict minute details I shall without debate'
Are you confused?
There no reason to question Lincoln's loyalties to the US or legitimacy.
tRump? He has no loyalties to the US, just himself and whoever greases his pockets.
He has no legitimacy as 'president' whatsoever.
Remember the warning in post #1. I'd ask you to back that up, but then we are drifting away from the premise here - that Trump did in fact get worse press coverage than Lincoln!
This 'president' is getting the coverage he has earned coming from the networks that report what he says/does unlike Fox 'news' How is repeating/reporting/filming/videotaping what he says and reporting it 'bad press coverage'?
Even Fox 'news' isn't 100%24/7 kiss his ass like they used to be.
So, I take it you are saying that YES he does get worse press than Lincoln because he deserves it?
Now the pos is comparing impeachment to lynching....is that an interesting observation or will you once again delete what you don't like because it doesn't fit into your narrow view
No need to delete that statement. It simply makes no sense. How does impeachment or lynching have anything to do with the topic?
[DELETED]
This is the most ridiculous article and premise for an article I have ever seen on Newstalkers.
The seeder continues, time after time, to try and favorably compare and correlate and connect Trump with Abraham Lincoln.
Whatever happened to the concept of shame?
Isn't this what concerns you most? Trump's claims? I guess you can't dispute what the President said.
No, YOUR claims.
My claims are more important to you than the President's? That is an honor!
Much appreciated.
OF COURSE.
Thank you John! Was that so hard?
You dont get the point. Drink some more coffee.
I know all of your talking points & beliefs. We just need to get people to admit when the President is right.
The press reports the news. If it appears that Trump is worse than Lincoln maybe it's because he's worse than Lincoln.
It does? Is there a law that states they cannot slant the news? I thought the President conspired with Russia? Was that news or was it a lie?
'The press reports the news. If it appears that Trump is worse than Lincoln maybe it's because he's worse than Lincoln.'
Not maybe, definitely.
'I thought the President conspired with Russia? Was that news or was it a lie?'
That was the truth.
Nice going Tess. You are on record.
Vic, you wrote this article yourself and constructed the premise yourself, so there is nowhere for you to hide.
I don't know whether Trump has gotten worse media coverage than Lincoln or not. But if he has, he has earned every second and every word of it.
The suggestion that this negative media coverage for Trump is somehow unwarranted is preposterous. If anything the US media has gone far too easy on Trump.
You just admitted he did in Post # 7. Are you taking it back? You can simply say that you feel it was deserved, why not confirm your outburst of honesty in Post 7?
They say I give them hell. I tell them the truth and they think it's hell.
That , I believe, paraphrases something said by another president. It applies to Trump's belief about his critics, and your defense of him.
People tell the truth about Trump and he and you think it's unwarranted hell.
Negative press coverage comes in various forms. It may be deserved or undeserved. That is NOT the question here. The question - which you already answered - was who got the most.
All the negative press coverage, there is no positive press coverage (except for Fox 'news') is DESERVED.
Well when every other word out of the 'president's' mouth is a lie, what do you expect?
You said that. You keep avoiding the question of who got more negative press? It's so hard to answer?
We can't seem to get a simple answer out of your mouth!
The one who was deserving of negative press and zero positive press. The 'president'
You keep repeating that. Have you enough courage to answer the question? John was able to do it.
Vic seems to think there is something unfair or distasteful about Trump receiving more negative press than Abraham Lincoln, when in fact it is to be expected given that Trump is a low character , and Lincoln was not.
This 'president' has no character or morals or shame or decency or empathy or morals or scruples or anything a decent human being would possess.
Iv'e been very careful NOT to characterize the criticism. My sole interest is in the truth of the claim by the President.
when in fact it is to be expected given that Trump is a low character , and Lincoln was not.
The idea that the negative coverage was based on character is another question. I think that there was a difference in the character of the two men, but whether it played a part in coverage is another topic for another day.
What 'truths' has this 'president' ever claimed?
Let's use the one in the article - the very one that John admitted was a truth. Are you able to say it?
[DELETED]
Trump would like to compare himself to Jesus Christ being crucified, and his followers might be inclined to agree. Only thing holding him back is that he thinks Jesus was a loser.
How you feel about the President is not the point. You must know that many more people read these articles than comment on them. I think we have provided them with some interesting reading here.
We have a simple statement by the President. The question before the house was simply is his gut feeling right or wrong?
Three responded, thus far: I think we can agree all three are progressive. One admits that the President was right, but qualifies the negative coverage was "earned". One says it was "earned" but can't bring herself to ever agree with the President. The third one simply rants about the President. All three feel the need to demonize the President.
How do you think the objective observer interpreted all of this?
It it was for them that I posted this little article.
I have no idea what you think you are accomplishing. You have 'equated' Trump with Lincoln on a number of your comments on this forum.
One assumes you dont care about your credibility.
Comparing press coverage certainly dosen't "equate" the two men. There are similarities on numerous fronts.
This is satire.
Let's return to the topic John
Thanks John. Normal human beings know satire when they see it. Don't worry I'm not out to censor it for "mislabeling"
On Newstalkers fake social media is supposed to be labeled satire. I will take note though that you dont care.
When the seeder states that it is satire in Post # 1 and even puts the logo for the Babylon Bee in the article it should be enough for the normal mind. That seed is on file with WTP. I'm sure that many readers saw how the seed was hijacked and derailed by two of our resident progressives.
Oh please. trump is gas lighting and the faithful eat it up.
He has done two things here, compare himself to a president that is revered while at the same time saying poor him. He has it so bad. If it wasn't for the press out to get him he would be loved....
The faithful jump on the bandwagon. Pitiful.
That is an interesting question. With this economy and if not for the negative coverage where would the President's numbers be?
Put the blame where it belongs, if crooked donnie didn't utter the most asinine things and get caught in lie after lie then he wouldn't get negative press...stop blaming the press.
I never blamed the press, nor have I offered an opinion on whether the coverage was deserved. I'm only interested in the question you have refused to answer
Crooked donnie is wrong as usual
Odd that you think any negative coverage would not be from his own doing.
Next after comparing himself to Lincoln, he will say he is being lynched...oh wait.
It's even stranger that you thought I said that. Show me where?
Next after comparing himself to Lincoln, he will say he is being lynched...oh wait.
Not interested in other comments
So was he right or wrong?
So do you think that the negative coverage is from his own doing, or as trump likes to say, they are just out to get him....
You answer my question and I'll answer yours
No I don't think he has had it the worse in history. That is ridiculous.
I know you were around during Obama's term. That is just a recent one.
Ok. You are on record - You don't believe (in all honesty) that President Trump has received the most negative press coverage in history and you said it was "ridiculous"!
I know you were around during Obama's term. That is just a recent one.
Are you saying that you think the radical Obama received negative press coverage?
I do not pigeon hole all the press into one category. Some were relentless on him.
trump chides the press, calls them fake, and you expect them to write a heartwarming story espousing his virtues?
He makes his own headlines.
I expect them to leave their own political beliefs behind and to report the news accurately & fairly. Rushing to print or broadcast unverified stories which were all anti-Trump has become the norm and its a national disgrace.
How are things not accurate or fair? Do they jump the gun to get headlines? Yes. A lot of times they report what they know at the time and the story changes. That is nothing new.
They report exactly what Trump says or does, and he screeches that it's fake news. To him and his base, anything that doesn't flatter him is fake news, and reality is just a joke.
It wasn't a question.
With those assumptions, HOW the hell could Trump's press coverage be worse than 'ALL the coverage' being negative?
Hell, you included the Hannity interview, which any thinking person would acknowledge is coverage bias IN FAVOR of Trump.
In short, YOU proved Trump's posit false.
Well done.
It's fairly simple. The negative Trump coverage was 24/7 from multiple sources. Lincoln's was only from newspapers.
Hell, you included the Hannity interview, which any thinking person would acknowledge is coverage bias IN FAVOR of Trump.
Sean Hannity can do little to counter the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS.
In short, YOU proved Trump's posit false.
I didn't prove anything. Your fellow progressives proved that he was right. John admitted it. The others proved it by their tongues freezing.
Well done.
Thanks
Doesn't matter. The mainstream media report the truth about this 'president'.
If it is called fake news by him or his supporters, that's how we all know it's the truth.
The ten minute rule saved you again. You are illuminating the truth today!
Yet you don't seem to be able to defend your own scenario.
Only ALL of the newspapers all of the time Vic. That's the scenario YOU set.
Trump has a 24/7 propaganda machine called Fox, in addition to multiple newspapers and websites that gaslight his supporters. You know this because you use them as sources for your seeds.
In your scenario, that's irrelevant Vic. The FACT is that Hannity is unequivocally POSITIVE press for Trump. That FACT proves that not ALL of Trump's press is negative and therefore proves, by YOUR standard, that Trump is treated better by the press than Lincoln.
You rarely do.
They did? Where?
Are you citing John to defend your weak posit Vic? That's proof of your desperation to defend a weak posit.
What 'others' Vic? Who are you talking about?
It looks to me like there are plenty of 'progressives' replying to this seed.
Don't see any of your fellow travelers here though. What does that prove?
No?
Only ALL of the newspapers all of the time Vic. That's the scenario YOU set.
That's right. I made that concession, so I wouldn't have to nit pick over what newspapers of the 1860's might have actually been favorable to the President. Thus I'm saying even if ALL of them were anti-Lincoln it still couldn't equate to the modern media resistance coverage of Donald Trump.
Trump has a 24/7 propaganda machine called Fox, in addition to multiple newspapers and websites that gaslight his supporters. You know this because you use them as sources for your seeds.
Yes and Fox plus the Wall Street Journal and a few other news outlets hardly equals the volume of anti-Trump resistance. And yes I do use them for sources, sometimes out of necessity, since there are valid stories ignored by the msm.
In your scenario, that's irrelevant Vic. The FACT is that Hannity is unequivocally POSITIVE press for Trump. That FACT proves that not ALL of Trump's press is negative and therefore proves, by YOUR standard, that Trump is treated better by the press than Lincoln.
I'm sorry but it looks like you are wrong again. The fact that not all of Trump's press is negative still leaves a resistance media larger, louder and more dominant than anything Lincoln faced from newspapers.
They did? Where?
In front of your eyeballs
Are you citing John to defend your weak posit Vic? That's proof of your desperation to defend a weak posit.
I am citing John for being honest. You do know what honesty is right?
What 'others' Vic? Who are you talking about?
All the other progressives like yourself, who can't answer a simple question.
Therefore, you'd be WRONG.
But that's not the question, is it Vic?
The question had isn't about media being 'larger, louder and more dominant'.
The question is whether Trump is treated worse by today's press than Lincoln was by the press of his day.
YOU answered that by insisting that ALL of the press was negative for Lincoln which means that ANY percentage of positive press for Trump proves that he is being treated better.
That's basic logic Vic.
So you can't support your claim.
Why yes Vic, YES I do. That's why in order to be honest, I take into account EVERYTHING that John posted including:
Why do you want to ignore that comment from John?
I answered you question Vic.
You just don't like my answer, especially since I held to YOUR limitations on the scenario.
Math doesn't work that way.
You can posit that there are 333 million people now, and there were only 31 million people in 1860-1865,
and state that more people and more press dislike Trump than disliked Lincoln and be absolutely correct.
But you said " even if ALL of them were anti-Lincoln it still couldn't equate to the modern media resistance coverage of Donald Trump."
So if even one press outlet is typically in favor of Trump, your statement is incorrect. That's math.
The POTUS has the full support of Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart, usually Fox News and
a whole posse of conservative radio hosts and web sites that are used for seeds here 24/7/365.
So the President's opinion is predictable self pity but not provable.
We have admitted nothing over something you claim is not debatable.
That has such a familiar ring to it......How did it go?.....Wir haben nichts zugegeben
The idea that anyone could compare trump to Abraham Lincoln is exceedingly ludicrous.
For the record - we are comparing their press coverage. Any thoughts beyond the little dig?
Apples and oranges, how's that ?
Sorry Pat, I can't let you direct the conversation. We are only interested in an answer to our question. Only progressives have shown up. One has admitted the President was right, one has steadfastly proclaimed him wrong and the others are tongue tied.
What say you?
Lincoln never faced any questions about his loyalties to the United States of America. There was no false narrative about a conspiracy with a foreign power. There was no question of Lincoln's legitimacy.
I could tell you in plain English exactly why that is but you'd delete me for "gratuitous smearing".
Why do you pretend to speak for anyone but yourself Vic?
We know why Lincoln wasn't subjected to it, but we are still stunned by why Trump was, so you want to explain that (without the gratuitous smearing) - feel free.
I still would like to get you on record via the President's statement.
How about you? Was the President right or wrong?
You answer my question with a question. Bad form.
I already told you, based on YOUR scenario, Trump's claim is false.
BTFW, Vic, where did you get the idea that Lincoln loyalty to the US was never questioned?
Where did you get the idea that there was a 'good literacy rate throughout the country'?
Oh and BTW, you obviously forgot about the news being carried by telegraph.
We have you on record. Sad to say, I knew exactly what you would say.
BTFW, Vic, where did you get the idea that Lincoln loyalty to the US was never questioned?
Are you going to challenge that?
Where did you get the idea that there was a 'good literacy rate throughout the country'?
I didn't. Read it again - I conceded that fact because I knew there would be people looking to google some piece dealing with literacy at the time, simply looking to contradict a minute detail - which happens to be your favorite game!
Oh and BTW, you obviously forgot about the news being carried by telegraph.
News that is days old is hardly news. Your'e not on your game today. Are you tired?
Again, WHY do you pretend to speak for anyone but yourself Vic?
Then you should have had an argument prepared to refute my position. Instead, of addressing the topic, your replies have already devolved to personal comments.
Again, replying to a question with a question. If you view my question as a challenge, so be it. Do you have an answer Vic?
So you're saying it's not an idea, it's a fact. Fine.
Where did you come up with that FACT Vic?
If it's such a 'minute detail', why bring it up?
Sounds like you're jealous that I successfully contradict your 'minute details' so often. Tissue?
The Transatlantic Telegraph was a hell of a lot faster than a fucking ship carrying a London newspaper Vic.
During the Civil war, telegraph news crossed the country in minutes, BEFORE a newspaper could set the type to print it.
You have a game?
Only of your BS.
Considering the 24 hour news cycle and the Internet, it would be darn near impossible for Lincoln to have gotten worse coverage than any modern president, I would think. And even if the news cycles were comparable, Trump would get worse press coverage than Lincoln did - because he's a much worse person and a far worse President.
I'm a little bewildered as to why this even merits an article; it's hardly an "interesting observation" on Trump's part, but instead more of his typical whining about his massive ego, refusing to consider the fact that he gets the treatment in the press that his actions deserve (well actually, he gets off a lot easier than he probably should). Obviously a lying, narcissistic con man is going to get worse coverage than Honest Abe. It's like posting an article saying Trump said water was wet, and that it was an interesting observation.
Thank you Kat. That would be the adult response.
I'm a little bewildered as to why this even merits an article;
Take a look at the reaction. I want people to see that.
It's like posting an article saying Trump said water was wet, and that it was an interesting observation.
Try it sometime. See how many make an argument saying water is dry.
lol. You cant stop digging !
John, I think it is you that needs the coffee.
You've made a lot of strange defenses of Trump, but this one today is the strangest of them all.
Actually, it is an expose on progressives. Everybody played a roll. Now it's for the reader to draw conclusions.
So is 99.9% of the rest of the world. One in a thousand think Trump is an equal figure to America's greatest president.
We are not comparing the two men, but their press coverage. That's seems to be a difficult concept for you. I'm glad to hear you accept Lincoln as our greatest President. I agree.
Why would anyone CARE if Trump gets bad press, since he deserves every bit of it ?
Everyone on this thread has caught on to your game Vic. You are far too obvious.
Trump's sycophants are desperate to defend him and parroting his incessant whining about the 'Fake News' being 'mean' to him is their favorite way to do so.
Agreed 1,000%
I await deletion.
Hillary Clinton said it herself; the press is supposed to tell people what to believe. The press disseminates opinions and selectively uses facts to foster belief in those opinions by the public. But opinion is not news.
The bad press received by Abraham Lincoln was in the form of opinion based on speculation, fear, and appeals to the status quo. There were few facts to report since Lincoln was not a widely known political celebrity before the election; the press had no facts to report so the press relied upon opinion from known political and public figures to stir up controversy.
The Washington establishment portrayed Lincoln as an inept outsider without qualifications or experience in how government functions. Lincoln threatened to up-end the political power structure in Washington. Democrats questioned the legitimacy of Lincoln's election and Democrats voiced their opposition to Lincoln through the ultimate resistance of secession and civil war. Democrats used the press to divide the country then just as Democrats are using the press today.
It's difficult to say that the press has treated Trump worse than Lincoln. But it is clear that Trump represents a threat to the status quo just as did Lincoln. And Trump has not been a political celebrity; Trump is a man of the people just as Lincoln was. So, with little news to report, the press has relied upon opinion based upon speculation, fear, and appeals to the status quo to stir up controversy just as happened with Lincoln. And Democrats are using the press to question the legitimacy of Trump's election and are voicing their opposition to Trump by attempting to establish a separate government within the government; at the least a political secession and civil war. The comparison of how the press has been used to delegitimize the elections of Lincoln and Trump is apt.
True, true and true. Those are but some of the similarities. Lincoln's time had one thing we are losing. Truth was accepted then. There was slavery and you were either for or against. America was a sovereign nation. You either believed in being a part of it or you didn't.
The comparison of how the press has been used to delegitimize the elections of Lincoln and Trump is apt.
Thank you Sir.
Before the Civil War the United States was still a confederation with many similarities to today's European Union. The United States was not one sovereign nation according to the modern conception of a nation. That's the status quo Lincoln threatened.
Over the last forty to fifty years the United States has drifted towards becoming a confederation again, based on distinctions in status and demographics rather than geopolitical divisions, as a new status quo. I contend that Trump is threatening that new status quo in much the same way that Lincoln threatened the geopolitical status quo of his time.
In reality the modern United States is not a single sovereign nation because there are so many non-geopolitical divisions within the country claiming their own sovereignty. A sovereign nation really is more than geopolitical boundaries. Today's America really does have more in common with the Antebellum confederation of the United States than with the sovereign nation that emerged during reconstruction.
Yes, and Trump is a major reason why it no longer is. He calls facts "fake news" if they don't flatter him, he tells his worshippers not to believe what they see - basically pay no attention to the man behind the curtain - and yet his supporters see nothing wrong with his thousands of lies and disproven conspiracy theories.
"Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening," Trump said. "Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news."
Trump denies any and all truth about him. Hell he denies truth that HE has stated about HIMSELF.
The institution of slavery was a distinction that provided unity for factions claiming their own sovereign authority within the country. Not all the factions claiming their own sovereignty were slave owners; there were advocates for a coalition based on state's rights in regions that had never allowed slavery. Democrats living in the Ohio Valley were pro-slavery because of the issue of state sovereignty. Like it or not, the Civil War wasn't only about slavery; protecting the status quo of state sovereignty was also an issue for those who had not owned slaves.
Stephen Douglas was Abraham Lincoln's political opponent. Douglas was not a southerner; Douglas lived his life in parts of the country that prohibited slavery. Douglas opposed Lincoln on the issue of state's rights and slavery was the emblematic expression of state's rights. Stephen Douglas did not have a vested interest in slavery; Douglas was an advocate of the status quo based on state sovereignty. Douglas saw Lincoln's advocacy for a strong Federal government with supreme authority over the states as a threat to the status quo and the existing political power structure that favored Democrats.
A coalition among disparate groups claiming their own sovereignty is a confederation. Today's Democrats claim a coalition of disparate beliefs with each belief claiming sovereignty over themselves. The Democrats have formed another confederation based upon cooperation between sovereign groups. And today's Democrats are confronting the same challenges and obstacles for accomplishing national objectives as did the Democrats who established the Confederate States of America.
WTF are you talking about?
Every one of the states that seceded stated that retaining slavery WAS their main reason for leaving. PERIOD, full stop. The documents are all online for everyone to read. The 'states rights' apologists claims are proven false by those documents. Anyone spewing that old tired crap is just gaslighting.
That ignores the debate over right of newly admitted states to choose to adopt slavery or prohibit slavery, as was done in Kansas. Northern Democrats advocated for a state's right to choose upon admission as a compromise. That was Stephen Douglas' position during the 1860 election. Northern Democrats had a vested interest in the Democratic Party maintaining political dominance.
Abraham Lincoln waffled on the question of national abolition of slavery. Being from Illinois, Lincoln campaigned against the Democratic compromise based on state's rights rather than campaigning on the national abolition of slavery. Lincoln really did advocate for Federal authority superseding state sovereignty; the issue of slavery in the territories had already been settled by Federal law and states did not have a right to overturn Federal law that had already determined where slavery would be allowed and prohibited. And existing Federal law had already prohibited slavery in the territories more amendable to agriculture.
That's an historically ignorant comment. The Lincoln-Douglas debates made Lincoln famous. The debates were highly publicized while they were going on AND after the election were published in book form.
Actually, they represent two OPPOSITE positions. Trump the 'burn it all down' position and Lincoln the 'hold it together at all cost' position. They were NOTHING alike.
More unfounded claptrap.
That's right up there with the most delusional comment I have ever read on NT and that is saying something.
Are you trying to top yourself with every sentence?
"Little news to report"?
You're obviously just as clueless as the seeder about what the press was reporting about Lincoln.
Do you remember birtherism?
By following the process enumerated in the Constitution and the House rules?
Ridiculous.
Yet that comparison wasn't made by the seeder and nothing in your comment makes it either.
The only thing wrong with your conclusions is that they are divorced from reality.
Since there are no press briefings - when was the last one??????? Other than rants on the way to the helicopter and interview with Fox 'news', this is what we get:
Trump Rails Against Obama During Rambling Hannity Chat: 'They Could've Impeached Him'
Trump Disparages Obama
During an interview on “Hannity,” President Donald Trump went after former President Barack Obama for an IRS audit scandal.
President Donald Trump railed against “vicious” Democrats and the “crazy” impeachment inquiry they’ve launched against him during a rambling conversation with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that aired Monday.
Urging the GOP to “get tougher,” Trump told Hannity that Republicans “would never do anything like this,” referring to the impeachment probe. Republicans could have impeached former President Barack Obama “for many different things,” Trump said — but “they never even thought of impeaching him.”
“They could’ve impeached Obama for the IRS scandal. They could impeach him for the guns for whatever where guns went all over the place and people got killed, Fast and Furious,” Trump told Hannity. “They could’ve killed him ― they could’ve impeached him for many different things.”
The “killed him” remark appears to have been a slip of the tongue.
During Obama’s tenure, the Internal Revenue Service was accused of singling out tea party organizations and other conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status and subjecting them to extra scrutiny. It later emerged, however, that the IRS had also targeted dozens of apparently left-leaning organizations. Neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice, which launched investigations into the IRS controversy, found any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Trump’s “Fast and Furious” comment was an apparent reference to a bungled gunrunning operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that had sought to stanch the flow of smuggled weapons along the U.S.-Mexico border. President Obama later invoked executive privilege in order to withhold documents related to the operation, triggering a yearslong legal battle between the House and the Justice Department. The two sides finally reached a settlement earlier this year.
Speaking to Hannity, Trump said that while Republicans hadn’t impeached Obama during his time in office, Democrats — who Trump described as “not good politicians” with “lousy policy” — had discussed impeaching him “on Russia, on Mueller, all this stuff.”
“And then they come up with this crazy concept of a perfect conversation,” Trump continued, referring to his controversial July phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that prompted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
Trump has faced allegations that he withheld military aid to Ukraine to pressure the country to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, his potential rival in 2020. Trump has repeatedly insisted there was “no quid pro quo” in his exchanges with Zelensky even as the White House has issued conflicting messages on this topic.
Though no official impeachment inquiry was ever launched against Obama, some Republicans did suggest during his presidential tenure that he was guilty of impeachable offences. In the wake of IRS controversy, former Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R-Mich.) said in 2013 it “would be a dream come true” to impeach Obama.
That same year, former Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) said the House “could probably get the votes” to impeach Obama over questions about the authenticity of his birth certificate, which the White House had made public in 2011. Farenthold resigned last year after sexual misconduct allegations were levelled against him.
During his conversation with Hannity, Trump also touted a conspiracy theory involving Hillary Clinton and Ukraine and railed against another favorite target of his, the “fake news media.”
“We don’t even want [The New York Times] in the White House anymore. We’re going to probably terminate that and the Washington Post. They’re fake,” he told Hannity, adding that he’s received worse press than Abraham Lincoln.
That strikes me as an issue of fairness. Being treated "better" or "worse" is about fairness, I believe. I think that's what he's talking about here and it's usually how Trump defines the issue.
So from that perspective, I think he is treated very badly. His words are frequently rephrased to convey meanings he did not intend. Many ordinary things he does or says are proclaimed to be offensive or reckless, even though very often we are talking about things that Democrats did or endorsed in previous administrations. You either agree with these proclamations or "you don't get it" because you're as ignorant or racist as Trump is alleged to be.
I wouldn't claim to know if it's worse than Lincoln, though. 19th century politics and journalism could be pretty nasty. People love to talk about how bad things are now, but I don't think we have anything on the politics of 165 years ago.
As for the press coverage, the phenomenon of Yellow Journalism was particularly endemic and notorious in the late 19th and early 20th century period. I would guess there are presidents in that time who could claim worse treatment than either man.
Having said that, many of Trump's wounds in the media are self-inflicted. He debates like a 4th grader and frequently appears to be uninformed or irrational. He deserves a lot of the abuse he gets.