by: Nick Maresco

Vice is a source well known to speak out against the Trump administration, and in their latest article titled “Sarah Sanders’s Latest Lie Is Somehow Her Worst,” they made several false claims while attacking Trump and his press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders about a comment she made defending Trump in a question accusing him of inciting violence against journalists and members of the media.

To start off their article, writer Matt Taylor began by stating, “Donald Trump’s campaign was always about violence.” And there it is, the first lie of this dreadful article very easily pointed out to us in the first sentence. Not only is this an absolute awful accusation, but it is just plain wrong. In not one speech ever given by Trump has he directly incited violence against others in the intention that it’s part of his campaign. Saying this is the equivalent of calling all 63,000,000 of Trump’s voters, people who support violence and the physiological destruction of anti-Trump voters, protesters, and people in general. This accusation is generalized off the basis that Trump’s campaign is not solely focused on destroying bad journalism, but the lives behind it. The lives behind the articles that Trump deems ‘bad journalism,’ or, ‘fake news,’ all because they might have spoken out against him or his campaign. This accusation also goes beyond the intentions of Trump and into the things that have “allegedly” occurred at his rallies.

On the contrary:

From an opposing side, there are many arguments in which a person could bring about quotes said by President Trump which would make it seem like he personally incites sheer violence against others. For example, Trump once stated at a rally of his, “Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees,” and, “Part of the problem is no one wants to hurt each other anymore.” Other statements that were made at ONE rally on June 30th shown below in a caricature cartoon mocking Trump in physical appearance.

We’re not going to beat around the bush here and tell you that Trump has never incited violence before, he has, you’ve just seen a multitude of quotes in which Trump has or has appeared to incite violence. However, we’re also not going to say that those quotes weren’t completely justified in some sort of way, and we’re definitely not going to say that violence and the supposed ‘encouraged violence’ against the opposing side is the ‘bastion’ of Trump’s campaign. Just before stating, “Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise I will pay your legal fees,” Trump also said, “If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato – knock the crap out of them.” All of the quotes in which Trump has encouraged violence were retaliatory, or pre-retaliatory. And although a big part of Trump’s iconic non-politician character is the fact that he often states rash and crude things, he doesn’t speak for the majority of his voters. In an election as controversial as the one in 2016, there are very few competitors to it in the sense that is has been the most, “I’m voting for Trump because I don’t want Hillary to win” or, “If you vote third party, that’s a vote for Trump (or Hillary).” I’m saying this to show how Trump and Hillary both don’t often speak thoroughly for the majority of their voters because the election was so polarized and ‘this or that.’ I also believe that both Trump and Hillary knew that, and that through knowing that, both candidates in their right minds focused in on what their campaign was based on. For someone to actually say that Trump’s campaign is based on violence, is quite mind-boggling. To say that while thinking rationally, you would’ve needed to be ignorant of the times political climate, and rhetoric of Trump’s campaign. In the article, the author also makes it quite clear that he’s pointing at the audience of Trump’s rally as representing violence and the basis of violence in Trump’s campaign. Which… is like saying, “Ya, because one guy punched another guy over an argument at Trump’s rally, and Trump encouraged them to fight back, every single person in that audience wants to engage in that violence.” Pretty absurd.

On to Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

First off, Vice posts a rude and very unprecedented compilation video of Sanders saying “look” around 60-70 times, maybe more (we lost count), mocking her saying “Sarah Huckabee Sanders really wants you to look.”

In that same paragraph, they create some (expected) parallels between Christopher Hasson, the ex-Coast Guard officer who wanted to ‘terminate the world,’ and Trump supporters saying, “it quickly became clear that the officer, Christopher Hasson, was allegedly plotting the mass murder of Democrats and journalists and subscribed to white nationalism. Trump has not weighed in on the case, though he had time to tweet about actor Jussie Smollett allegedly faking a hate crime.” WHAT? How perfect? That couldn’t better fit in with their narrative, could it? Good work Vice staff, a double slant towards Trump and his supporters. Really thinking outside the box here! But seriously, making it seem like Hasson, the clear white nationalist, was only in favor of killing “Democrats and journalists” is sort of, wait no, very incorrect. There is no way to correctly justify this statement just on the pretext of him drafting a hit-list mentioning names of some Democrats and media personalities. It was clear that Hasson was delusional and sought to “erase existence.” According to the Washington Examiner, there’s no evidence that Hasson is even a Trump supporter.

The attack on Sanders:

After the Hasson incident happened, one journalist asked Sarah Sanders at a press conference whether she believes Trump’s rhetoric gives extremists these ideas. Sander’s responded by saying, “I certainly don’t think that the president at any point has done anything but condemn violence against journalists or anyone else.” Going on to say, “In fact, every single time something like this happens the president is typically one of the people to condemn the violence and the media’s the first people to blame the president.” The writer Matt Taylor then goes on to call this an obvious lie. This, however, is where the writer is correct, but could be a little fairer in that this is a defense given for the president, against a group of media that has viciously attacked him, and accused him of representing, and being an advocate for white supremacists, possibly even hinting towards Trump being Hasson’s main motivation in “killing Democrats and journalists.”

“Obviously, Sanders is lying here—this is not a case where she might have incomplete information or have been deceived by her superiors. This is a conscious falsehood being uttered by a key voice atop the United States government. Anyone who knows anything about Trump knows that he has routinely praised violence, especially against the media.”- Matt Taylor

“But we can certainly hold the administration accountable for its own response to those acts of lunacy. When Sanders, the voice of the executive branch, is telling bald-faced lies about her boss’s history of stoking violent sentiment against the press, the question of who inspired who is no longer relevant. The country can’t have serious debates about gun violence, or political extremism, or white nationalism, or the role of the press, or racism, or almost anything when the White House is engaged in this kind of casual deceit.”- Matt Taylor

Both statements above recurrently claim Trump to “praise violence” and have a “history of stoking violent sentiment against the press.”

Although Trump has encouraged violence in the past, it’s clear that the unsavory tactic used by Vice to smear it on Trump’s supporters is a false cry to pin violence as the pillar of Trump’s campaign. It is also clear that Vice’s attempt to stigmatize the leaders and advisors of our nation, greatly represent their illogical impropriety and failure to address the true wrongdoers. The media. Being that they viciously attack Trump and his administration for opposing their political narrative and ideologies.

link to original article:

The Beat: A syndicate in independent publication.