Ivanka Trump, who 'tries to stay out of politics,' sat in for her dad at a G20 session

It's fairly common practice for government ministers to briefly sub in for world leaders at summits like G20. What's less common — and more controversial — is for the unqualified children of world leaders to take their parents' seats.

Anyway, guess what happened! Ivanka Trump, who, as you'll recall, "tries to stay out of politics," did exactly the opposite at a G20 session on Saturday. 

SEE ALSO: Ivanka Trump's Starbucks order is the well-done steak of Starbucks orders

Ivanka, who technically serves as an unpaid adviser to the president, didn't speak during her stint in the room. Still, a lot of people weren't particularly pleased by her presence. The move certainly raises a lot of questions, like 1) How is she qualified to confer with world leaders? and 2) Who thought this would be a good idea? Read more...

More about Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, G20, Culture, and Web Culture

Trump and Putin’s meeting went 4 times longer than planned

In their first official sit-down at the G20 summit in Hamburg Friday, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin kept talking long after they were scheduled to stop. First lady Melania Trump even tried to break them up.

“That didn’t work either,” said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, one of the six people in the room for the highly anticipated event.

In their scheduled 30-minute meeting, which ended up lasting more than two hours, the two presidents had a lot to unpack: the issue of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, which Putin continued to deny, and a precarious ceasefire agreement in southwest Syria, which goes into effect July 9.

In addition to Putin, Trump, and Tillerson, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and two translators were also present. The reason for keeping the meeting so exclusive, an unnamed administration official told The New York Times, was to prevent leaks and ensure clarity of conversation.

But clarity was not the impression that Lavrov and Tillerson gave reporters during separate briefings afterward.

Russian hacking

Lavrov said Putin denied any Russian involvement in the U.S election, and that Trump accepted his denial — despite the rare consensus within the U.S. intelligence community that Russia did, in fact, try to sway the election for Trump.

“Trump said he’s heard Putin’s very clear statements,” Lavrov said. “The Russian government didn’t interfere in the elections, and he accepts these statements.”

Lavrov also added that Trump told Putin some groups in the U.S. were “exaggerating” allegations of Russian hacking.

Tillerson, meanwhile, said Trump pressed Putin on the matter of Russian interference in the election right from the get-go.

“He began by raising the concern of the American people of Russian interference in the 2016 election,” the U.S. secretary of state told reporters. “He pressed him more than once.”

Tillerson also said that Putin denied Russian interference. “It may be simply an intractable disagreement at this point,” Tillerson said, adding that U.S. officials would develop a “framework” to make sure Russia would not meddle in American affairs going forward.

Lavrov said that Moscow and Washington planned to establish a joint working group to improve cybersecurity, a proposal that critics have responded to with a mix of alarm and amusement. It’s unsettling timing: a Bloomberg article published Thursday named Russian hackers as key suspects in a recent effort to breach at least a dozen nuclear power plants in the U.S.

Cease-fire in Syria

After the meeting, Russia, the U.S., and Jordan announced a cease-fire and de-escalation agreement in southwestern Syria, one of the regions that has suffered heavy fighting in the country’s six-year-long civil war. The region borders Jordan and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

Syria has been a contentious topic for U.S-Russian relations. While the Kremlin continues to back Syrian President Bashar Assad, the U.S. has called for his removal amid allegations that he committed war crimes against his own citizens. Human rights groups have also accused Russia of indiscriminately targeting civilians in airstrikes.

But at the end of the day, Tillerson said, the U.S and Russia had “exactly the same” objectives — though he added that the U.S doesn’t see Assad’s reign lasting too much longer.

“We certainly made it clear in our discussions with Russia,” Tillerson said.

Are Trump And The Media Enemies Or Frenemies?

In this week’s politics chat, we look at the war between President Trump and the media. Is the war real? And, if so, who’s winning? The transcript below has been lightly edited.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Hello, chatters. Micah went to the Jersey Shore this weekend and, unlike Gov. Chris Christie, hasn’t been seen or heard from since. So I’ll be filling in as moderator. Did everyone see some good fireworks last night?

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): I watched some excellent East River fireworks drinking from an open container. New York is a great city.

natesilver: I was in Peekskill, New York, which has pretty damned good fireworks, I must say. Although my pictures of them didn’t turn out very well.

But today we’re here to talk about another sort of fireworks, and one which is always a pleasure to discuss. That is, the ongoing clash between President Trump and “the media.”

clare.malone: segue

natesilver: There have been two major storylines on this front recently. President Trump has been feuding with the hosts of “Morning Joe,” including making some (IMO) sexist comments about co-host Mika Brzezinski. And then on Sunday, Trump tweeted out a meme (this is a very 2017 sentence) that showed … I’m not quite sure how to describe it. It was a clip of Trump from his wrestling days, and it showed Trump body-slamming a man who had a CNN logo superimposed over his head.

clare.malone: I love this synopsis of our age by Nate Silver.

natesilver: But as absurd as this all seems, if you’ve been watching cable over the past few days, or reading political Twitter, you’ve probably seen more about these stories than about the GOP’s health care bill, or about the emerging diplomatic crisis in North Korea. These stories are getting a lot of attention.

harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): There’s nothing more that the media likes to talk about than the media.

clare.malone: But, yes, I think you’re right, Nate — the idea that Trump is starting a media fight at a time when his party is pushing a particularly unpopular bill is striking. It’s a classic Trump move of distraction.

natesilver: So here’s my first question: Are Trump and the media actually at war? Or is this, to borrow a wrestling term, kayfabe? (Staged conflict?)

clare.malone: There is most definitely a real conflict going on here.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): I think so. I think we have an administration that at times does not respect the authority of any potential checks on it: the FBI, the special counsel’s office, the Congressional Budget Office, federal judges and, yes, the media. This is not the first administration to take this tack, but I think it’s gone the furthest since Nixon. I think it’s important to distinguish between “Morning Joe” and the investigative team at The Washington Post. But Trump casts all of the media as “fake news.”

harry: I think you can have a real conflict that is beneficial to both sides. Joe Scarborough saw record ratings after his tussle with Trump. But that doesn’t mean he likes Trump.

clare.malone: I think we have to separate a couple of things out: Trump sees hating on the media as a useful tool to gin up support from his base, to try to control a narrative. The media isn’t so much out to get Trump as to save itself from immolation during the Trump era when trust in the institution of the press is taking a nosedive.

I think some media organizations would love to see Trump out of office, but by and large, it’s the principle that he’s sowing seeds of distrust in the news that makes reporters’ blood boil.

harry: Look, most Americans don’t trust the news, so Trump is playing off of that. Trump, of course, isn’t popular either. The attacks keep the focus from being on him. It’s the same thing that worked to his benefit in the final days of the campaign, when we were talking about Clinton’s emails.

natesilver: It’s probably worth mentioning here that the two media entities that were in the news this week, CNN and “Morning Joe,” were very heavily invested in Trump throughout the Republican primary — CNN by featuring him on TV very, very, very, very often and Scarborough by being a big backer/admirer of Trump’s when Trump was having trouble winning much support in establishment circles.

So I can’t bait anyone into taking a more cynical view here? That “Morning Joe” and CNN are playing up the conflict for ratings?

clare.malone: Sure, I’ll take that.

Who runs CNN? The same guy who hired Trump to do a reality show. They realize that this stuff is good for making people watch their news shows, which used to be a lot more crusty and about stuff like European economic policy.

perry: I might give a simpler answer: This conflict is more interesting/colorful/easy to watch on TV than health care, which is super complicated. I would argue that TV was not covering health care that well/much before these CNN and “Morning Joe” stories broke either.

clare.malone: But I would argue that a lot of times, politicians and people in certain industries that are regulated by the government (health care, finance) relish in the confusing nature of their industry. It keeps people from understanding some basic truths that they might not like. See: mortgage-backed securities.

natesilver: We see that Google searches for “health care” — although not a perfect proxy for media coverage — have spiked for about a week at a time, only to fall back down again. Which could reflect the media’s short attention span for the story, or the public’s. At the same time, do we really think the public gives a damn about Joe & Mika’s conflict with the president? We know that senators who went to Fourth of July parades were hearing all about health care instead.

perry: But I thought Trump’s comments about Mika Brzezinski were played big for a different reason: It brought back the story of how he talks about and treats women, which was a huge theme of the campaign but not as much during his presidency.

clare.malone: I’ll agree that the Brzezinski episode brought back the visceral responses that people had to Trump’s “character.” Particularly GOP allies. Whenever a woman’s honor is involved, people feel more free to comment on what they see as bad behavior. I find it fascinating.

perry: Well, the Brzezinski comment drew lots of GOP senators/House members slamming Trump. Members of his own party attacking the president will always get attention.

harry: It allows Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse to go out and slam Trump … and then vote with him anyway. Media loves a bipartisan story, so that may be part of it.

natesilver: So that seems like kayfabe, right? It allows Republicans to show how “concerned” they are about Trump?

clare.malone: Virtue signaling, right? Isn’t that what we’re calling it these days?

It sort of is a steam valve for them to let off anger/frustration they have about him in other areas.

perry: I don’t think it’s a “kayfabe.” Ana Navarro, a CNN commentator, tweeted a particularly egregious example of the kind of hate mail some journalists are getting. I don’t know Ana well, but I don’t want to dismiss her concern that Trump’s comments on the media, particularly CNN, inspire more unhinged people to write nasty stuff to CNN reporters. I know this came up with Katy Tur, who covered Trump for NBC during the campaign. Trump supporters made threatening comments to her.

clare.malone: What’s fascinating about the adversarial attitude toward the media that Trump is fostering in his supporters is their view toward seeing any and everything that is produced by certain media organizations as being toxic — when NPR tweeted out the Declaration of Independence on the Fourth and people thought it was an anti-Trump screed, for instance.

natesilver: How widespread are those attitudes really, though? Are we getting a false impression because people are nutpicking on Twitter? Harry, how do you make sense of the polling data on this?

harry: The polling indicates that more Americans trust the media than trust Trump, but it’s also the case that Republicans trust Trump over the media. So it’s kind of beneficial in that way for both.

clare.malone: Are we seeing crazy voices amplified by Twitter? Probably yes. But the adversarial nature is certainly there. And I think the empowerment of the crazies on Twitter is alarming.

I’ll also point out the obvious that Ana Navarro and Katy Tur are both women, leading to a particularly noxious twinning of harassment: being picked on because you’re in media and because you’re a woman.

perry: So to jump back: Do I care that Donald Trump is in a feud with Scarborough? Not really. Do I think it matters that the Trump administration is blocking people from seeing the White House visitors logs or not taking questions when he meets with foreign leaders. Yes.

clare.malone: Right, the talk-show feuds are the most visible element of this media hate that Trump has, but they won’t have the most meaningful effect long-term.

perry: Yeah, I might say there is a semi-fake feud (the wrestling stuff) and a real feud (calling some of the Post’s reporting “fake news”).

natesilver: So should The Washington Post be annoyed with CNN for playing up the wrestling stuff?

clare.malone: Yeah, I think so. The wrestling stuff is sort of puerile.

harry: Without any context (and context is always needed), I thought the CNN wrestling GIF was just so ridiculous. Pro wrestling is, of course, fake. That said, there was the Greg Gianforte incident, when a politician body-slammed a member of the media.

clare.malone: And I think people frankly get a little annoyed when CNN or New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet says that Trump tweeting this out is making the media environment poisonous — it already was before he did it. It does make it look a little bit like CNN is taking pleasure in finding itself an object of the president’s hate.

natesilver: We talked about the notion of “virtue signaling” earlier, insofar as it applied to Republican members of Congress. But what about for the press itself? Do you agree or disagree with this observation from Jamelle Bouie, for example?

Outrage about, say, Trumpcare is coded as "partisan," whereas outrage about Trump's misogyny isn't. https://t.co/DEMon3726y

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) June 29, 2017

perry: I agree with that idea, and I think it’s super-important.

The Trump voter commission story, I thought, was huge — in some ways as important as health care. But I think it got nowhere near the coverage of Trump’s talking about Mika Brzezinski. Republicans could easily criticize Trump on that tweet, while the voter commission story was more complicated and has more of a partisan tinge.

harry: I think that’s part of the same point as before. Trump being a misogynist is something fellow Republicans are willing to critique. If fellow Republicans are, the media feels free to do so as well.

clare.malone: Right, as I said above, the only time this happens is around women. It’s this chivalry DNA popping up. Does that actually surprise you guys?

natesilver: I think we can all imagine a certain type of reporter/pundit who would vigorously denounce Trump for his behavior to the media but would be reluctant to imply that the GOP health care bill is bad public policy — or good public policy, for that matter.

perry: I’m going to defend the traditional reporters here. I think there is a difference between believing that no one should be on Medicaid (a radical one, but still a policy view) and believing it is appropriate to mock someone’s plastic surgery publicly. I think the former is more important, but there is virtually no defense for the latter.

clare.malone: I think, to Nate’s point, that’s something that’s incredibly damaging about the increasing partisanship in America: There is no longer a place where we all see a voice being the “voice of trust.” The discombobulation that we all have with facts is most damaging because we no longer can agree on any sort of north star of morality or even a place of valid critique. There is only black and white now.

natesilver: Do we all agree that this is is something new? Or at least, something worse than we had before?

harry: I’m not sure how many viewers notice the difference between something like policy and something like misogyny. If you look at the latest Suffolk University poll, for instance, the “nonpartisan” CNN is pretty much exclusively trusted most by Democrats. That trend has been developing over the last 20 years by the way.

clare.malone: The vehemence with which people are disbelieving news sources increased during the 2016 cycle, but it was there before. I think more mainstream Republicans are now subscribing to the Breitbartian view of things and more people on the far left distrust mainstream media since Bernie Sanders has often cast doubt on its motives.

perry: Yeah, I think this level of press-bashing and bashing of any independent entity that questions the president/administration is new. I just don’t think there is any analogy to this from George W. Bush or Barack Obama. So I think media-president tensions are high.

natesilver: To the extent you feel comfortable talking about it, have the three of you personally noticed an increase in abusive behavior?

perry: I have not personally experienced much of this. I think there is something about being a woman in this era; that is where I have seen the most venom from Trump supporters and to some extent Trump. I guess Trump made fun of Chuck Todd’s eyes, but the Megyn Kelly and Mika Brzezinski stuff was more personal.

clare.malone: I guess I don’t really have much of a comparison because I wasn’t really on Twitter that much pre-election. But on certain topics, I will get emails or tweets calling me dumb or commenting on looks when there are videos of us posted. But I think the dumb stuff probably happens to most writers, right? At one time or another?

harry: I do really think women receive more abuse than men. I’m not sure there’s much doubt about that?

natesilver: We’ve got to start wrapping up soon, so I want to close with two quick-ish questions. First, if Trump and the media really are at war, who’s winning? Would Trump be better off politically if he took a more conciliatory approach to the press?

perry: I don’t think either side is winning. Trump is going down, taking media credibility down with him.

clare.malone: I don’t know if there’s anyone who’s winning. What I will say is that the press, while doing some really great work during the Trump administration, isn’t necessarily losing but it’s not necessarily winning. We’ve still got major credibility issues, whether they’re our fault or not, and they make it difficult to pierce through at least some layers of American society.

natesilver: So do we think Trump deliberately picks fights with the press so as to distract from his other problems? Lightning-round answers, please.

harry: I just think Trump likes fighting.

clare.malone: Yes. He does. It’s effective because TV always takes the bait and everyone else follows.

perry: No — I think he hates being criticized and the media is criticizing him.

natesilver: So here’s the last question: Once Trump finishes being president — whether that’s in 2025 or sometime next year because he resigns from office — will the media be better or worse off than it would have been under President Hillary Clinton?

clare.malone: Worse off.

harry: Worse.

perry: Not sure. Trump will have eroded a ton of media norms. On the other hand, let’s not pretend here: a Clinton administration with a GOP Congress? Boring. Trump is driving up ratings/clicks.

clare.malone: Clicks don’t necessarily mean stories that are “good” for journalism. I think that’s what I mean — there’s a hit that the institution of the press is taking.

natesilver: My thinking is more along the lines of yours, Perry. I think the media was going to go through a really rough stretch either way, in terms of public trust. There were all sort of problems that it had covering Clinton, too. And I think Trump creates a lot more attention to politics, which is good for media jobs, even if they’re swimming against the current.

harry: I think television ratings are definitely up. I just don’t think for the long-term health of the media it’s a good thing to see even more erosion of trust.

perry: I’m pretty worried about this Trump-media conflict. I’ve always thought of journalism as a noble enterprise and in theory one that can reach everyone. I think he’s turning the media into the enemy for a lot of conservatives. That was already happening, but having that kind of effort led from the Oval Office I think is a big shift.

Cam Harris, the Fake News king of Maryland

If you’ve ever watched Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, you may have wondered how Ferris financed his adventure (including fuel, tips, tickets to the baseball game and a very expensive lunch at a posh restaurant). Well, the original script and cut of the movie included scenes of Ferris searching the couch for change and stealing money from his sister’s room, before calling his father and conning him into revealing the location of saving bonds… that he then takes without permission and converts to cash at a local bank.

(Search for ‘bond’ on this page and you’ll see what I mean; Ferris even brags to camera about how easy it was to fool his father by saying: “the guy gave it up faster than a drunk Catholic girl”!)

All of this was cut out of the movie because it made Ferris much less likeable. Similarly, a certain Mr Harris has chosen to omit and even erase a few juicy details from his own adventure, and I am here today to share those details with you.

There’s been a lot of misuse of the term ‘fake news’ of late, but it is utterly clear that Cameron Harris has been caught bang to rights producing entirely false and inflammatory stories (see earlier on Bloggerheads) that he specifically invented to appeal to a target audience in pursuit of profit and the advancement of a political agenda. You are encouraged to read the interview with Cameron Harris by Scott Shane of the New York Times, but for the purposes of this article, you really only need to see this later tweet by that same journalist:

My impression after 3 interviews with Harris: He doesn't fully grasp how pernicious it is to democracy and public discourse to make stuff up https://t.co/YTEC9QDJHx

— Scott Shane (@ScottShaneNYT) January 18, 2017

Cameron Harris has since published the following statement on Twitter:

While the initial motivation behind launching a fake news site was financially-based, the lesson I learned from the experience is far more important — and it’s one that can’t be covered in a tweet or even a NYT article.

–

There are large-scale changes occurring in America, from where we live and where we work to the people with whom we interact and the lens through which we see the world. America has responded to these changes poorly. Instead of engaging one another we have withdrawn into the ideological and cultural circles that support the belief systems to which we subscribe.

–

Fake news flourished in this election cycle because it served the purpose of reinforcing these biases, and it occurred on both sides. It catered to predispositions that Americans already held, and while fake news has been widely discussed, the dynamics behind it have been largely ignored. Whether fake news remains prevalent or not (and I hope that it doesn’t), our nation cannot move forward from such a divisive election cycle if we continue to seek comfort in our own beliefs and refuse to challenge our personal world views.

–

I apologize to those I disappointed by my actions, and my wish is that I will be allowed to contribute my informed experience to a larger dialogue about how Americans approach the media, tough issues, and the manner in which we, collectively, will inform our decisions going forward.

–

Cameron Harris

In short: it’s all your fault, America, and you need to take a long, hard look at yourselves.

The psychological projection may seem mind-boggling to you, but it’s to be expected from Mr Harris, who repeatedly and falsely accused others of producing fake news before, during and after the election, knowing that he was a producer of genuinely fake news. Further, the assertion that it happened on both sides is as misleading as it is self-serving: there may have been inaccuracies on both sides, distortions on both sides, and even a few latecomers trying to fight fire with fire, but the fake news phenomenon was closely tied to the Trump campaign and Trump’s own loose relationship with the truth, and every reasonable and informed person acknowledges that.

As for unhealthy divisions and what dialogue may lead to positive change, I would dare to suggest that some actual regret on Mr Harris’ part will go some way to taking us forward.

On that note…

This Twitter exchange between myself and Cameron Harris includes an example of his inventing people who don’t exist and writing dialogue on their behalf. This particular example includes his pretending to be a Black Panther intending to target “white women” on polling day:

@camharris_us @nytimes How does pretending to be a Black Panther fit into all of this? What kind of dialogue does that start, do you think? pic.twitter.com/c2Cq6aESnO

— Tim Ireland (@bloggerheads) January 19, 2017

Mr Harris also actively contributed to false allegations of child rape (which regular readers will know is one of my least favourite things):

Cam Harris has since been fired from his job working for Republican politician David E. Vogt III, but despite some clumsy attempts to cover his tracks, it can be demonstrated that Mr Harris listed Mr Vogt not as an employer but a client on a website touting professional campaign services under the name ‘Chesapeake Strategy Partners’ (chesapeakestrategy.com):

Mr Harris also listed many other people/organisations as present and previous clients, and I am right now in the process of determining the truth of his assertions in this respect. As regulars will know, I often put trackers on my outgoing emails when I suspect I am about to be lied to or stonewalled, and I can tell you for a fact that there are many Republicans in Maryland who are fully aware of Cameron Harris, his admission of making fake news for profit, and his claim that they are clients of his organisation ‘Chesapeake Strategy Partners’… but they are very busy hiding under their beds at the moment.

At the time of writing, only Mr Vogt has taken any action and/or issued any statement. So when you read the following list, do so knowing that near to everybody* on the ‘current’ set of alleged clients (other than Mr Vogt) has been asked about this and decided to keep their mouths shut for now. I can say with certainty that these people/organisations and/or associated staff have received and read questions about their alleged involvement with Mr Harris, and even engaged in internal conversations about it… but so far, no-one is talking.

You should expect more from your representatives and/or those who campaign on their behalf, which is why I have added hyperlinks to every name to include contact details for every individual/organisation on the ‘current’ list where I can demonstrate that they have been informed of claims by Mr Harris that they are a client of his, but decided not to respond. If you live in Maryland, or even the good ol’ US of A generally, you might want to have a word with some or all of these people about their alleged involvement with Mr Harris and their silence to date.

(*If anything changes, this article will be updated to reflect any belated cooperation/transparency. If there is a hyperlink on their name… they still have questions to answer, and you’re invited to ask them yourself. If the link has been removed, as it has been for Mr Vogt, then they have issued a statement. There is at present one exception, a Haven Shoemaker who has not yet received the relevant email as far as I know.)

Chesapeake Strategy Partners

–

Our clients

–

: Maryland State Delegate Jason Buckel

: Maryland State Delegate Brett Wilson

: Maryland State Delegate Deb Rey

[answered via Twitter 15 Feb 2017]

: Maryland State Delegate Haven Shoemaker

[may or may not have received my email, so gets a break for now]

: Maryland State Delegate David Vogt

[has issued a statement]

: Maryland State Delegate Robin Grammer

: Maryland State Delegate Kevin Hornberger

: Change Annapolis PAC

[UPDATED: issued statement on 23 Jan]

: Dave Gyles for US Congress, AZ-9

–

We have also worked with…

–

: Kathy Szeliga for US Senate

: Congresswoman Katherine Harris

: Republican Party of Florida

: Florida House Speaker Pro-Tempore Leslie Waters

: Vogt for Congress, MD CD-6

: Wasserman for Congress, NY CD-18

: Allegretti for Congress, NY CD-13

: Gallagher for US Senate, FL

: Katherine Harris for US Senate, FL

: Assemblyman John DiMaio, NJ-23

: Assemblyman Erik Peterson, NJ-23

To close, mainly to avoid anyone rushing to assumptions, I will add that I have asked Mr Harris directly if Katherine Harris is a relation, and I am awaiting a reply.

Updates to follow.

–

UPDATE (23 Jan) – So far, there’s a lot of internal chatter in Republican circles over Maryland way, but almost no-one’s talking. Still, the Chairman of Change Annapolis has today issued a statement, and that’s a start. The list has been updated accordingly, but there’s still a lot of names to go, and Harris himself refuses to answer any questions about the accuracy of the list of clients he published. Instead, he’s busying himself on Twitter making snarky comments on the media and critics of Trump and why no-one trusts them anymore. (makes face)

–

UPDATE (15 Feb) – Deb Rey declined to answer multiple emails about this matter, but finally answered the key question about Cameron Harris on Twitter (almost a month after publication of this article), saying: “I was never a client of his.”

-

You’re my hero, Anthony Gilberthorpe

My name is John Chefetz. Or maybe Jay Chafetz. Or maybe neither of those things. Names aren’t important these days, even when you’re making allegations of statewide election fraud, so I fail to see why they should matter here.

Seriously, my name really is John. In fact, my full name is John Honesty Johnson, just for the record, and yes, ‘Honesty’ is literally my middle name. I got a really hard time about that at school, believe you me! (Thanks, Mum!!)

In light of recent events, I feel that I must now publish what I personally witnessed in full with my own eyes on a flight in mid October of 1980 … exactly 36 years ago today, as it happens.

I was in Europe that September to attend the Braemar Gathering along with Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. No lie! Obviously, we didn’t travel or sit together, as I was only a humble lad from Australia, but I was quite near the Royal Box and within a stone’s throw of her at the time. I even kept the stone.

I will be frank with you and admit that I was on some pretty strong psychoactive medication that year, but the course ended long before my visit to America that same October, when I was flying in to a small town called Riverdale to observe the US Presidential contest between Carter and Reagan.

I’ll even be so honest with you as to point out that I was only 10 years old at the time, but that day did feature my first barrel roll in a commercial airliner, so my memory of the surrounding events is particularly strong.

I remember vividly being guided from my seat through blue velvet curtains into first class. I was on my way to visit the pilots in the cockpit! This was before 9/11, and in the 80s, when they let kids do all kinds of crazy stuff with the controls.

(You can guarantee that pretty much every time you felt ‘turbulence’ before the turn of the century, it was some cheeky kid jiggling the handle. I once hit the air-brakes so hard that everybody spilled their drink and the airline had to give everybody a free round!)

Anyway, this was my first time in the front of a real plane, and I was so excited that I barely noticed the rich American man sitting with a young woman and an even younger man who I could immediately tell was British, but I do recall that there were three of them sitting there playing with their orange-foldaway armrests before I went into the cockpit and amazed the pilots with my ‘accidental’ barrel roll.

However, when I was being escorted from the cockpit by a very cross co-pilot and a very pretty stewardess (who was so amused that she later gave me a free ice cream), only two of them were sitting there. I remember thinking at the time; ‘Perhaps the lady is composing herself in the bathroom after my amazing barrel roll.’

Then I saw it.

The rich and handsome American was giving the younger British man a set of cuff-links. I could tell the subtle way the light shone off them that they were pure gold.

Then I heard it.

The rich and handsome man said something as he closed the young British man’s fist around the gleaming cuff-links, and for as long as I live I will never forget the earnest look on the younger man’s face as he heard these words: “You were never here.”

And that is my incredible story.

You may choose to submit something under the comments about how brave I am to risk all by revealing this (barrel rolls in commercial jets were illegal, even in the 80s) but I am a humble man, so I’d prefer to only publish a small percentage of these and accept the rest of your good wishes privately. I hope you will understand.

And now, some music:

The Conspiracy Song

-

Cameron Harris publishes falsified evidence of alleged electoral fraud plot

MAJOR UPDATE (18 Jan 2017) – I have changed the headline to include the name of the person who invented this lie and then lied to me about it being an error by a staffer. Cameron Harris was today unmasked by the New York Times, and you can read all of the pathetic excuses he gives for his behaviour here.

–

“Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but he who makes his ways crooked will be found out.” – Proverbs 10:9

For a long time now, Donald Trump and his supporters have been making a series of excuses about stolen elections and broken microphones for reasons that are easy to guess at. Trump himself is championing an ‘election observers’ recruitment drive that I personally suspect is going to result in a similar vibe one gets from ‘vigils’ outside abortion clinics.

Recently the Christian Times published a story claiming that someone had found solid evidence of a Democrat plot to ‘steal the election’ in Ohio:

BREAKING: “Tens of thousands” of fraudulent Clinton votes found in Ohio warehouse (September 30, 2016) – Election officials in Franklin County, Ohio are reportedly stumped over what one maintenance worker found in a dilapidated downtown Columbus warehouse earlier this week. According to sources, Randall Prince, a Columbus-area electrical worker, was doing a routine check of his companies wiring and electrical systems when he stumbled across approximately one dozen black, sealed ballot boxes filled with thousands of Franklin County votes for Hillary Clinton and other Democrat candidates.

The author is very clear on what this alleged evidence indicates:

…it now appears that Clinton and the Democrat Party planned on stealing the state on Election Day.

The story has already been promoted widely by Trump supporters, including this one who runs a major ‘fan’ account called @RealDJTrumpTeam (“The Original DJ Trump Fan Twitter Page!!! Let’s Make America Safe and Great Again!!!”).

CRITICAL NEWS!
Wake up (if any real) #HillaryClinton lovers! You can't make this stuff up!!! @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/kwqHqvarkR

— Real DJ Trump Team* (@RealDJTrumpTeam) October 6, 2016

A variation of the classic ‘you couldn’t make it up’ line is there, and in my experience, you can usually find this wherever someone is making stuff up (see also: ‘Nothing up my sleeves!’) and this is no exception.

Here’s the main photo from the article, including its caption:

I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that this isn’t an image of Randall Prince from Franklin County Ohio, but instead a photo of an unnamed member of electoral services staff in Sheldon Heath, Birmingham (UK).

Oh, and those boxes he’s carrying? They’re empty.

How can I be so sure of all of this? Because the good people at the Christian Times have rather foolishly used a stock image and claimed it is a genuine photograph of the alleged discovery alongside the primary witness in their story (link to original):

For the doubters, here’s another image from the same series (link to original):

See that blue door and the adjacent building? You can inspect those for yourself by making a quick streetview visit to the Sheldon Heath Community Centre…

If the publishers of the Christian Times plan on claiming this was an editorial accident that does not impact on the central allegation, they need to explain why the image was reversed in a clumsy attempt to foil an image-based search.

(NOTE – This is why the ‘ballot box’ text looks so poorly photoshopped in the Christian Times version of this image: someone had to transplant and reverse the text, and clearly struggled to do so on all of the boxes.)

What I have published here will no doubt be enjoyed with considerable relish by those who oppose Trump and what he stands for, but today I choose to reach out to those who support Trump and what he says he stands for:

Seriously, you are being had. All politicians lie, but there are many things that you take to be a certainty that are not only lies, but some of the boldest lies I have seen in politics for many years: this is a measure of the level of contempt that Trump and his backers have for you.

I realise that this is a difficult thing to accept. You’ve made a strong emotional investment in fictions to a degree that most of us would be embarrassed to admit to. But, hey, you’re human… and I encourage you to cling to a belief of yours that is more reliable than most: there are people in the media who seek to influence this election through subterfuge.

You’ve got to forge ahead past that flushed feeling of shame and find your anger, because the individual who invented this lie should be called to account, and that won’t happen if the people who published it think their audience won’t care or notice.

The Christian Times needs to take immediate and firm action by retracting this story (i.e. by admitting the fault and publicising this admission as widely as they did the original article) and suspending all parties involved until a full and proper investigation is held, with a full report published. Further, Donald Trump and his campaign team should respond by recognising and denouncing this attempt to influence voters with a lie (not least because they have called upon others to do the same) and suspending all relations with the Christian Times until the matter is resolved.

If you ask for anything less, you are willing to accept lies from one side and not the other, and it is time to admit that to yourself.

If you get anything less, you should have serious doubts about the integrity of both the Christian Times and/or Donald Trump, and I genuinely trust that this is something you will recognise and respond to with healthy scepticism.

(PRO TIP: Watch out for claims/implications that this whole thing was an innocent mistake and/or somehow the work of Clinton campaigners trying to make Trump look bad.)

My closing statement is another quote from a book that’s popular among Christians. If you are a true believer, I wish you well and ask you to ponder on it:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” – Matthew 7:15

A gentlemanly tip of the hat to original spotter Michael Ward, who first brought the badly-photoshopped Christian Times image to my attention.

–

UPDATE – I have attempted to contact the Christian Times for comment, but there is no obvious email address that I can find. I did, however, discover some added detail as part of that search. The author of this article (published under ‘admin1′) is John Chefetz, ‘owner and founder of Christian Times Newspaper’.

UPDATE – As noted in the comments, the website calling itself ‘Christian Times’ is not associated with the Christian Times Newspaper, neither is it associated with the Christian Media Corporation Company. The bio details I quote above (and other text on their website, and the domain of the site itself: christiantimesnewspaper.com) may give a false impression about this, so I have taken pains to avoid/remove any mention of the word ‘newspaper’ adjacent to the name ‘Christian Times’ in my article, but also wish to add this statement for clarity in light of what the quoted bio claims and what the associated domain name implies.

–

MAJOR UPDATE (13 October) – I was in touch with the owner and admin of this site about the above story (not an easy thing to do, as the site carries no contact information). They claimed to be on an overseas trip and pledged to follow the matter up with staff as soon as they got back to their hotel room.

Then, instead of issuing any correction or retraction, they simply removed some text for a few days, and then, later, the entire page. They then uploaded an entirely different story that also used evidently fabricated evidence to support a further allegation of election fraud, this time taking BBC footage of election fraud in Russia and pretending it was a discovery of election fraud in the US. The relevant video ‘evidence’ has even been clipped to remove an obvious Russian flag in the foreground!

This comment under one of the copies of this video on YouTube tells you everything you need to know about the state of mind of many people who are taken in by these audacious lies and clumsy forgeries. Being told outright that the claim is false – even by people in authority – does not faze them at all.

It is often hard to determine intent in cases such as this, but here it could not be more obvious. The following is a series of screen captures of christiantimesnewspaper.com (no connection to the actual Christian Times Newspaper) ranging from February 2016 to October 2016. Note how the site has gradually shed any mention of satire over time in order to present itself as a credible news site as the election approaches. Despite claiming that they make it ‘abundantly aware’ (sic) that the site contains fiction, this has always been presented as fine print, even when the site carried such text, and it clearly stopped doing that a long time ago. In fact, the current version of this fine print promises “accurate news and information”.

Further, it should be immediately apparent to anyone who shows the slightest bit of interest in inbound links to the relevant site/articles that the allegations made about election fraud are being widely accepted/presented as both genuine and credible by some very emotional people who are by now utterly convinced that any defeat of Trump in November will be the result of election fraud. This is the kind of thing that not only undermines democracy, but can and often does lead to violence.

Here I will highlight the rather hopeful arse-covering statement in the aforementioned fine print stating that the site author “does not take responsibility for any of our readers’ actions that may result from reading our stories”.

Also, every page at the so-called ‘Christian Times’ loads the following pop-up declaring a previous fraud to be a certainty (“We already know that Hillary stole the primary. We can’t let her steal the presidency.”), and inviting unwitting readers to be alerted to further ‘evidence’ of alleged election fraud.

(That link to a ‘Privacy Policy’, by the way, goes nowhere. I checked. There is none.)

The owner states their name as ‘John Chevetz’ on the site but in private emails they give their name as ‘Jay Chafetz’. Either one name is an alias, or they both are, but the author has clearly been publishing their stories and the entire site under an alias (PRO TIP: this is not the same as using a ‘pen name’).

Finally, while the site owner (‘John’ or ‘Jay’ or whatever) refuses to give any details about a physical address for their so-called news organisation, there are forensic indications that ‘John’/’Jay’ is based in Delaware… even when he claims to be busy overseas.

Ah, the grandiose lies of habitual liars; how I have missed them*.

(*I wish to make it ‘abundantly aware’ that this sentence may contain sarcasm.)

–

UPDATE (18 Jan 2017) – Headline changed to include the name of the shameless liar behind this and other fake news stories: Cameron Harris

–

MAJOR UPDATE (19 Jan 2017) – I have written a new article that covers a few items that Cameron Harris would rather you didn’t know about: Cam Harris, the Fake News king of Maryland

–