Wednesday, July 20, 2016

His lips are moving

“The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might.” — Mark Twain in a letter dated May 17, 1867 

THERE WAS a sales manager for a large vendor we used to buy from, and the prevailing rap against him went like this: "How can you tell when Alex **** is lying? His lips are moving." 


But Alex was a piker, a neophyte, a rank amateur compared to Donald Trump


And now, Melania. But really, what can you expect from a woman who would marry him?!?


After reading a speech containing sections lifted word-for-word from Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, now it comes out that Melania has lied about having graduated with a degree in architecture back home in her native Slovenia


(Don't even get me started on the fact that this orange, lying buffoon who wants to build a wall to keep immigrants out, married an immigrant! Has there ever been a more ignorant, lying hypocrite?) 


So guess what? Melania didn't graduate with a degree in architecture.


Here's a short piece from the Huffington Post, brief excerpts from Snopes.com and at the very bottom, a video comparison of Michelle Obama's and Melania Trump's remarks.





Melania Trump’s Claims She Graduated From College Are About As Credible As Her Speech Last Night


By Christina Wilkie
July 19, 2016

Melania Trump’s professional biography says the wife of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump began modeling at age 16, but she only began working full-time after obtaining a degree. She graduated “in design and architecture at University in Slovenia,” according to the bio as of Monday night:


Melania Trump never earned a university degree in architecture ― she dropped out of college after her freshman year. Still, she claims to have a degree from “university in Slovenia.” 


Questions about her education grew more significant Tuesday morning, following the revelation that Melania Trump plagiarized parts of her speech to the Republican National Convention from one that First Lady Michelle Obama gave in 2008.


Slovenian journalists Bojan Pozar and Igor Omerza wrote in their biography on the former fashion model that she “became ― and remained ― a college dropout” after leaving the University of Ljubljana’s architecture school following her freshman year.


Snopes.com 


Here's a screen a screen cap from the RNC program — the same lie that appears on Melania Trump's website and in her "professional biography."






Snopes.com says: 


There is no "University in Slovenia," nor is there a "University of Slovenia." The country contains several colleges, including the University of Ljubljana, which other news outlets have reported (without citation) was where she obtained her degree.


We also checked the Ljubljana University archives for any records of Melania Knauss, Melanija Knavs, and every other combination and alternate spellings of those names that we could find, and were unable to locate a record of her at that university, nor at any other university in the country.



And this from The New York Times:


How Melania Trump’s Speech Veered Off Course and Caused an Uproar


By Maggie Haberman and Michael Barbaro

July 19, 2016

CLEVELAND — It was the biggest speech of Melania Trump’s life, and her husband, Donald, wanted it to be perfect.


The Trump campaign turned to two high-powered speechwriters, who had helped write signature political oratory like George W. Bush’s speech to the nation on Sept. 11, 2001, to introduce Ms. Trump, a Slovenian-born former model, to the nation on the opening night of the Republican National Convention.


The speechwriters, Matthew Scully and John McConnell, sent Ms. Trump a draft last month, eager for her approval.


Weeks went by. They heard nothing.


Inside Trump Tower, it turned out, Ms. Trump had decided she was uncomfortable with the text, and began tearing it apart, leaving a small fraction of the original.


Her quiet plan to wrest the speech away and make it her own set in motion the most embarrassing moment of the convention: word-for-word repetition of phrases and borrowed themes from Michelle Obama’s speech at the Democratic convention eight years ago.


It was, by all accounts, an entirely preventable blunder, committed in front of an audience of 23 million television viewers, that exposed the weaknesses of an organization that has long spurned the safeguards of a modern presidential campaign, such as the free software that detects plagiarism.


Nobody seemed more startled than Mr. and Ms. Trump, who arrived in New York on Tuesday morning after a flight from Cleveland to find themselves at the center of a bizarre uproar over authenticity, plagiarism and a knotty question: Why did the wife of the Republican nominee borrow passages from the wife of the current Democratic president?


Ms. Trump spent most of Tuesday out of sight, while her husband vented his frustration and anger throughout the day.


This account of how a speech written by professionals was transformed into the problematic version delivered on Monday night at the Quicken Loans Arena is based on interviews with more than a dozen people involved in and close to the Trump campaign. Many of them spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose details that were supposed to remain confidential.


It reinforces dominant themes of Mr. Trump’s campaign that still linger from the primary, which his team has struggled to change: a deliberately bare-bones campaign structure, a slapdash style and a reliance on the instincts of the candidate over the judgments of experienced political experts, like Mr. Scully and Mr. McConnell.


The two original speechwriters were not aware of how significantly the speech had been changed until they saw Ms. Trump deliver it on television Monday night, along with the rest of the country.


In the prime-time address, Ms. Trump unfurled a sequence of life lessons — about how “your word is your bond,” about “your dreams and your willingness to work for them,” and the “integrity, passion and intelligence” of her parents — in the same sequence and using much of the same language that Mrs. Obama employed in 2008.


Just like Mrs. Obama, Ms. Trump explained how she wanted to pass those lessons on to her children and the children of the world. And just like Mrs. Obama, she offered a gauzy invocation about the limitlessness of aspirations when they are matched by determination.


In a series of evolving explanations, Trump aides and allies dismissed the episode as a trivial distraction, alternating between outright denial that Ms. Trump’s speech had used word-for-word phrases from Mrs. Obama and blaming the news media.


“Ninety-three percent of the speech is completely different,” declared Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, pegged the number of suspicious words at 50. “And that includes ‘ands’ and ‘thes’ and things like that,” he said on Tuesday.


Across the country, slack-jawed Republican political operatives and speechwriters expressed expletive-laden bewilderment at the organizational breakdown allowing such an episode to occur.


In interviews, alarmed Republican speechwriters outlined the layers of formal scrutiny, apparently disregarded by the Trump campaign, traditionally applied to almost every draft of a major convention address. They described word-by-word fact-checking by a dedicated team of experts and computer software designed to catch plagiarism. Several online programs, like DupliChecker, are available at no cost.


“The most cardinal rule of any speech-writing operation is that you cannot plagiarize,” said Mr. Latimer, the Bush speechwriter, who is now a partner at Javelin, a communications firm. If you do, he said, “you lose your job.”


That is unlikely to happen in the Trump campaign, which revolves around a freewheeling candidate with a fierce resistance to admitting error.


(On Wednesday, Ms. McIver released a statement taking blame for the lifted passages and calling them an innocent mistake in the early stages of drafting the speech. She said she had offered her resignation, but that Mr. Trump and his family had refused to accept it.)


The Trump campaign declined to say who or how many senior campaign officials read or reviewed the speech. But when Ms. Trump and her staff had finished revising the speech, virtually all that remained from the original was an introduction and a passage that included the phrase “a national campaign like no other.”


The controversy set off by the stumble spread rapidly from the political class to average Americans: African-Americans were angry that Ms. Trump had chosen to swipe the words of the country’s first African-American first lady, especially given Mr. Trump’s hostility to President Obama. Scores of Twitter users, deploying the hashtag #famousMelaniaTrumpQuotes, began to re-attribute famous lines, like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream,” to Ms. Trump.


But the mischievous teasing at times turned serious, as blacks invoked a painful history of prominent white figures stealing the work of black artists and presenting it as their own. “I’m not surprised Melanie plagiarized from Michelle,” wrote Yasmin Yonis. “White women have spent centuries stealing black women’s genius, labor, babies, bodies.”


To many Republicans, the lapse seemed frustratingly inevitable from a candidate who has not just eschewed the backstops of a major political campaign — he has mocked them as a waste of money. His campaign slogans, “America First” and “Make America Great Again,” echoed Pat Buchanan and Ronald Reagan. His social media graphics were crowdsourced on Twitter and Reddit by an aide who formerly managed Mr. Trump’s golf club in Westchester.


The mistakes have piled up. Last summer, Mr. Trump posted on Twitter his portrait superimposed over a picture of the White House and what turned out to be a stock image of Waffen-SS troops from World War II.



1 comment:

  1. Lazy, sloppy, dishonest and arrogant about it. This is more detail than I'd seen so far so I appreciate it. Oh, you know what I forgot in my list? Dismissive.

    ReplyDelete