Trump lies again. He did call Duchess Meghan ‘nasty’

Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Theresa May  (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

President Donald Trump insisted Sunday that he never called Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex and the wife of Britain’s Prince Harry, “nasty.”

The president used the adjective while discussing Meghan in a recent interview with Britain’s The Sun newspaper in the run-up to his state visit to the U.K. on Monday. But debate on social media since then has raged over whether his use of “nasty” referred to the duchess herself or the negative things she said about him in 2016.

Trump and his defenders have accused the news media of spreading a deliberately false narrative about him.

A look at the claim:

TRUMP: “I never called Meghan Markle ‘nasty.’ Made up by the Fake News Media, and they got caught cold!” — tweet Sunday.

THE FACTS: Trump, in fact, did use the word “nasty” to describe Meghan when asked about her comments about him during the 2016 campaign.

In audio of the interview posted on the newspaper’s website, Trump discusses the upcoming state visit, his second meeting with Queen Elizabeth II and the Trump family members who are tagging along on the trip. The reporter then asks about Meghan, who isn’t joining other royals to meet Trump and his wife, Melania, due to the recent birth of her first child, Archie, in May.

Asked if he was sorry to miss out on meeting the American-born Meghan and told that she “wasn’t so nice about you” during the campaign, Trump says: “I didn’t know that. No, I hope she’s OK. I did not know that.”

When told that Meghan once said she might move to Canada if Trump was elected, Trump responds: “No, I didn’t know that she was nasty.”

The former Meghan Markle supported Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, calling Trump “divisive” and “misogynistic.” The former actress also said she might move to Canada. “Suits,” the cable TV legal drama she starred in at the time, was filming in Toronto.

She ultimately married Prince Harry in 2018 and moved to Britain.

After the interview was released, reporters at some news organizations tweeted that Trump called Meghan “nasty,” sparking debate.

The case isn’t as clear as Trump portrays it to be, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center.

Jamieson said in an email that since Trump’s interviewer is informing him about a statement that Trump says he was unaware of “one would ordinarily assume that his answer refers to that statement.” But she says the answer — “was nasty” — could also refer to a person or to what the person said.

Complicating matters, Jamieson said, is Trump’s history of verbal attacks on people he views as antagonists and his sensitivity to negative statements about his election.

“As a result, difficult to know what he meant,” she said.

In the Sun interview, Trump also spoke positively about Meghan when asked whether it was good for an American to be a member of the British royal family.

“I think it’s nice. I think it’s nice. I’m sure she will do excellently. She’ll be very good. She’ll be very good. I hope she does,” Trump said.


Find AP Fact Checks at

Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter:


Follow Darlene Superville on Twitter:

Copyright © 2019 Capitol Hill Blue

Copyright © 2019 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

Trump keeps lying in Japan

President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, at Akasaka Palace, Monday, May 27, 2019, in Tokyo. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

President Donald Trump dismissed the hard realities of his trade dispute with China as mere foolishness Monday and told people to expect humans on Mars “very shortly,” which isn’t happening.

Here’s a look at some of his statements in a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and how they stack up with reality:


TRUMP: “You know, foolishly, some people said that the American taxpayer is paying the tariffs of China. No, no, no — it’s not that way. They’re paying a small percentage, but our country is taking in billions and billions of dollars.”

THE FACTS: That’s not true. U.S. consumers and the public are primarily if not entirely paying the costs of the tariffs, as his chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, has acknowledged. That’s how tariffs work: Importers pay the taxes and often pass on the cost to consumers. The U.S. is not “taking in” billions from China as a result.

A sustained trade dispute is not painless for China, either. Its goods become pricier and therefore less competitive. But China is not paying a tab to the U.S. Treasury in this matter.

As Kudlow said, accurately: “Both sides will suffer on this.” But in his view, “this is a risk we should and can take.”



TRUMP: “Prime Minister Abe and I have agreed to dramatically expand our nations’ cooperation in human space exploration. Japan will join our mission to send U.S. astronauts to space. We’ll be going to the moon. We’ll be going to Mars very soon.”

THE FACTS: Not very soon. The U.S. will almost certainly not be sending humans to Mars in his presidency, even if he wins a second term.

The Trump administration has a placed a priority on the moon over Mars for human exploration (President Barack Obama favored Mars) and hopes to accelerate NASA’s plan for returning people to the lunar surface. It has asked Congress to approve enough money to make a moon mission possible by 2024, instead 2028. But even if that happens, Mars would come years after that. International space agencies have made aspirational statements about possibly landing humans on Mars during the 2030s.


TRUMP on Iran: “If you look at the deal that Biden and President Obama signed, they would have access — free access — to nuclear weapons, where they wouldn’t even be in violation, in just a very short period of time. What kind of a deal is that?”

THE FACTS: That’s a misrepresentation of what the deal required . Iran would not have access to nuclear weapons capability in a “very short period” without violating the terms of the 2015 accord. The U.S. withdrew from the multinational agreement last year.

During the 15-year life of most provisions of the deal, Iran’s capabilities were limited to a level where it could not produce a nuclear bomb. Iran was thought to be only months away from a bomb when the deal came into effect.

After 15 years, Iran could have an array of advanced centrifuges ready to work, the limits on its stockpile would be gone and, in theory, it could then throw itself into producing highly enriched uranium. But nothing in the deal prevented the West from trying to rein Iran in again with sanctions. The deal included a pledge by Iran never to seek a nuclear weapon. In return, partners in the deal eased sanctions on Iran.


Find AP Fact Checks at

Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter:

Copyright © 2019 Capitol Hill Blue

Copyright © 2019 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

Correcting Trump’s ‘maliciously false’ claims on abortions

President Trump speaks at a rally in Panama City Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

President Donald Trump, in what’s become a staple of his rallies, accuses doctors of executing babies who are born alive after a failed abortion attempt.

His comments, meant to taint Democrats, have been embraced by many anti-abortion activists, and assailed as maliciously false by many medical professionals. What’s clear is that he is oversimplifying a deeply complex issue. It’s already a crime to kill babies, but not necessarily a crime to forgo sophisticated medical intervention in cases where severe fetal abnormalities leave a newborn with no chance of survival.

A look at his rhetoric, similarly framed from one event to the next, and the reality behind it:

TRUMP: “Democrats are aggressively pushing late-term abortion allowing children to be ripped from their mother’s womb, right up until the moment of birth. The baby is born and you wrap the baby beautifully and you talk to the mother about the possible execution of the baby.” — rally in Panama City Beach, Florida, on Wednesday.

THE FACTS: Federal data suggests that very few U.S. babies are born alive as a result of a failed abortion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 143 deaths between 2003 and 2014 involving infants born alive during attempted abortions.

Anti-abortion politicians and activists have been pushing for state and federal legislation this year that would impose criminal penalties on doctors who fail to give medical care to babies born alive after a failed abortion. Organizations representing obstetricians and gynecologists say existing laws already provide protections to every healthy newborn, whether born during a failed abortion or under other circumstances.

“We would never do anything to actively hasten the passing of the infant,” said Dr. Cara Heuser, a maternal fetal medicine specialist in Salt Lake City.

She and other physicians say the rhetoric coming from Trump and anti-abortion activists fails to reflect the wrenching circumstances underlying most abortions performed late in pregnancy. According to the CDC, only 1.3% of abortions take place after 21 weeks, and these often involve either severe fetal anomalies or conditions that endanger the mother.

When anomalies are so severe that a newborn would die soon after birth, a family may choose what’s known as palliative care or comfort care. This might involve swaddling the newborn in a blanket and allowing the baby to die naturally without medical intervention.

“The medical standard is to give hospice type care, not futile medical interventions, when the baby has a terminal diagnosis with no chance of surviving,” said Dr. Diane Horvath, a Baltimore-based obstetrician-gynecologist. “This is a deeply personal decision and it allows families to follow their own beliefs and faith traditions.”

Horvath is a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health and medical director of Whole Woman’s Health, which operates abortion clinics in several states.

Cheryl Sullinger of Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion organization, argued in a recent online commentary that lack of medical intervention in such circumstances could be considered criminal.

“If abortionists do not supply medical care for premature babies that survive abortions, their intent is for the baby to die, even if he or she might be saved with a little medical assistance,” she wrote. “This is to actually kill the baby through a crime of omission.”

However, Heuser said doctors in such cases often determine that medical intervention is not only futile in the long run but would, in fact, prolong a newborn’s pain.

“The baby is not ignored — comfort care includes things like food, oxygen, pain medication, and skin-to-skin contact,” she said. “Everyone’s goal is to make the newborn as comfortable as possible, respect the time the family has with their child, and avoid interventions that would cause additional suffering without changing the outcome.”

The legal situation in such cases varies from state to state. In some states, women whose own health is not in danger are barred from having abortions at late stages of their pregnancy even in cases of severe fetal anomalies.

“Those mothers would be forced to carry a baby to term that they know is going to die,” said Heuser, who cited cases where women with sufficient money have traveled to other states with less stringent laws.

That was the case for Kate Carson, a teacher in the Boston area who had an abortion late in pregnancy in 2012. She has shared her experience in recent radio interviews and newspaper opinion pieces.

In the 35th week of her pregnancy, Carson says, an ultrasound determined that the baby girl had a catastrophic brain malformation that would probably make her permanently unable to talk, walk, swallow or even to sleep comfortably.

In an appearance on the Washington-based radio station WAMU, Carson explained how she and her husband then reached the difficult decision to opt for an abortion.

“If we had to choose between the two beautiful and precious gifts of peace and life, for us and our values and our family we wanted to give our daughter peace,” Carson said.

In her home state of Massachusetts, abortions that late in pregnancy are allowed only if the mother’s health is at risk; Carson had to travel to Boulder, Colorado, to undergo the costly procedure.

In past years, anti-abortion activists have often cited the case of a Philadelphia doctor, Kermit Gosnell, as part of an effort to stigmatize other abortion providers across the country. Abortion-rights advocates say the Gosnell case proves their contention that existing laws are adequate. He performed extremely late-term abortions, then snipped the spines of infants born alive during the procedures. In 2013, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the chance for parole.


Find AP Fact Checks at

Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter:

Copyright © 2019 Capitol Hill Blue

Copyright © 2019 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved