Friday, 27 May 2016 12:25

Donald Trump vs. Elizabeth Warren: "Pocahontas" vs. "Small Secure Man"

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Presidential elections come and go, and so do friends.

One of the recent developments, perhaps more than ever, is the rancor of the debates over the upcoming elections in Facebook conversations, twitter posts, other social media, on TV talk shows and other outlets, including email.

Why is this happening?

I believe because the two candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are so passionately disliked and for some, loved.

These testy debates are even occurring within the confines of sub-issues and tangential matters such as the now-controversial tit-for-tat between Trump and US Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Which actually occurred today via email between a friend of mine and one of my contributors and fellow attorney,  Sarah Whalen, and me over the past few days ever since the latest salvos launched earlier this week.

To summarize, Trump and Warren exchanged insults over his statement leading up to the recent market crash of 2008.  This week, Trump has revived his prior claim, that is Warren is not only goofy, but she cannot be believed or trusted because she has contended lineage to being Native American, when, he says, she is not.  Trump has called her Pocahontas as a result, which elevated the ire of some, including other native Americans, who see Trump’s charge as racially-charged.  In return, Warren called Trump a "small, insecure man".

According to Warren critics, such as my friend, who also appears to be learning pro-Trump, Warren clicked on the box claiming she was Native American to be able to be treated more favorably by Universities.  The issue arose during the last Massachusetts US Senate race.

For more details, here is a link to a credible publication, The Atlantic that explains in more detail and another link to a Wikipedia page on the subject.  

Sarah and I exchanged emails on the issue.  No, nobody is going to call the other Pocahontas or some other term (or do anything even more nasty), we just had an exchange that is of legitimate debate.

To make the point, here are some of the highlights in the email exchange with my friend regarding Warren and Trump and their respective credibility.   Keep in mind, these were sent via email, so all rules of grammar are relaxed

COMMENTS FROM SARAH (published with her permission)

Native Americans believe that Warren told an untruth about her lineage and received a material benefit for doing that.  Her untruth was also used by Harvard University to say that it was meeting minority quotas.

To read up on the issue, read this The Atlantic article (see above)

The point is this:  If Warren is going to attack Trump and call him a liar, she has to be prepared to similarly accused.

There's an old saying about someone like Warren:  "You can dish it out, but you can't take it."

 Name-calling doesn't bother me.  Warren may object to being called "Pocahantas" but there really is nothing perjorative in that term!

It is simply the name of a genuine, famous native American that most Americans recognize because Disney made a movie cartoon about her.

It's not a question of whether anyone can prove conclusively that Warren "lied" about her racial background.  It's a question of whether she had reason to know that one day, she might be called to account for her claims, and whether she or anyone close to her received any material benefits from her claims.

Warren may object to being called "Pocahantas" but there really is nothing perjorative in that term!

Membership in ANY tribe is determined by a bloodline, unless you are adopted in, which is a very formal procedure.

A person like Elizabeth WArren who is a highly educated LAWYER is charged with knowing that ticking a racial designation box should be more than just a guess, or a reliance on some hazy remarks made by her "Meemaw and Pawpaw" (Warren's exact word for her "source").  And you need more than "high cheekbones" to substantiate such a claim.

She could put an end to the controversy by simply submitting to a DNA test.  if she has siblings, they should be tested, also.  It is likely that Native American DNA would show up, if she has a direct ancestor as she claims.

Is Warren lying?

I think the fairest answer is to say that she had a very small reason to believe her Meemaw's stories, but a much larger reason to doubt them, which would lead to a duty to investigate.  When it comes to making a designation on a federal form, you'd best be sure, especially if you have so much education and you stand to materially benefit from that designation either directly or through an employer like a university that needs to make racial and ethnic quotas.

My amazement that Warren did this has absolutely nothing to do with Trump.

But i had to laugh when he called her "Pocahontas."

Maybe her new name should be, "Blue-Eyed BLond Lady with HIgh Cheekbones," except i don't even see that her cheekbones are any higher than anyone else's.

I think that Warren is hoping to become Biden's VP in the event that Hillary just implodes.  Warren thinks that her being on the ticket will pacify the Bernie Sanders supporters.

This is why she is fighting so hard against Trump.  It is all just political posturing and situating.

what WArren did in making her spurious claim was foolish.  I understand being tempted to do it.  There are tangible benefits, and the likelihood of being caught doing it is negligible.  but not if you are going into a political career.

She certainly should have known what she was doing was questionable, and now, she's paying the price for it.

I don't see that this has anything to do with Trump at all, except that he called her a name:  "Pocahontas," which is probably the only Native American name he knows.  Funny how people forget that their was a hit song a long time back about Hiawatha (I think) and, oh, who was it?

Ok, got it now-- Running Bear and Little White Dove!


The only point I have made is this--one does not call anybody a liar unless they know with a preponderance of evidence that the person making the state intended to deceived.

How do you prove that a person had sufficient scienter to deceive?

Usually by circumstantial evidence since a person will rarely say, I lied.

Do we know what she was thinking at the time she clicked the boxes?  Did she tell anybody she was going to do this to pretend she was cherokee?  Do we know why she did this?  Just because somebody is a lawyer, would that mean they would know the rules of the cherokee nation even if they were adopted by feds?

If her parents told her she was a cherokee, if she believed it, if her parents told her that they eloped and she believed it, why would she even have to investigate?

Do you think this person is going to demand that she release her school records and also demand Trump release his tax returns for last 30 years?

In my view, this is insufficient evidence that at the times she marked cherokee or native american or whatever, she knew she was not.  You choose to believe otherwise because you are drawinng different conclusion, i think, from the same body of evidence.

For comparison purposes:

Donald Trump was heard the recording of John miller talking to the People Magazine, discussing very detailed information that nobody would know unless they had really intimate relationship with Trump.  Miller said he was new.  Trump then denied that the John Miller voice, was him.  If the voice was him, Trump not only lied when making the call, he lied again when asked about it, especially after he accused everybody in the world of being a liar.  Roger Stone admitted that was him by saying, "‘Trump wanted to get his spin and his side of the story, so he handled the press call himself — probably because he didn’t want to pay a public relations expert,’ Stone continued. “’What difference does it make?’”"

According to media, court records show that Trump admitted he used false names.  It soounds just like Trump.  The words and phrases he used and the way he used it sounds just like Trump.  

Trump also said the other night on Jimmy Kimmel that he used fake names before, like John Barron.  

Trump was quick to get other women to support his claims after NY Times article.  Trump has not offered to present Miller.  Nor has he presented any records that this guy existed.  Nor has anybody working for Trump said this guy existed and that they knew Miller.  

I have no actual knowledge that Trump knew, at the time that he told NBC, that John Miller was not him, if he knew in fact that it was him, which, if he did, it would surely present Trump as a liar.

so, i have no direct evidence.

However, what I do know is this.  The inferences i am making from these facts, to me, strongly conclude that Trump lied (for the reasons i stated above).  So, can i say with certainty that he lied?  Nope.  Can I say with certainty that i think and strongly believe he lied?  Absolutely.

Further, the very fact that he slammed just about all of the presidential candidates and all of the media as being dishonest, yet, to me, it is so very obvious that he lied, to me, shows incredible hypocrisy on Trump's part and shows the length that his supporters will go to bend their own sense of right and wrong so their candidates gets elected.

The main point i was making yesterday, however, was Trump insists upon making enemies of people who are minorities in this country which is not only going to hurt him, but those down ticket.  He has insulted Hispanics, Asians, 1.7 billion Muslims, women, African Americans.  Now, he is insulting native Americans with his derisive speech.  There are not enough angry white men, racists and bigots and right wingers out in this country to make up the differences, especially in the key states.  He peeved off the governor of New Mexico unnecessarily, who is very  popular and who is a minority twice (woman, Hispanic) and who happens to be the President of the GOP Governor's Association.  He has peeved off almost all of the republican party who are backing him only because they hate Clinton.  

Last, Trump basically admitted that he should not be believed.

On Jimmy Kimmel the other night, he admitted that he was Full of It when he praised Clinton as late as 2012.  Said he does this because it helps his business.  Well, if he is going to lie all of the time to help his business, why would he not lie all of the time if he feels like it is going to help his campaign.

So, I agree, there is evidence out there that would allow someone who wants to believe the Senator is lying to say that she is.  However, there is at least equal evidence and in my opinion, a significant amount of evidence, that the case of her lying here has not been proven.  that does not mean, she is not lying, it only means that so far, it has not been proven, IMO.

But, anybody who wants to believe Trump about anything he says, I believe, is not only willing to ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, (regardless of his rationale for doing so) but is willing to be blasted as promoting a hypocrite of the highest magnitude.

And yes, I don't believe Hillary and have said so in public, so this does not exclude her from my wrath.  But i have found no evidence of her killing anybody which is what Trumpers want you to believe.

(The conversation continued on some unrelated issues, so we will leave this friendly-discussion, here, for now.

Meantime, here are some twitter comments on the issue and below, please plug in your own two cents on the issue.


Last modified on Friday, 27 May 2016 13:47
Login to post comments



Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1