Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

‘Wrong!’: Donald Trump trashes Wall Street Journal for fact-checking his exaggerations about the 2020 election

The former president railed against the paper for fact-checking his many claims about the election

Josh Marcus
San Francisco
Saturday 30 October 2021 14:19 BST
Comments
Italian Translator: Trump vs. Biden
Leer en Español

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

For Donald Trump, the 2020 election — and his conspiracy theories about it — has never ended. The former president slammed the Wall Street Journal editorial board on Friday, arguing that the paper was trying to “justify the fraud of an election in Pennsylvania” because it fact-checked one of his letters to the editor.

“The Wall Street Journal just did a white-washed statement, so incorrectly, almost as incorrect as their views on tariff against China, a country that has been ripping off the United States for years (not even including the disaster of the China Virus), trying to justify the fraud of an election in Pennsylvania,” Mr Trump railed in a statement on Friday.

Mr Trump lost the state by more than 80,000 votes, to which the former president responded, “Wrong!” and said the whole election was “wrapped up in large scale fraud or election improprieties.”

As evidence of this “large scale fraud or election improprieties,” Mr Trump pointed to a sheriff in Racine, Wisconsin, who claimed to have found eight cases of voter fraud, in a state where Mr Biden beat Mr Trump by more than 20,000 votes.

“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” Mr Trump warned in the statement before rattling off a litany of allegations of fraud in other toss-up states like Georgia and Arizona that Mr Biden claimed, states that have both undergone extensive vote auditing without turning up anything that would suggest a Trump victory.

In fact, the Republican-led inquiry into Arizona’s vote total, which became a conservative cause célèbre, discovered what it said was an even greater Biden win and no conclusive evidence of fraud.

The dispute stems from a decision from the Journal to publish a letter to the editor from Mr Trump earlier this week, reiterating his baseless claims the election was rigged, then another piece stringently fact-checking its many claims.

“He tosses off enough unsourced numbers in 30 seconds to keep a fact-checker busy for 30 days,” the Journal wrote, blasting what it called the former president’s election “monomania.”

“When one claim is refuted, Mr. Trump is back with two more,” the Journal added.

It argued some of Mr Trump’s claims had no other source beside rumours spouted on cable news, and others were based on what it called “amateur spelunking into voter data.”

The paper was criticised for running Mr Trump’s letter in the first place, given he and his surrogates’ propensities to greatly exaggerate or wholly invent claims of malfeasance about the election, none of which have been meaningfully confirmed in any court of law or official investigation.

“We think it’s news when an ex-President who may run in 2024 wrote what he did, even if (or perhaps especially if) his claims are bananas,” the WSJ concluded.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in