Unpacking the Biggest Lies About Dangerous" Trump: How Democrats and the Media Twist His Words to Scare Americans
They’ve been at it for years—twisting Trump’s words, pushing baseless narratives, and smearing his supporters. Let’s break down the biggest lies Democrats and the media have sold to keep Americans in
On Wednesday, Kamala Harris walked out of the Vice Presidential residence at the Naval Observatory and stood behind a podium displaying the Vice Presidential seal.
When she stands at this podium, whatever she says is said from her official position as Vice President of the United States.
It was from this position of legitimacy and power she announced her political opponent and former U.S. President Donald J. Trump's admiration for Hitler, the killer of over 6 million Jews, citing a recent news report whose only evidence was the account of Gen. John Kelly who was fired as Trump’s former White House Chief of staff.
John Kelly already has a history of disparaging Trump with no evidence and whose claims have been refuted by many of Trump’s former White House staff, including Nick Ayers, Fmr. WH Chief of Staff to VP Pence, who worked closely with Kelly.
As we near the election, Harris’s poll numbers have continued to trend downward, and in what I can only assume is a last-ditch act of desperation, her campaign of joy has turned dark as she increases the divisive and dangerous rhetoric to an eleven, against a man who is not only her political rival but who has faced two assassination attempts in a span of three months.
This is a new low, but to support her dire warning, she cited multiple incenses as evidence that Trump is a threat to democracy and that if he returns to the office of the president, he will govern as a fascist.
Every example she gave is an example that Democrats and the MSM often refer to as evidence of the threat that Trump poses to our country. We have heard the stories of Trump warning of a bloodbath if he loses how he wants to be a dictator on day one. And his threats to political opponents, canceling the constitution, and that he has threatened to use the military against American citizens.
There is only one problem. All of these examples are lies. Let’s walk through each one.
Trump will be a dictator on day one
Did Trump say he was going to be a dictator on day one? No.
This favorite Democratic talking point originated from a December 2023 Fox News town hall with Sean Hannity. During this town hall, Hannity asked if Trump would promise to “never abuse power as retribution against anybody.”
"Except for day one," Trump replied.
But in classic Trump fashion, he was cheeky while answering questions from his friend Hannity.
In a jovial and teasing tone, Trump later clarified, "He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ (referencing Hannity) I said, no, no, no — other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator," drawing applause from the crowd.
To be clear, Trump's point was that if he won the election, he would sign executive orders on his first day to close the border and expand drilling. It is common for presidential candidates to outline the executive orders they would sign when they take office.
Biden took the opposite approach and focused on revoking executive orders, including the 94 Trump executive orders that were reversed. Among these were orders that contributed to an open southern border, resulting in the largest increase of illegal migrants in a single administration.
But why was Hannity asking this question in the first place?
If we are going, to be honest, the Democrat talking point that Trump would govern like a dictator floated into the ether shortly after he announced his run for president in 2016, but it cemented itself in leftist minds leading up to the 2020 election and, of course, blew up following January 6.
However, this particular talking point was prominent in the news cycle after Republican Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney lost her seat to a Trump-backed primary challenger during the 2022 midterms. This defeat followed her participation in the House "production" that examined the events of January 6, 2021. In an interview on CBS Mornings, Cheney stated that the nation would be "sleepwalking into a dictatorship" if Trump wins the presidential election next year.
Following this interview with Liz Cheney, the new Democrat darling, the talking point of Trump governing as a dictator blew up. Hannity asked the question during the town hall, allowing Trump to clarify the allegation. But in true Trump fashion, in an attempt to be humorous and entertain a friendly audience, Trump joked, "Except day one," specifically regarding the border and drilling, followed by, "After that, I am not a dictator."
Following Trump’s town hall, the legacy media stepped in with their headlines and subtitles, removing all context of what Trump said and injecting their own bias against the former president in the text of the articles.
But it was the Biden campaign that took the lead. Remember Biden? The president? He was still in the race then, and his campaign quickly sent out an email to supporters right after the town hall ended, with the subject line: "Donald Trump: Day One Dictator." The Democratic National Committee also shared a video of Trump's remarks, captioning it, “And there you have it.”
In typical fashion, the Democrats created a talking point, and the mainstream media disseminated it.
The enemy from within
This is the latest talking point, and I would argue it was Harris’s favorite before she started comparing Trump to Hitler yesterday. The talking point is that Trump will use the military or National Guard against American citizens and his political opponents.
While the talking point originates from statements Trump made about the "enemy from within," it can take on different forms, such as "use the military as his personal militia" and "turn the military on his political opponents," both quotes from Harris.
So, did Trump say he would use the military against Americans and his political opponents? Yes and no, but…
The statement originates from an October 13 (ironic right) interview on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartaromo on Fox News. Also, this talking point is a two-parter, so bear with me.
During the interview, Bartaromo asked Trump if he is expecting "chaos on election day."
"Not from the side that votes for Trump," He responds.
It is then that Bartoromo expresses her concern about "outside agitators," explicitly pointing at Chinese nationals and illegal migrants in the country. Then, Trump expresses more concern about "the enemy from within."
Within the context of potential "chaos on election day," Trump expresses his concerns about specific individuals on the Left whom he views as radical agitators. I believe it is fair to conclude that his worries stem from the history of radical leftists who protested Trump’s election in 2016 in major cities, which escalated into riots and blocked highways, as well as the widespread riots experienced during the summer of 2020 leading up to the election.
During the height of the 2020 riots, Trump offered the National Guard to Tim Walz, who turned it down. Tom Cotton wrote an op-ed in the NYT titled "Send In the Troops," arguing that the National Guard should be sent into the rioting cities to restore order.
Later in that interview, Bartoromo asked how Trump would "guard against the bureaucrats undermining you?"
It is in this context that Trump references California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff as an "enemy from within," specifically citing how he spearheaded the Russia collusion hoax.
It is important to remember that during Trump’s presidency, he faced numerous challenges from "within" his own ranks, including problematic staff members who regularly leaked stories to the press and surveillance of his campaign from individuals in the intelligence community.
The most notable example of a democratically elected president being attacked from within by his political opponents was the years-long claims of Russian collusion, which originated from the Christopher Steele dossier—a document commissioned by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. This dossier was the key evidence used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump’s former foreign-policy advisor, Carter Page, sparking an investigation into Trump and his family that ultimately led to a big fat nothing. The whole debacle was heavily pushed by Schiff, who is now running for Senate. Call me crazy, but I think "enemy from within" is a fair description of Schiff.
Shortly after, these comments spread through legacy media, stripping away all context, particularly the context of Bartoromo's question. A notable example was an exchange between CNN's Jake Tapper and Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin.
In this exchange, Tapper removes the context of the question and splices Trump’s two responses together as if they are related. Asking Younkin to comment on Trump allegedly wanting to use the military against Americans who disagree with him and his political opponents like Adam Schiff.
He asks Younking to respond after removing context, and it is clear that Younkin has not yet seen the clips in their entirety for himself. Leaving him to react to Trump’s comments without full context.
At no point in the interview when Trump was addressing Schiff did he say anything about using the military against Schiff, and it is clear that within the context of Bartoromos's question, he was talking about how to deal with chaos and violence by leftist activists if he were to win the election.
It is hilarious to me that the Democrats are suddenly worried about attacks on political opponents or American citizens who challenge the government. Throughout his presidency, the Biden administration has targeted Trump with lawfare. In October 2021, a letter from the National School Boards Association to the Department of Justice suggested that parents opposing vaccine mandates and the gender ideology being taught in schools should be treated as "domestic terrorists." Although the statements in that letter were later retracted, they were only addressed because people had the good sense to notice.
Context and truth matters except when a Democrat needs a talking point.
Cancel the Constitution
Trump wants to "cancel the Constitution!"
How many times have you heard that talking point from Democrats? And where in the world did it come from? As usual, it stems from Trump’s own words, but this time, from a Truth Social post.
Let me set the stage: It’s December 2022, a month after Elon Musk took over Twitter. For two years, there were whispers of Big Tech censoring information in coordination with the government. Musk released Twitter’s internal documents to journalists like Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and Michael Schellenberger, who launched the Twitter Files on December 2, 2022, to address this.
The Twitter Files revealed Twitter’s efforts to censor conservative voices and limit the reach of the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story. Documents confirmed that Twitter was responsive to government requests, flagging content for removal or shadow-banning users under claims of “misinformation.” This brought to light what many now call a system of government-influenced censorship, causing a firestorm over free speech, especially on topics such as COVID and election interference.
Following these revelations, Trump shot off the following Truth post:
Now, this Truth post can be interpreted in two ways: either he is calling for the termination of the Constitution, or he is pointing out that the Twitter Files reveal such a disregard for it that it’s as though it has already been terminated.
But the media ran with the story that Trump called for the termination of the Constitution.
The following day, Trump made another post on Truth to clarify his statements and refute media claims that he advocated for terminating the Constitution. He reiterated that the Twitter Files provided evidence he believed proved the election was stolen due to censorship carried out by Twitter, with guidance from the intelligence community and Democrats in the federal government.
So, next time you hear ‘cancel the Constitution,’ remember: while the media ran with that narrative, Trump’s words came as government influence over speech was exposed as documented reality. Oddly enough, they weren’t too concerned with the constitutional right to free speech being violated, were they?
"Suckers" and "losers"
The origin of the "sucker and losers" story will be very familiar to you if you listen to our UNfiltered episode because it involves the very same players who alleged that Trump admired Hitler — John Kelly, The Atlantic, and Jefferey Goldberg.
The "suckers and losers" story came from a The Atlantic article, authored by Goldberg, claiming that Trump disparaged fallen American soldiers during a 2018 trip to France to commemorate the end of WWI. According to multiple anonymous sources, Trump supposedly referred to war dead as "losers" and "suckers." The story also includes claims about an interaction with former Chief of Staff John Kelly, whose son died in Afghanistan, where Trump allegedly asked, "What was in it for them?" However, Kelly did not give an interview or comment on the article; instead, the details came from anonymous sources.
Following the publication of this story, fifteen members of White House staff who were in attendance and traveling with Trump refuted these claims and, speaking on firsthand accounts, flatly stated they were false.
Zach Fuentes, former deputy to Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly: “I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers?” (Breitbart, 9/7/20)
John Bolton, former National Security Advisor: “I didn't hear either of those comments or anything even resembling them. I was there at the point in time that morning when it was decided that he would not go Aisne-Marne cemetery. He decided not to do it because of John Kelly's recommendation. It was entirely a weather-related decision, and I thought the proper thing to do.” (Fox News, 9/4/20)
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, former White House press secretary: “The Atlantic story on @realDonaldTrump is total BS. I was actually there and one of the people part of the discussion - this never happened … I am disgusted by this false attack.” (X, 9/3/20)
Hogan Gidley, former White House deputy press secretary: “These are disgusting, grotesque, reprehensible lies. I was there in Paris and the President never said those things … These weak, pathetic, cowardly background ‘sources’ do not have the courage or decency to put their names to these false accusations because they know how completely ludicrous they are. It's sickening that they would hide in the shadows to knowingly try and hurt the morale of our great military simply for an attack on a political opponent.” (X, 9/3/20)
Dan Scavino, White House deputy chief of staff for communications: “I was with POTUS in France, with Sarah, and have been at his side throughout it all. Complete lies by ‘anonymous sources’ that were ‘dropped’ just as he begins to campaign (and surge). A disgraceful attempt to smear POTUS, 60 days before the Presidential Election! Disgusting!!” (X, 9/3/20)
Jordan Karem, former personal aide to President Trump: “This is not even close to being factually accurate. Plain and simple, it just never happened.” (X, 9/3/20)
Johnny DeStefano, former counselor to President Trump: “I was on this trip. The Atlantic bit is not true. Period.” (X, 9/4/20)
Stephen Miller, former senior advisor to President Trump: “[A] despicable lie ... The president deeply wanted to attend the memorial event in question and was deeply displeased by the bad weather call." (Washington Examiner, 9/3/20)
Derek Lyons, former staff secretary and counselor to President Trump: “I was with the President the morning after the scheduled visit. He was extremely disappointed that arrangements could not be made to get him to the site, and that the trip had been cancelled.” (X, 9/4/20)
Dan Walsh, former White House deputy chief of staff: “I can attest to the fact that there was a bad weather call in France, and that the helicopters were unable to safely make the flight.” (White House Press Briefing, 9/4/20)
First Lady Melania Trump: “@TheAtlantic story is not true. It has become a very dangerous time when anonymous sources are believed above all else, & no one knows their motivation. This is not journalism - It is activism. And it is a disservice to the people of our great nation.” (X, 9/4/20)
Jamie McCourt, former U.S. Ambassador to France and Monaco: “In my presence, POTUS has NEVER denigrated any member of the U.S. military or anyone in service to our country. And he certainly did not that day, either. Let me add, he was devastated to not be able to go to the cemetery at Belleau Wood. In fact, the next day, he attended and spoke at the ceremony in Suresnes in the pouring rain.” (Breitbart, 9/7/20)
Mick Mulvaney, former acting White House chief of staff: “These claims are simply outrageous. I never heard the President disparage our war dead or wounded. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I was with him at the 75th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion in Normandy. As we flew over the beaches by helicopter he was outwardly in awe of the accomplishments of the Allied Forces, and the sacrifices they paid.” (X, 9/4/20)
Maj. Gen. Bill Maz, secretary of the American Battle Monuments Commission: “I was the host of the event discussed by the false and despicable article published in The Atlantic magazine on 3 September … when the President’s visit was appropriately canceled due to weather, I received word also that he was upset he would not be able to make the wreath-laying visit…” (X, 9/8/20)
Tony Ornato, former deputy White House chief of staff, denied the report. (X, 9/3/20)
It wasn’t until a month later, just under two years after John Kelly was fired as White House Chief of Staff, that he spoke on the record with CNN and confirmed the claims made by The Atlantic.
The familiar players—John Kelly, The Atlantic, and its editor Jeffrey Goldberg—are significant in this narrative. Notably, there has been no one willing to go on the record to corroborate Kelly's claims, except for Kelly himself, who was fired from his position. Those who have publicly spoken out about the allegations have all refuted them, making the narrative a little more than sus. Why did we not hear from Kelly in 2020, after he left the White House, about the story of the "suckers" and "losers" until it was published in The Atlantic? Additionally, why did we not hear earlier about the new claim of Trump admiring Hitler? This information would have bolstered Kelly’s assertions in 2020. Yet, we only learned of it before the 2024 election through The Atlantic, a publication known for its critical stance on Trump and owned by the widow of Steve Jobs, Laurene Jobs, a major Democratic donor.
It seems sus to me.
"Very fine people on both sides"
I like to refer to this as the lie that started it all. While the media had been misrepresenting Trump long before the grotesque "Unite the Right" rally and counter-protests in Charlottesville in August 2017, this incident occurred early in Trump’s presidency. According to Biden, it was this moment that led him to decide to run for president in 2020.
Here’s how the infamous Charlottesville “both sides” narrative began:
In August 2017, the "Unite the Right" rally, organized by white nationalists like Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler, descended into violence over the planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. Neo-Nazis and far-right groups clashed with counter-protesters, culminating in a deadly car attack by a self-proclaimed white supremacist. Following the events, Trump responded during a press conference by saying there were "very fine people on both sides," media and political figures alike skewered his words, suggesting he equated neo-Nazis with those opposing them—a distortion that would fuel opposition against him for years.
But this was not true.
While Trump did say there were "very fine people on both sides," he was specifically referring to those individuals protesting the removal of the statue who had no ties to the "Unite the Right" rally or the counter-protesters. During the same press conference, he explicitly condemned neo-Nazis and white nationalists, clarifying that he was talking about people who were only there to participate in the statue protest.
And so, the "both sides" lie took root—a narrative cooked up and spread far and wide by those determined to frame Trump as sympathetic to neo-Nazis. Yet, Trump had made his stance clear: he condemned white nationalists and drew a line between those peacefully concerned about a statue and the radicals spewing hate. But this distortion proved too valuable for Trump’s opponents to ignore, shaping a narrative they’d cling to for years and one Biden himself cited as his call to action. The truth? Conveniently ignored.
Trump says there will be a 'bloodbath' if he loses
Did Trump threaten violence on the American people and say that there would be a "bloodbath" if he didn’t win the election? No.
In March, Trump spoke at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, campaigning for Republican Senate candidate Bernie Moreno. During a portion of his statements, he made a case for his tariff policy to protect the U.S. auto industry from economic overseas competition, especially in China.
"We are going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, And you're not going to be able to sell those cars - If I get elected."
After that statement, he says the infamous quote that caused the MSM and Biden to lose their minds.
“Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath. That’s going to be the least of it,” Trump said during a rally near Dayton, Ohio. “It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”
If you are an honest broker and journalist, it is clear that Trump was warning of an economic bloodbath. I don’t want to be the one who pulls out a dictionary to make an argument, but bloodbath is a common phrase when addressing an economic disaster. However, if you look up Bloodbath in Merriam-Webster, one of the definitions is "a major economic disaster."
Did the MSM or Biden care about the context of Trump’s statement? No.
Shortly after the comments started going viral, Biden retweeted a video of Trump that conveniently omitted the context, implying that Trump was calling for violence at the rally if he didn’t win the election. This was a clearly manipulative and dishonest move, especially since Trump was genuinely addressing the potential economic disaster of a Biden reelection.
The mainstream media jumped at the chance to parrot Democratic talking points, saturating the news cycle with Trump’s ominous prediction of a "bloodbath" if he doesn’t win. They then pretended to be bewildered, insisting it was unclear what he meant—claiming that with his well-documented divisive rhetoric, it’s only reasonable to assume that he is calling for violence.
One of my favorite articles is from Politico, which essentially lays out the same timeline of events as I did; they are still somehow bewildered by what Trump meant. Does this "journalist" have no general comprehension skills or know how to use a dictionary?
Donald Trump on Saturday said it will be a “bloodbath” for the United States if he doesn’t win in November.
“Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath. That’s going to be the least of it,” Trump said during a rally near Dayton, Ohio. “It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”
While it was unclear what the former president meant exactly, the remarks came as Trump was complaining about the automobile industry.
He then returned to telling the crowd that China would not be able to sell any vehicles imported into the U.S. if he wins reelection.
It’s all too easy to misrepresent someone as increasingly using divisive and violent rhetoric when context is stripped away or when their statements are selectively edited to support such a narrative.
ABC delivered a masterclass in editing and narrative framing that evening after the rally during its nightly news introduction.
The media and Biden's team once again twisted Trump’s words to fit their tired narrative and sew division, pretending his warning of an economic “bloodbath” if Biden wins some veiled call for violence. It’s beyond clear that Trump was talking about the economic disaster he believes will follow another Biden (now Harris) term—common sense tells you that much. But instead, the mainstream media and Biden went for the cheap shot, snipping out context and leaving viewers with the impression that Trump was threatening Americans.
The result? This is yet another example of how the media clings to its own storyline, ignoring actual facts to whip up controversy.
"Poisoning the blood"
A year ago, Donald Trump sat down with Raheem Kassam from Raheem Kassam of The National Pulse at Mar-a-Lago, where the conversation kicked off with immigration. Kassam painted a vivid picture of rising crime, immigration headaches, border chaos, and international instability, asking Trump if he’d ever imagined the "American carnage" unfolding today.
Trump’s words, "American carnage," weren’t new—they date back to his 2016 inauguration. Back then, he painted a stark image of hollowed-out factories, rampant crime, and an education system in shambles, pledging to stop the decline, saying, "This American carnage stops right here and stops right now." Yet, here he was with Kassam, highlighting how that "carnage" hadn’t just persisted but worsened, especially under Biden’s policies that have turned a blind eye to border control.
In that interview, Trump made it clear: unchecked immigration is destabilizing America—undermining our security, public health, and economy. His words, "poisoning the blood of our country," weren’t about bloodlines but about the relentless attack on American principles. He argued that by failing to secure our borders, we’re opening the door to people who want to exploit our system—or worse. But, as expected, the media pounced, twisting Trump’s words, claiming he was making a racial statement and dragging him through the mud with comparisons to Hitler, even suggesting he sounded as if he were reading from Mein Kampf.
Since that original interview, Trump has doubled down on this warning in subsequent speeches, pointing out the deliberate misrepresentation by the media. Each time he reiterates his concerns about the impact of uncontrolled immigration on American values, Trump highlights how the media twist his words to fit a divisive narrative—while sidestepping the real issues he’s bringing to light. For Trump, this issue is about securing American principles, and his repeated statements underscore his frustration with a press more interested in creating controversy than addressing the consequences of open borders.
For Trump, this isn’t about race; it’s about the core of America—our values and way of life. Politicians from both parties, especially during the Cold War, warned about "poisonous" ideas and agendas threatening American stability. Trump’s language reflected that era—a time when foreign ideologies and reckless immigration policies were seen as real threats. For Trump, it’s not hard to imagine how today’s unvetted migration might erode the social fabric if allowed to spiral out of control.
Once again, the media stripped Trump’s words of context, pushing a narrative of divisiveness. In truth, Trump was raising a real concern: America’s security and values are at risk, weakened by policies that open the floodgates with little thought to long-term consequences. Instead of focusing on the real issue—national security and the stability of our communities—the media chose to spin Trump’s words as inflammatory.
This constant game of framing Trump’s words to fit a prepackaged narrative doesn’t just distort; it distracts from genuine issues. Whether by design or accident, the media’s portrayal skews Trump’s message and leaves us with a conclusion that’s hard to deny—the media is trash.
Conclusion
Harris’s latest smear isn’t just another entry in the Democratic playbook against Republicans—it’s the most extreme and arguably the most dangerous to date. Historically, Republicans have been relentlessly vilified. Romney, one of the most moderate Republicans in recent memory, was painted as a sexist simply for saying he had “binders full of women” when discussing his efforts to recruit qualified female staffers. John McCain was labeled a racist despite having adopted a daughter from Bangladesh. Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Newt Gingrich all faced accusations of authoritarianism or fascism during their careers. This isn’t a new tactic; it’s simply more unhinged this time around, with Harris taking it to new, dangerous heights.
Standing behind the Vice Presidential seal, Harris has implied that Trump—and, by extension, his supporters—admire Hitler, the man responsible for the murder of over six million Jews. She’s not only misrepresenting Trump but also suggesting that Americans who support him are complicit in something grotesque and dangerous. In a country already deeply divided, such rhetoric doesn’t just escalate tensions—it emboldens. Trump has already faced two assassination attempts, and her framing of him as a Hitler sympathizer in waiting could easily encourage another.
Despite her claims of wanting to unite the nation, Harris’s actions show that her real focus is consolidating power, regardless of the cost. She’s willing to divide Americans further, to stoke fear, and to weaponize unfounded accusations to achieve her ends. Rather than a force for unity, Harris is proving herself a calculated and divisive figure, one who’s perfectly willing to tear the country apart to maintain control.
Thank you for explaining all this garbage and for providing all the accompanying clips. Those supporting Harris will not be swayed by anything other than believing her words. Unfortunately, it seems that left-leaning Democrats are not receptive to the truth. Similarly, those backing Trump will not be persuaded by this and it will not impact their vote. It is frustrating that we have to endure this nonsense so close to the election. Thank you, ladies, for another excellent Substack read. And just to add, i’m very happy. Harris took Cheney under her wing because that’s part of the reason she’s going to lose in my opinion. The two of them and their Trump hate fest on that town hall they had the other day was absolutely disgusting.