Trump's Election Fraud Speech and the Illusion of Proof, Part Two

Donald Trump

In his July 16, 2026 speech about election security, United States President Donald Trump made several startling claims about the nation’s elections. Furthermore, he simultaneously released documents in an attempt to prove them. Among his claims, he asserted that noncitizens are illegally voting: 

“According to the DHS review, state voter rolls and public records, they identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections.” 

As I pointed out in yesterday’s post, Trump’s speech created the illusion that he was proving things that he did not, in fact, prove. Instead of stating the proof during his actual speech, Trump referred listeners to the White House website. Note to readers: when a speaker promises to prove something, but instead refers the audience to an outside source for proof, you need to get suspicious right away. That tactic raises a giant red flag. 

Trump's Election Fraud Speech and the Illusion of Proof, Part One

Anyway, I accordingly browsed the White House website. I found a note, which did not prove election fraud as promised. Instead, it said that the White House was “addressing key areas of election integrity.” Basic government-speak. Typical Deep State hedging. I then looked at the link that said, “Noncitizens on State Voter Rolls.”  Curiously, only one page in that link (and by page, I mean, literally, one printed page) dealt with noncitizens on state voter rolls (the only other page on that link was on a different topic, pointing out that the Chinese government has been accessing American voter rolls, which is apparently legal, albeit extremely disturbing). Here it is. 

White House Document; Click to Enlarge

Thus, now that we have browsed through several confusing links, we finally find Trump’s supposed evidence that 

“OVER 250,000 NON-CITIZENS ARE ILLEGALLY REGISTERED TO VOTE IN JUST THE FOUR STATES FOR WHICH PUBLIC DATA FILES HAVE BEEN REVIEWED.” [italics added]

This page then petulantly lists 10 states (far short of 50 but more than 4, which makes me curious about the White House’s editing team) that have been “proactive” to scan their voter rolls for alien voters. Worse, even if we count all 10 states from the White House chart, the number of non-citizens registered to vote only adds up to 10,716. If that turns out to be true, it is 10,716 too many, but it is nowhere near 250,000, as the headline claims. Now, I am no math genius, but evidently I can out-count the White House’s wizards. 

The document conspiratorially concludes by claiming:  

“There is an undeniable pattern emerging as DHS begins to unravel the horrific damage done by the open border policies of the Biden administration. States that have adopted alien-first policies instead of American-first policies have a disproportionate number of non-citizens on their voter rolls.”  

Okay, as the old hamburger advertisement asked, “where’s the beef?”  

First, where is the valid evidence proving that these thousands of noncitizens are (1) registered to vote as noncitizens and (2) actually voting? A chart, by itself, proves nothing. Since I have been trained in social science research methods, I immediately want to know the methodology by which the chart was created. Unfortunately, that methodology is not given. This matters, for legal actions have claimed that the supposed lists of noncitizen voters include legal immigrants who obtained a driver’s license while non-citizens, but subsequently became naturalized and are therefore now legally allowed to vote. In one such lawsuit, the State of Texas backed down on its claim! Analyzing Texas’ actions, David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation & Research commented that, “Their claims would likely be dismissed [in court] until they could come up with something that actually documents how they got to those numbers.” 

Since the one-page document – the only evidence that Trump presented on this point – fails to address this well-publicized criticism, what, if anything, has been established?  

Second, if there are, indeed, thousands of noncitizens illegally registered to vote, why have these supposedly patriotic, data-driven states not prosecuted them – by the thousands? The evidence does not support Trump’s claim. That is not just a logical gap; it is a logical cavern. 

Trump made a simple, but vital, claim about election security. He presented no evidence in his speech, instead referring listeners to his website. The website provides only pathetic documentation. This reduces his claim to mere political posturing. It was easy for him to make false claims, but making such a claim in a speech does not prove it to be true. The speaker either offers proof or does not offer proof. In this case, Trump did not present the promised proof. Making a wild accusation proves nothing! 

Smoke, mirrors, and misdirection! A magician’s classic tricks. Trump’s speech directed me to a website. I plowed through the website, link after confusing link, only to find that any proof is doubtful. It is easy to make accusations. It is much harder to discover and present proof. It was easy for Trump to make these accusations. I, however, needed to do a lot of work to discover that he had not proven anything. Throwing out a puff of smoke in front of a mirror? That’s easy. Digging into the facts? That requires effort. That, in fact, underlies Trump’s real trick. 

Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"

Social science explains why Trump’s trick works. RAND Corporation researchers introduced the concept of the “Firehose of Falsehood.” The idea is that dishonest speakers, like Donald Trump, can spew out vast numbers of false charges. A firehose of false charges. One false charge after another. Their gullible audience doesn’t expect them to prove anything. However, to disprove even one charge is a lot of work. Look at how much effort I needed to create this blog post just to disprove one questionable claim. It’s easy for a speaker to spew out an unsupported accusation, but hard for a careful listener to prove that it’s false. Critical listeners eventually get overwhelmed. Trump’s speech made many claims. He proved none of them. I suspect that most of them are false. Do I, however, want to spend the next week or two parsing the speech, point by point, to prove that every single claim was false? No, of course not. I have other things to do with my life. 

One flaw in Trump’s documentation is absolutely fascinating: although the United States government is stuffed with skilled web designers, Trump’s team made his election documents hard to access and even harder to link. Why? Well, maybe Trump just hired the worst web designers in the government. I wouldn’t doubt that. Or, maybe, he and his team just schemed to make the documents hard to access. I lean toward the former, because of the old slogan that we should never accuse somebody of dishonesty when incompetence explains things perfectly well. Still, who knows? 

I hope, in a future post, to explain the ancient concept of Burden of Proof. Ultimately, Trump’s genius as a rhetorician, and his failure as a leader, is that he asserts things that he cannot prove. His loyal supporters’ biggest weakness may be their gullible eagerness to accept Trump’s dubious, unproven claims. Next time around, when Trump makes outrageous claims, our simple response needs to be: “you made the claim, now you need to prove it!” 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright ©2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of Donald Trump: official portrait, public domain

Image of Homeland Security Document, White House website, public domain

Trump's March 4, 2025 Speech to Congress: Why Are His Lies So Persuasive?

“Believe it or not, government databases list 4.7 million Social Security members from people aged 100 to 109 years old. It lists 3.6 million people from ages 110 to 119. I don’t know any of them. I know some people that are rather elderly, but not quite that elderly…. But a lot of money is paid out to people, because it just keeps getting paid and paid.” 

So President Donald Trump said during his speech to Congress yesterday, March 4, 2025, but he spoke falsely. Unfortunately, falsehoods, distortions, twisted arguments, and outright lies filled Trump’s speech. Politicians tell lies: who would have thought? The real question is, what makes these lies persuasive?

There is a rhetorical reason that massive chains of falsehoods persuade people. The RAND Corporation calls this technique the “Firehose of Falsehoods.” The answer lies in the numbers. A basic propaganda technique is to unload, not one lie, but a vast number of outrageous lies. It’s not a single lie, it’s a firehose. Tell one lie, and the audience might catch you. Spray out enough lies and, well, that is a different story A barrage of arrogant lies can persuade people when a single mild fib does not. To echo the old slogan, quantity has a quality of its own.

Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"

There’s also a psychological reason that massive chains of falsehood persuade people. The psychological theory called the Elaboration Likelihood Model states that people who lack the time, attention, or ability to check facts will tend to believe things that they have heard repeatedly.

So, look at a few of Trump’s outrageous statements.


What about Social Security?

Whenever someone says, “believe it or not,” as Trump did, my Spidey sense tingles away. Trump expounded further:

“And it really hurts Social Security and hurts our country, 1.3 million people from ages 150 to 159 and over 130,000 people, according to the Social Security databases, are age over 160 years old.”

Now, Wired magazine notes that the problem in the Social Security spreadsheet results, not from real data, but from a programming glitch. The chart was created by an obsolete programming language called COBOL that failed to read death dates for older Social Security recipients. Furthermore, Lee Dudek, the new Acting Commissioner of Social Security, notes that “These individuals are not necessarily receiving benefits.” 

Analyzing the problem in yet more detail, FactCheck.org notes that, although some ineligible people do receive Social Security benefits, the number is nowhere near as great as what Trump claimed. Social Security’s data shows that fewer than 90,000 actual Social Security recipients are 100 years old or older. That sounds about right. So, Trump was just carelessly wrong. Since his claims had been publicly refuted weeks earlier, he has no excuse. 

But Trump told other lies. 


A Mandate? I Think Not

Asserting his power, Trump claimed that:

“The presidential election of November 5th was a mandate like has not been seen in many decades.”

ABC News’ fact checkers note, however, that: “Trump's margins of victory — both in raw votes and in percentages — were small by historical standards.” In fact, in the final election results, Trump received 49.9% of the popular vote, against 48.3% for his opponent, Kamala Harris. Trump won, yes, but a popular vote advantage of only 1.6% hardly counts as a mandate.


Ended a Non-Existent Mandate? I Think Not

Well, the lies poured on. Trump claimed that he saved the auto industry by ending an “electric vehicle mandate:”

“We ended the last administration’s insane electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto workers and companies from economic destruction.”

Oddly, as ABC’s fact checkers note, the Biden administration did not impose an electric vehicle mandate. The administration had signed off on stricter automobile emission standards, which Trump did, in fact, revoke. But an electric vehicle mandate? Didn’t exist.


An Autism Epidemic?

Is there an autism epidemic? Vaccine skeptics and vegetarians cite a supposed autism epidemic to support their views of clean living. Trump’s unqualified Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Trump himself, have repeatedly harped on that.

So, it was no surprise in yesterday’s speech when Trump said:

“Not long ago — and you can’t even believe these numbers — one in 10,000 children had autism. One in 10,000, and now it’s one in 36. There’s something wrong. One in 36. Think of that.”

However, a research team led by Sebastian Lundström published this in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in 2022 said:

“Much – or even most– prevalence increase seems to reflect changes in diagnostic practice and ascertainment.”

Similarly, Tony Charman finds in the prestigious journal The Lancet Psychiatry, 2025, that:

“The authors argue this finding does not indicate rising prevalence per se but changes in the GBD methodology, specifically the exclusion of studies relying on passive case finding (registries or administrative estimates), which underestimate prevalence. The authors found no evidence of an increase in prevalence across a 15-year time window.”

In other words, the supposed increase in autism seems in large part to reflect changing diagnostic criteria, plus more interest by mental health professionals when they work with clients.


Lies and More Lies?

Tell one lie, and you probably persuade no one. Tell a hundred lies? Well, that’s different.  Suppose that Trump tells ten lies in a row. One after the other. Let us suppose that most of the lies are either invented out of thin air, or sucked from the dim recesses of Fox News or Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency’s dubious website. Lies are easy to produce, since they can arise from nothing, but they are often troublesome to refute. Any debater knows that it is hard to prove a negative.

Elon Musk, DOGE, and the Art of Squirming

ABC News’ fact checkers reviewed 12 of Trump’s claims, finding only one to be true, while marking the others with labels like “false,” “misleading, or “lacks context.” FactCheck.org, the premier fact-checking website, studied 12 of Trump’s claims, including some that were different from those that ABC examined, finding all 12 to be dubious. For example, they noted that Trump falsely claimed that Panama had turned control of the Panama Canal over to China. Trump lied about alleged savings from the Department of Government Efficiency and fentanyl shipments from Canada—among other falsehoods.

Now, think about it. After all, how many readers are going to study 12 (or more) seemingly nit-picking fact checks? Or look at several fact checkers? Or examine scientific and historical literature for themselves to verify every throwaway claim that Trump blustered out? Even the fact checkers got exhausted, which is why different fact checking websites covered different claims. It takes time; it takes effort. Isn’t it easier just to dismiss the fact checks as “liberal propaganda” or, maybe, “all politicians tell lies, who cares?”

And that is how the Firehose of Falsehoods overwhelms our critical processes.

Unfortunately, a barrage of lies overwhelms people’s critical capacities. I spent hours just looking up the fact checks that I cited above, and I hardly scratched the surface of Trump’s onslaught. If I didn’t want to write this blog post, would I spend that much time on it? Not likely.

For it was not just one lie. It was a firehose. Suppose someone lies to you and you check them. Fine. But what if someone pumps out dozens of lies? Some of them will slip through. Keep in mind, of course, that many of Trump’s falsehoods have long circulated on Fox News, talk radio, and social media. The Firehose of Falsehoods floods our search for truth. Quantity has a quality of its own.

I have posted previously about the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion, developed by psychologists Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. Their theory claims how people process and respond to persuasive messages. They show that when people use the Central Route to process a persuasive message, they gather information and think critically. However, the Central Route takes time. It takes effort. It often requires skills that not everyone has.

The alternative is the Peripheral Route. When people lack the time, ambition, or skill to use the Central Route, they might look at the source’s attractiveness or perceived expertise, or simply the frequency with which messages are received, or other trivial criteria. That is where Trump’s cascade of lies works. People who use the Central Route will quickly reject Trump’s ludicrous claims. People who use the Peripheral Route might be impressed by Trump’s self-confidence, charismatic speaking style, and, most of all, the relentless firehose of misinformation. At that point, sadly, quantity takes on a quality of its own, and, audiences can get overwhelmed.


Conclusion

Trump’s rhetoric could never persuade wise, careful listeners, but wise, careful listeners are not his audience. To be fair, no one has the time or ability to study and verify every single persuasive message. Trump obviously knows that. By presenting a deluge of obvious, easily discredited lies, Trump carried his listeners on a roller coaster ride of bluster, suspicion, paranoia, and absurdity. As a master of those dark arts, Trump follows the path of the Big Lie. As Goebbels demonstrated in the previous century, if you want to tell lies, go big.

by William D. Harpine  

____________

Research Note: 

Here is the original article about the Firehose of Falsehood. Any current persuasion textbook will discuss the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Richard Perloff's book is worth a look. I have blogged about the Elaboration Likelihood Model several times. This post about Paul Ryan seems apropos to the moment:

Paul Ryan Gave a Speech about Civility, but Are We Listening?

Image: Official White House photo

Copyright © 2025 by William D. Harpine

Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"

Trump speaking on January 6, behind protective glass

On January 6, 2021, a speech resonated across the Washington, D.C. Ellipse that changed the United States forever. A speech that changed the United States for the worse.

Just before the 2021 Capitol riot, President Donald Trump sprayed a “Firehose of Falsehood” to a huge, screaming crowd of his supporters. To set the public agenda, Trump unloaded a torrent of lies and misdirection to convince his devoted audience that the 2020 election was fraudulently stolen from him. The torrent of lies was so enormous and powerful, so utterly obsessive, as to overwhelm rational thought. He said:

“And by the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? Does anybody believe that? He had 80 million computer votes. It’s a disgrace. There’s never been anything like that. You could take third-world countries. Just take a look. Take third-world countries. Their elections are more honest than what we’ve been going through in this country. It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace.”

That was just a question, and questions prove nothing. Of course, no one stole the election. In November 2020, PolitiFact wrote that, “Since Election Day, PolitiFact has fact-checked more than 80 misleading or false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election. Federal agencies, state election officials and technology experts have all said this year’s election was among the most secure in American history.” 

Trump continued by attacking the press and absurdly claiming that the crowd numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Then, Trump stated his thesis:

“Big tech is now coming into their own. We beat them four years ago. We surprised them. We took them by surprise and this year they rigged an election. They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before.” [italics added]

Pointedly, Trump made this assertion after his own Acting Deputy Attorney General, Richard Donoghue, had already told Trump that the election was not stolen:

“I said something to the effect of, ‘Sir, we’ve done dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews. The major allegations are not supported by the evidence developed. We’ve looked at Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada. We are doing our job. Much of the info you are getting is false.’”

Nevertheless, in response to Trump’s speech, thousands of Trump’s supporters marched to the Capitol and many of them broke in, often with considerable violence. More than 100 police were injured during the attack, and a number of officers died shortly after. The January 6th rioters responded with enthusiasm to Trump’s speech, which consisted of a stream of falsehoods.

There is a name for Trump’s rhetorical technique: what RAND researchers Christopher Paul and Miriam Matthews call the “Firehose of Falsehood.” Trump simply spewed out more lies than anyone had time or energy to question, much less refute. One lie after another, an overwhelming stream of lies, with little or no proof. Since he felt no need to support his claims, Trump simply spewed them out, like a firehose, drowning out all opposition. His stream of lies seized the public agenda. Even his opponents talk endlessly about Trump’s endless lies. His firehose would never have fooled a thinking audience, of course, for reasons that we’ll cover later in this post.


The Firehose

Trump’s speech rambled ceaselessly—and seemingly aimlessly—from one unsupported or false accusation to another, and then on to the next, with no effort to prove any of them. He overwhelmed his audience, and the public, with questions, conjectures, and wild accusations: a continuous spout of nonsense. The speech’s incoherence was a feature, not a flaw; for Trump’s entire argument was to drown his audience in falsehoods.

Here are just a few of the claims he shouted at the crowd:


#1, Trump claimed that the election was stolen

What Trump Said:

“All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they’re doing. And stolen by the fake news media.”

Did Trump disprove Biden’s vote total? No. He just asked a question and made an accusation.

The Facts:

Ballotpedia found, with all states and the District of Columbia certified, that:

“In the national popular vote, Biden received 81.2 million votes and Trump received 74.2 million votes.”

Trump ignored a statement issued on November 2020 by Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security:

“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.”

#2, Trump Claimed That the Vice President Can Overturn the Election

What Trump Said:

Having claimed but not proven that the election was stolen, Trump then turned to Mike Pence to overturn the results. Trump stated falsely that the vice president had the authority to overturn the Electoral College votes and send them back to the states. He cited an unnamed lawyer (possibly Kenneth Chesebro or John Eastman) to that effect:

“Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it.”

The Facts:

Pence, of course, did not have that right. His largely ceremonial role was to count the Electoral College votes. Former Vice President Dan Quayle told him privately that, “'I do know the position you're in. I also know what the law is. You listen to the parliamentarian. That's all you do. You have no power.'"


#3, Trump Claimed That Votes Have Not Been Counted

What Trump Said:

Instead of proving that Pence had authority to overturn the election, Trump switched gears in a flash and launched into more falsehoods. That’s the firehose technique. Trump uttered a bizarre claim that the vote totals had still not been determined.

“They still don’t have any idea what the votes are.”

I have no clue where that claim came from. Apparently, neither did Trump, since he neither explained nor supported his claim. One quick sentence, a brief assertion that the votes were a mystery, and Trump’s firehose moved to a new target.

The Facts:

In any case, as noted above, the vote count was complete by December 2020, when all states and the District of Columbia had certified their election results and the Electoral College voted. So, yes, the votes had been counted. 


#4, Trump Connected the Coronavirus with Election Fraud

What Trump Said:

Trump turned the coronavirus pandemic into a conspiracy to cheat him out of his election. Now, yes, during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, some states encouraged absentee voting to reduce contagion. Trump turned that simple precaution into an undocumented accusation:

“But this year, using the pretext of the China virus and the scam of mail-in ballots, Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft and there’s never been anything like this.”

That is, Trump blamed the virus on the Chinese government (a common conspiracy theory), and assumed, again giving no argument, that mail-in ballots are fraudulent. Why are mail-in ballots a scam? He never said.

The Facts:

Chris Krebs, a security expert with Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security, explained that mail-in ballots are highly secure because they are easy to double-check:

"Auditability is a key tenet of ensuring you can have a secure and resilient system. … Really what we're talking about here is that if you're able to detect any sort of anomaly or something seems out of the ordinary you want to be able to kind of roll back the tape. If you've got paper, you've got receipts, and so you can build back up to what the accurate count is." 

In other words, there is no reason to think that mail-in votes are fraudulent or inaccurate.


#5 Trump Bragged about the Economy

What Trump Said:

Why would conspirators overturn Trump’s supposed election? Well, Trump told his audience that they were jealous of his accomplishments. Toward that end, Trump falsely (and briefly) claimed that his economy was a great success:

“We’ve created the greatest economy in history.”

The Facts:

Since unemployment in January 2021 was a staggering 6.4%, Trump’s claim was, to say the least, dubious. Did he give reasons to believe that he had “created the greatest economy in history?” No. Did his false claim about the economy in any way show that the election was stolen? No. He just zoomed to the next irrelevant falsehood.

Also, the investigative team at ProPublica noted that Trump left behind “the explosive rise in the national debt that occurred on his watch.” 

So, the facts fail to support Trump’s boast that he had “the greatest economy in history.”


#6, Complained Vaguely About President Biden’s Son, Hunter Biden

What Trump Said:

What Joe Biden’s drug-using son, Hunter Biden, had to do with election fraud, I cannot imagine. Nevertheless, Trump ranted about Hunter (a favorite target of Republicans) anyway:

“But Hunter Biden, they don’t talk about him. What happened to Hunter? Where’s Hunter? Where’s Hunter?”

And that was all he had to say about Hunter Biden. What did Trump prove? Nothing; questions are not proof.

The Facts:

Yes, Hunter Biden had personal problems. Trump was vague precisely because his comments about Hunter Biden were irrelevant.

#7, Trump Complained That Late Votes Went for Biden

Anomalies, however innocent, often trigger conspiracy theories. Trump noted, correctly, that many votes that were counted late swung toward Biden. The obvious explanation is that mail-in votes, which tended toward Biden, were often counted last.


What Trump Said:

But Trump instead implied that late votes mysteriously flip-flopped:

“That election, our election was over at 10 o’clock in the evening. We’re leading Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, by hundreds of thousands of votes.”

The Facts:

Trump was right that he led battleground states early, but that was before the large cities and mail-in ballots were fully counted. I’ll talk about that below.


#8, Trump Claimed that Hillary Clinton Wishes Her Defeat Had Been Defrauded

What Trump Said:

“And the only unhappy person in the United States, single most unhappy, is Hillary Clinton. Because she said: ‘Why didn't you do this for me four years ago? Why didn't you do this for me four years ago? Change the votes, 10,000 in Michigan. You could have changed the whole thing.’ But she's not too happy. You know, you don't see her anymore. What happened? Where's Hillary? Where is she?”

The Facts:

There is no record of Hillary Clinton saying any such thing, and the alleged quotation is certainly not in her speaking style. Trump imagines two points: one, that Hillary Clinton agrees that Trump was cheated in 2020, which is something she is not on record to have said, and, two, that she wishes she had been elected fraudulently. He then fabricated a quotation and attributed it to her. This statement arises entirely from Trump’s imagination. Hillary Clinton did make some poorly substantiated claims of irregularities in the 2016 election, but that is not equivalent to wishing that the election had been rigged in her favor. 


#9, Were There More Ballots than Voters in Pennsylvania?

What Trump Said:

“There were over 205,000 more ballots counted in Pennsylvania. Think of this, you had 205,000 more ballots than you had voters. That means you had two. Where did they come from? You know where they came from? Somebody's imagination, whatever they needed.”

The Facts:

Trump referred to an obviously false claim that circulated on social media and Republican officials’ statements. As the Patriot-News, the major newspaper serving Pennsylvania’s capital points out: 

“Those claims are easily debunked. In Pennsylvania, for example, there were nearly 7 million votes cast. The total number of registered voters in 2020 was just over 9 million.”

Since 9 million is a larger number than 7 million, Trump was obviously wrong. 


Many Lies, a "Firehose of Falsehood"

Many lies. But the above list merely samples the torrent. Trump made many cursory, hostile, often irrelevant, and quite unsupported claims. A series of false claims. A firehose of dubious, unproven claims.

Can Trump Be Refuted?

Let us play make-believe and pretend that a Democrat had the same amount of time to speak to the same crowd. What could that person say? A general reality of debate is that a speaker needs more time to refute an argument than to make the original point, especially if the initial argument has no proof. (Since to prove something takes longer than merely to assert it.)

Suppose that our Democratic speaker wanted to counter Trump’s claim that vote counts switched to Biden overnight. To understand the switch, we would need to remember that absentee and mail-in ballots broke heavily for Biden, and they were thus counted later in the process than the electronically recorded, in-person ballots. We might also note that large cities, which tend to be more liberal, need more time to count their votes. As Reuters notes about Wisconsin: 

“There was a jump in votes for Biden on the night of Nov. 3 to Nov. 4, but this was because Milwaukee County, home to the largest city in the state of Wisconsin, reported its 170,000 absentee votes, which were overwhelmingly Democrat.” 

Similarly, statistical researchers at FiveThirtyEight found that absentee votes broke heavily for Biden, largely because of the coronavirus pandemic. Our Democratic speaker could quote FiveThirtyEight’s explanation word for word:

“It’s not hard to see why Trump, then, in his desperation to hold onto power, claimed that Democrats used mail ballots to steal the election from him. Biden indeed would not have won without mail votes, but there is no evidence that a significant number of these votes were cast fraudulently. Rather, the increase in their use was a response to the pandemic — one that was even encouraged by most election officials — and the fact that these votes were so Democratic is very likely due to Trump himself.”

So, Trump’s claim can be conclusively refuted, but it cannot be quickly refuted. In the meantime, the Firehose of Falsehood can rage on.

___________

Liz Cheney's Courageous Speech Asking Republicans to Reject Trump's False Election Claims 

Trump and Fact-Checking at the May 10, 2023 CNN Town Hall: Who Needs Facts, Anyway?

___________

A Rhetorical Dilemma

Now, do we see the problem? To refute just one of Trump’s most outrageous claims required research and explanation. Yet, Trump had spewed out his falsehood in a few seconds each. To refute all his unsupported false claims would occupy far more time than Trump used to state them. The result would be a speech of refutation that would drone on for many hours, and to which no one would listen.

I have often pointed out that the winner of the debate is almost always the side that sets the agenda. If Trump’s Firehouse of Falsehood set the agenda, and it did, refutations would just sound like excuses. The Firehose overwhelmed reality.

___________

Trump, the "China Virus," and the Art of Controlling the Agenda by Misdirection

___________

So, Trump accomplished quite a lot of persuasion while offering scant evidence, but no truth.


A Rhetorical Disaster?

Obviously, Trump’s persuasive methods could only convince an audience that was not only fully committed and grossly uninformed, but also uninterested in critical thinking.

In contrast, a more serious audience would want to hear evidence. A psychological theory, the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) helps to explain the audience’s irrational responses. ELM says, among other things, that listeners who are unable or unwilling to analyze a message might, among other things, believe the message that makes the largest number of points. Trump also violated a basic principle of debate, which is that the person who makes a point is obligated to prove it. I’ll try to write more about those issues in the next few days.

The rhetorical outcome was simple: Trump shaped powerful persuasive goals—and most (not some—most!) Republicans still wrongly believe that the election was stolen. Trump’s Firehose of Falsehood worked. He set the agenda. Trump’s false outline, his cascade of untruthful claims, still occupies our national discourse. It’s the main thing politicians still talk about. Even his opponents incessantly talk about Trump’s falsehoods. And to what end? Stop one falsehood, and five others quickly replace it. That’s the firehose technique.

Our nation is in trouble, and the hard work of critical thinking is the only cure.

by William D. Harpine

Follow-up post: 

Election Count Conspiracy Theorists Get the Math Wrong

Copyright © 2024 William D. Harpine

Image: Voice of America, via Wikimedia Commons

Liz Cheney and the Firehose of Truth: Using the Republicans' Text Messages Against Them

“We are under siege in the Capitol.”

“We are all helpless.”

Those are just two of the text messages that Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney quoted in her speech to Congress on December 13, 2021.  She read a series of text messages sent to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. The messages all date to the January 6, 2021 riot at the United States Capitol. The messages were presumably from Republican politicians. Cheney cited messages, one after the other, that asked Donald Trump to call off the attackers.

In other words, she unloaded a firehose of truth, proving her point by quoting message, after message, after message.

Liz Cheney, official portrait

 Cheney gave far more evidence than she needed. Much more than the minimum. Such massive evidence can be persuasive; the RAND corporation shows how pro-Trump Russian propaganda outlets use the “Firehose of Falsehood” to spread propaganda. Propaganda artists spew out more lies than anyone has time to refute. In contrast, Cheney used a firehose of truth. She gave the proof. That is why, helpless in the face of her facts, conservatives have not even tried to rebut her.

A firehose of truth

Unlike so many speakers, Cheney had done her homework. The effect was devastating.

 

Cheney States Her Point

Cheney’s thesis was that Former President Donald Trump had failed to do his duty to control the January 6 rioters. That crowd was shouting things like “stop the steal” and “hang Mike Pence.” Their announced goal was to use violence to stop the counting of the electoral votes that made Joe Biden President. Trump delayed for hours before asking the rioters to go home. Cheney’s secondary thesis proved that Fox News hosts knew that Trump was behind the riot, even though they would broadcast false accusations that the rioters were left-wingers.

To prove those points, Cheney read a string of text messages that Meadows had produced for the congressional committee investigating January 6. She read from a manuscript in a calm, nearly expressionless voice. She proved her points by turning people’s own words against them.

She began with her thesis:

“Mr. Meadows received numerous text messages that he produced without any privilege claim, imploring that Mr. Trump take the specific action that we all know his duty required. These text messages leave no doubt that the White House knew exactly what was happening here at the Capitol.”

Cheney Proves Her Point 

She then read a string of text messages sent to Meadows:

“One text Mr. Meadows received, ‘You are under siege at the Capitol.’ Another, ‘they have reached the Capitol.’ And a third, ‘Mark, protesters are literally storming the Capitol. Breaking windows and doors, rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?” ‘There is an armed standoff at the House Chamber door,’ and another from someone inside the Capitol, ‘We are all helpless.’”

Again, without a break, barely pausing for breath, she continued her firehose:

“Dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials, urged immediate action by the president: ‘POTUS has to come out firmly and tell the protesters to dissipate. Someone is going to get killed.’ In another, ‘Mark, he needs to stop this. Now.’ ‘Tell them to go home.’ POTUS needs to calm this s—t down.”

Notice that, by this point, Cheney was simply reading a string of text messages, all on the same theme, all directly supporting her point. Not only their clarity, but their sheer numbers, rendered her point irrefutable.

She then turned her massive evidence against the duplicitous Fox News hosts who, only a few hours later, would be telling people that the January 6 rioters were actually left-wingers who supported Biden:

“Multiple Fox News hosts knew the president needed to act immediately. They texted Mr. Meadows and he turned over those texts. ‘Mark, the president needs to tell the people in the Capitol to go home. ...This is hurting all of us…He is destroying his legacy,’ Laura Ingraham wrote. ‘Please get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.’ Brian Kilmeade wrote. Can you make a statement? … Ask people to leave the Capitol.’ Sean Hannity urged.”

Cheney’s long string of quotations eliminated all doubt. We all understand beyond question that Republican leaders and Fox News hosts knew that the rioters were Trump’s people and were under his control. The sheer power of Cheney’s speech is reflected by the fact that, for the most part, conservative media are making little effort to refute her. For the most part, they are ignoring her speech. They are ignoring a speech that no one could ignore. It was not until the next day that Fox News made even a feeble effort to discuss the text messages. Trump himself remains silent. As of this writing, I can find nothing about Cheney’s speech on the websites of the conservative National Review, Breitbart, or other right-wing outlets.

So, for the moment at least, Liz Cheney and her allies on the January 6 committee now control the public agenda. Even more, when Cheney mentioned “dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials,” she tantalized the audience by hinting that the January 6 Committee has tanks full of more evidence. Trump’s supporters are no longer setting the agenda.

And She Gave a Public Speaking Lesson  

Thousands of years ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle explained that the two essential parts of the speech are to state your case and prove it. That is exactly what Liz Cheney did. She stated her point in simple, bold language. She then presented massive evidence to support her point.

So, we learned a lot about the January 6 Capitol riots from Cheney’s brief speech. She also taught us two public speaking lessons:

1. State your case and prove it. Good advice from the old days.

2. Do your homework and show your audience the facts.

Liz Cheney showed how it is done. She made it seem simple. Do your homework and prove your point. Now, although the conservative media are thrashing around to change the subject, it looks as if the irresistible truth is coming out.

______________

Earlier Post: Speakers Need Research: Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus

Earlier Post: Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself (P.S.: Speakers Need Research)

Earlier Post: Liz Cheney's Speech Against Trump's False Election Claims

Earlier Post: Liz Cheney Reminded Us of Our Values
_____________

P.S.: Cheney’s expressionless delivery was, oddly enough, perfect for the occasion. Instead of sounding like an angry radical, she projected a serious demeanor. Reading from a manuscript ensured that she got the quotations exactly right.

P.P.S: There are minor differences between Cheney’s text and the speech as she delivered it. As usual, her prepared text was polished. She ad-libbed during the presentation to make a few points extra clear. For the most part, this post uses the speech as delivered. C-SPAN provided a video and rush transcript. NPR published a polished text. To understand everything she said and meant, we should pay attention to both versions. None of the differences affect her message. 

Image: House Facebook page