Time Is Not On His Side: Magazine Contradicts Trump’s Person-of-the-Year Claims

time-poy-cover-trump-today-161206_cbe454aa529a192dd0e276627cd43f31.today-inline-largeTIME Magazine contradicted the assertions of President Donald Trump that he was offered to be Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year” but declined the offer. Trump tweeted that “Time Magazine called to say that I was PROBABLY going to be named “Man (Person) of the Year,” like last year. But I would have to agree to an interview and a major photo shoot. I said probably is no good and took a pass. Thanks anyway!” The magazine now claims that the account is false.

President Trump’s representation is quite detailed on there being a call to him, a heads up on his probable selection, a discussion of a photo shoot and interview, and his decision to turn it down.  That is a lot of information and another person (as well as White House staff) involved in the alleged conversation.

However, Time tweeted in response that “The President is incorrect about how we choose Person of the Year. TIME does not comment on our choice until publication, which is December 6.”  Then Alan Murray, chief content officer of Time Inc. directly contradicted the claim that Trump declined after being asked for a possible interview and photo shoot: “Amazing. Not a speck of truth here,” Murray tweeted Friday night.

An unofficial public poll by Time  has Trump tied for third place at 5% of the vote for “Person of the Year.”  Strangely, Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia is ranked No. 1 with 21% of the vote.

Of course, Sarah Sanders is embroiled in her own “pie-gate” controversy. However, I see no serious basis for the claims that she used a stock photo and she has supplied an affidavit of types from a child.  This is less charming and more worrisome as a story.

The statement of Time is obviously damaging but Trump should be able to, at a minimum, produce call logs showing a call from Time and the identity of the person calling.  At the moment, all we know is that someone is openly lying. If this call was made by anyone associated with Time (and the President has a very specific recollection), this would be a shocking example of a hostile media effort to discredit Trump.  Time has a duty of due diligence to confirm whether a call was made before such a public denial by Murray.  Murray is clearly denying the entirety of the tweet, including the call to Trump. Conversely, if no call was made, the President would appear virtually delusional. Either way, it would be good for the public to know the truth.  While the subject matter may be trivial,  the public misrepresentation is not and it would be good for the public to know whether the media or the President is lying to them.

160 thoughts on “Time Is Not On His Side: Magazine Contradicts Trump’s Person-of-the-Year Claims”

  1. The Koch’s are among the backers who bought Time, as noted below by David Benson. Today, Giving Tuesday, donations to UnKochMyCampus.org will be matched.

  2. The Center for American Progress wing of the Democratic Party (funded by the Waltons, Gates, corporations…) admonishes labor that they “can’t have everything they want”. In contrast, the tech titans don’t hear anything about what they have to give up in return for what they bring to the table.

  3. Time Magazine made the alleged rapist as Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, its 1992 “Man of the Year.”

    Say no more!

      1. George doesn’t need to worry. The Koch’s are buying Time. The rich fear that a free press (and Democratic politicians) will thwart their plans for a colonialist society.
        Russia’s part in the inevitable riots caused by increased income inequality (Trump’s budget), will be trumpeted in the halls of the Kremlin.

  4. Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in Economic Science, writes in The Guardian about why The Donald is unfit to be president.

    1. You’re a genius!

      Speaking of manifestly unfit, what does that make the illustrious “Justice,” Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

      The actual, legitimate citizens and voters of the U.S. will determine who will be “fit” to be President.

      Perhaps you would prefer chaos or a dictatorship.

      Let’s check the U.S. Constitution:

      Article 2, Section 1

      “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

      Yep! Looks like President Donald J. Trump is eligible, healthy, wealthy, wise and fit to be President.

      Obongo, by contrast, did not meet the criteria to be a “natural born citizen” and was immutably ineligible as his father was a foreign citizen.

      “…it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;…”

      Law of Nations
      Book 1, Ch 19, Section 212

      “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

      The fact of the matter is, not President Trump’s but Obongo’s illegitimate term must be rescinded, abrogated and expunged entirely from the record.

        1. George.
          “Prefer a dictatorship”…isn’t that very similar to an oligarchy? ALEC writes the states’ laws which make communities into company towns.

          1. I have an idea, let’s completely eliminate the unconstitutional, redistributionist, collectivist welfare state, including “Affirmative Action Privilege,” quotas, welfare, food stamps, social services, forced busing,
            utility subsidies, WIC, HHS, HUD, HAMP, HARP, Education Dept., Labor Dept., Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., as the central planning, redistribution of wealth and social engineering of the Communist Manifesto, and implement the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789, which provide Congress ONLY the authority to tax for General Welfare distinctly NOT individual welfare, which is the aforementioned redistribution of wealth. Then America would be a free republic enjoying freedom and free enterprise through self-reliance with a dose of private, free market charity thrown in for good measure.

            1. The American economy isn’t free enterprise. As one example, protracted patent protections that helped Gates to accumulate wealth equivalent to 750,000,000 of the world’s population was a policy decision.
              The fact that Gates’ heirs will further concentrate wealth doesn’t exemplify the promised benefits of free enterprise.

              1. Linda, nothing in this world is totally pure, but our system, that became the most powerful in the world and helped boost the living standards worldwide saving millions of people from starvation, has been substantially free market. Gradually we are becoming a less free market and that has caused problems for those in the lower economic classes.

                We moved to less regulation under Trump and unemployment plummeted while the GDP rose. That should tell you something.

                1. Let’s hope things are even better in four years, but at the moment:

                  “Can President Trump Really Take Credit for a Good Economy?”

                  “The evidence doesn’t back him up.”

                  by Chris Neiger

                  Oct 2, 2017 at 7:04AM

                  “Since becoming president, Donald Trump has made several claims that appear to take credit for improvements to the American economy, as well as gains in the stock market. That can be a dangerous thing for any leader to do, especially if the economy or the markets start shifting in a negative direction.

                  “But it’s also a bit premature for President Trump to start making claims of any kind. America is only eight months into the Trump Administration, which means that most of what’s going on in the economy right now is a carryover from the previous administration.

                  “Let’s take a quick look at what specifically Trump has said and whether the data backs up any of his claims.”…

                  “The bottom line”

                  “At a news conference back in February, Trump told reporters he had inherited many problems in the government and the economy. “To be honest, I inherited a mess. It’s a mess,” he said.

                  “The truth is, President Trump is enjoying a strong American economy right now, but there’s little evidence that the good times are a result of his policies. Before he took office, unemployment was already falling, job growth was already on the rise, and a bull market was already in full swing.

                  “Trump would be right to brag about the jobs American businesses create and the wealth they generate for their investors, but he shouldn’t be taking credit himself. Not yet, anyway.”

                  -from the MF article, linked below, by Chris Neiger

                  https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/02/can-president-trump-really-take-credit-for-a-good.aspx

                  1. Pure BS. All one has to do is look at the numbers and see the rates of change. Startling rates of changes. No one can be absolutely sure and of course, previous Presidential action affects the future but the numbers cannot just be tucked away.

                    Take the U6 fall (Jan -October) of 1.5 under trump and .4 under Obama. In fact, in his entire 8 years, Obama’s U6 never fell as much and the fall should have been greatest in the earliest years, not the last year.

                    I am surprised at the fool.com article which I don’t think mentions that changes occur based on expectations. If this were the only article I had read from the fool.com I would never listen to anything they say because good investors try to predict the future and not wait until the future has passed.

                2. Allan,
                  Hackneyed spin which is countered by Picketty’s unassailable research. Look at ALEC’s draft laws and try to match them with free enterprise or democracy.

                  American wages in real dollars have inched up at a negligible amount for decades. The loss in middle class demand is the driving factor not, loss of “free markets”, a misnomer for the American economy, which morphed as a result of congressional protections for big business.

                  1. You are repeating things much like a parrot does and are unable to actually discuss Picketty’s research which has a lot of flaws.

                    1. The last time I read the Picketty reviews by the intellectual prostitutes at a well known oligarch-funded think tank/brothel, the criticism found purchase not on the research but, on lame charges about the author’s purported hypocrisy.

                    2. Unfortunately, Linda, there is no way to have a dialogue with you that involves reasonable discussion. If you find you can stay on one topic let me know.

        2. You’re a genius!

          Ruth Bader Ginsburg is “fit” for supreme jurisprudence, or anything else, for that matter.

          Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution is “bafflegab.”

          And you are a sock puppet.

          1. George, I was with you until you last comment. Your reference to sock puppets was harsh. Sock puppets at least have the virtue of being entertaining at times.

  5. Turley has no interest in the “Mystery donor (who) funds conservative court”, as chronicled by reporter Robert Maguire at the Sacramento Bee?
    Roberts’ court is the court of the oligarchy. The result of Citizens United is that the source of Wellspring’s dark money and influence can be hidden from the public.

  6. So not only is Time humanizing SA crown prince – unsurprisingly Tom Friedman – neo lib / neo con is on board as well

    “Saudi Arabia’s Arab Spring, at Last”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-arab-spring.html

    —————————————————————————————————————-

    For a MUCH more entertaining take on Friedman check out Matt Taibbi’s classic

    “Matt Taibbi: Flathead: The Peculiar Genius of Thomas L. Friedman” – hilarious and spot-on

    http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2009/01/matt-taibbi-flathead-the-peculiar-genius-of-thomas-l-friedman.html

    1. Da Prince is da Donald’s war partner. Together they are starving the
      Peoples of Yemen.

    2. Jared set up da T rump Saudi partner ship. First they go for Yemen, then Iran, then da Lebanon. Warmongers one and all.

    1. Excerpt from the aforementioned article:

      For many at the State Department, their experience under Mr. Tillerson has been a particular shock because their hopes for him were initially high.

      Mrs. Clinton and John Kerry, her successor, were both seen as focused on their own priorities and were not particularly popular within the department. The model secretaries in recent history have been Colin Powell, James A. Baker III and George P. Shultz, Republicans who cared about management.

      “Everyone who called me, I said: ‘Listen, guys, this is going to be great, and maybe he’ll finally get the department in shape,’” said Dana Shell Smith, the ambassador to Qatar, who recently resigned.

      Since then, Ms. Smith has changed her mind.

      “These people either do not believe the U.S. should be a world leader, or they’re utterly incompetent,” she said. “Either way, having so many vacancies in essential places is a disaster waiting to happen.” -Gardiner Harris, NY Times

      1. Retired Air Force General Michael Hayden describes Trump’s threat to the U.S. in an article at Shareblue posted today.

  7. OT: the MSM is still ignoring the Awan bros scandal — the corrupt crone DWS needs to be investigated!

  8. If it were possible to ever give Trump the benefit of the doubt, it would be this: He was trolled by someone pretending to be from Time Magazine. In that sense, both he and Time could be right. Frankly, I never thought there would be any way to legitimately give The Donald the benefit of any doubt.

  9. The history books will have to be rewritten. Buchanan loses his place as the worst president ever.

    Debate!

    1. David Benson – the problem with history is that we revive and revile Presidents in cycles. This isn’t like voting for the worst IT guy ever. History books are written by teams, with each individual given a unit. How that individual feels about a particular President or his administration is reflected in the writing of that unit. Then there is an over-all editor who smooths out all the writing between the units. So, I might get Grant this time and I like Grant, so I overlook some of the problems of his administration. Next time I might get Washington, I don’t like him, so I make him look bad, etc. It really is Russian Roulette when it comes to judging any administration within 20 years of its demise. We are just now getting the dirt on JFK and he was only in office for 2 years. How long do you think it is going to take us to get historical material for the Obama administration? They were secretive, to begin with. We still cannot get over half of Hillary’s emails.

      1. Paul, re: ” History books are written by teams, with each individual given a unit. How that individual feels about a particular President or his administration is reflected in the writing of that unit. ” This is true – I have a good friend – an Armenian who went to USSR schools – what she was taught is wholly different.

        I do think though that the internet has leveled the field – the gatekeepers no longer have as much control for those who do their own research – speeches, policies, ramifications, etc so it might shorten the judgement period.

    2. I am not considering the pablum which passes for history in the books for high school students. Rather the scholarly works of professional historians at major universities.

      In that setting, The Donald already can compete with Buchanan for the worst. Maybe, so far, Buchanan still holds the title. Maybe.

      1. It’s pure foolishness to consider how a President should be ranked when his official duties have only just begun. One can have a personal opinion based on their personal pet peeves and pet projects, but that opinion is near valueless unless one actually lists in order the most important things and compares the present President with other Presidents.

        Two of the most important things used to judge a president are the economy and American security.

        One can compare today’s economy to the economy of the past President. It has vastly improved with rapid drops in unemployment and a rapid GDP growth even before a tax bill is passed.

        Security is difficult to argue at this stage of the game. The present President started with a bad field position where North Korea is just about ready to have the ability to send a nuclear ballistic missile towards the US. Iran isn’t that far behind. This is the fault of prior administrations. How this President gets us out of the hole dug by former Presidents is something we have to hope goes well. Of course many on the left would love to see the President fail even if that could mean a tremendous loss of security for the American people.

  10. As I was amused by this discourse, the one that I hope Professor Turley is bothered by is what the President wrote about on Twitter regarding CNNi and Fox News. That should concern all conservatives and “Originality” who claim to love the Constitution.

  11. If Time Magazine sent Trump an invitation to be Man/Person of the Year by Goodyear Blimp over the White House and got rebuffed, they’d swear it was a missile firing by Kim Jong-Il. I have no confidence in the press’ ability to be fair when it comes to this President.

      1. David Benson – I have more confidence in Trump than the DNC, RNC, both Houses of Congress and the Federal Judiciary. Most polls show I am with the majority on this.

              1. mespo – I like giving people the benefit of the doubt once in a while. 😉 /sarc

          1. Autumn, in a long video such as this one wouldn’t it be good to point out a couple of minutes that demonstrate the point? One could spend their entire day listening to all the videos posted and reading all the articles. I think it is best to see or read a short segment to see if one wants to watch or read further.

            1. Allan, this video is actually short – I try to post ones that are below 20 minutes. (majority 10-13 minutes) Sorry, but too lazy to pin point =) So, click on at your own peril =)

        1. Allan, …
          Pat Paulsen once announced that he would walk on water from Vancouver B.C., to Victoria.
          He went straight down, submerged under water, after the first step.
          Paulsen blamed his failure on the large crowds that had gathered to watch (for breaking his concentration).

          1. I remember the Pat Paulsen for President website from 1996(?) presidential election. He was one of the first, if not the first, presidential campaigns to focus on the internet. In fact I believe it was Cool Site of the Day one time. He also had for me the distinction of being the only presidential candidate who actually would respond to e-mails. If I could find my old 486 I might find the email he sent me back then.

              1. Thanks, Darren.
                Sadly, the 1996 campaign was to be Paulsen’s last campaign.
                Equally tragic, no one took up the mantle of the Straight Talking American Govent ( STAG party) that Paulsen founded.

                1. Yes, tragic. My memory of my email exchange with him is escaping me but I remember how I (to the effect of) complimented him on his plan to throw a big monkey wrench into the political arena but be at least honest in announcing his intentions. Honesty–something truly lacking in the slick politicians we suffer.

                  He promised that he would “be benevolent”.

                2. “All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.” __Pat Paulson

    1. The fact that Time is a mostly worthless rag whose main relevance is that Trump thinks so highly of them that he ginned up a fake Time cover page with his picture on it is not nearly as important as the fact that Trump’s narcissism controls his own actions every day, all day, Does it not concern you that Trump’s judgment is so impaired that Trump values Time highly enough that Trump went out of his way to create a fake Time cover with Trump’s picture on it? This is a magazine that you yourself acknowledge is staffed by journalists who, like the majority of journalist out there today, would trade their own integrity, perhaps their own family, for access to “important people” inside the Beltway, without batting an eye. Yet Trump wants to be on their cover.

      Does it not concern you that Trump went out of his way to publicize the “conversation” with someone at Time, whether this conversation actually occurred in real life or occurred only in Trump’s imagination? Trump is obsessed with his own image. His vanity knows no bounds. His judgment is not to be trusted.

      The only prize currently being awarded that Trump deserves is the Nobel Piece Prize, for previously having grabbed a piece whenever he could, if his accusers are to be believed. Of course, he has lots of competition for that prize.

      If the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award were still being given out, I suspect that Trump would be receiving it weekly. And he would probably enjoy receiving it because of his narcissism.

  12. This is just President Trump’s sense of humor. Can no one honestly see that? What better way to get liberals in an uproar as evidenced by the comments in this blog.

    1. Trump doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to have such a sophisticated sense of humor.

    2. What this “obsession” with the word “liberal”? what’s wrong with y with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience?

  13. Reading some of the postings from you people on the left, I think your the ones with serious issues. I wasn’t a big Obama guy, but you people have hateful venom off the charts. I can find some issues with The Donald to, but the behavior of some of you folks really scares me. I think some of you really need psycological help.

      1. S – making me laugh even more.

        in case you missed it – this is a free speech (screech?) blog – and we can express ourselves however we choose. Liberals so thin-skinned

    1. What should bother all “conservatives” is an assault on Free Speech….I guess that does not matter in this “new normal”….

  14. O’k, who actually pays for a subscription to Time magazine. The only places you find Time is in the waiting areas of medical offices. Nobody really pays for this liberal rage. They flood offices with this publication so it looks like they have a large circulation so they can charge there advertisers high rates. Who really cares what “Slime Magazine” thinks!

  15. Probably Time is lying, but because everyone there is NDA’d not to pre-disclose who is being considered for Person of the Year. Trump is in good position to damage Time…..he put them in a tough place.

Comments are closed.