Trump Retweets Fake Video Of Omar Dancing On 9-11

President Donald Trump has made a mantra of his “fake news” attack on journalists. However, he has repeatedly retweeted false stories and the most recent is particularly concerning. Trump shared an edited video made by a comedian that falsely portrayed Rep. Ilhan Omar dancing and partying on the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It triggered a chorus of objections. It was also entirely untrue.

In the video posted by comedian Terrence K. Williams showed the clip of Omar dancing and added: “I need to talk to Omar. Girl, what in the world were you celebrating on the anniversary of 9/11?”

When Trump shared the video with his 64 million Twitter followers, he tweeted, in part, “The new face of the Democrat Party!”

The video was actually taken a couple days after the 9-11 anniversary at an event celebrating her and four other freshman members. Omar has faced threats over her Muslim faith and was recently criticized at the 9-11 memorial for a controversial statement about the attack.

It is important not to allow this to become the new normal. It is reckless and dangerous for a president to retweet such false postings, particularly with a member who has already faced threats of violence.

47 thoughts on “Trump Retweets Fake Video Of Omar Dancing On 9-11”

  1. Olly and Paul and Mr. K,

    Trump just ordered our troops to go to protect Saudi Arabia’s oil fields. While doing this, he and his DOJ are refusing the request of families and first responders who want the name of Saudi government officials who helped finance the attack against the US on 9/11. These are both acts of an avaricious coward.

    Saudi Arabia can afford to purchase mercenaries to do their killing for them. The idea that our troops will be harmed or killed on behalf of Saudi Arabia or it’s national (socialist) oil companies is appalling. That nations’ leaders killed our people and our govt. protects them.

    If you are willing to accept a coward for a president, a man who takes blood money and sends our troops into harms way for that nation, then I would rethink who I was as a person. We don’t need cowards and sell outs for president. We need a president that tells Saudi Arabia to do its own dirty work and we need a president who isn’t throwing first responders and our 9/11 families under the bus. If he has to take a risk to stand up for their rights and our troops then he should be courageous enough to do it. Instead, he is a coward and takes the money of Saudi Arabia in exchange for our people’s lives and justice.

    You might as well have voted for Hillary at this point if you are willing to accept such things.

  2. Judge not less ye be judged.

    In this case Islamic Law. The Muslim religion has about 80 plus a few different groups, sects, schisms, sub churches whatever Some allow drums only dancing for women only functions. Taliban best I could find allows none but seems to favor boys ony dancers Make up your own mind . i looked it up to decide what sort of Islamic this Representative might be and the answer is. She is no sort of Representative having never taken the Oath of Office. But as a phony or fake she makes a perfect Socialist. Come to think of it the Muslim world warred with the socialist world as well.. and for years.

    The only truth is Our Constitution demands an oath of office and this one plus the ohter three members of The Squat. refused

    Their refusal was not judged by their titular securlar leader Nancy Pelosi but approved .

    One cannot judge a Squattee with out judging the slum lord (or lady.)

  3. This is another example of why Trump should use a similar team for social media as is used in speechwriting. There is an entire department devoted to cross checking minutia in speeches for any POTUS. Speechwriting is a small world, and it is actually quite common for accidental insults when addressing foreign nations or plagiarism. Sometimes, the phrase that comes to the writer has already been used before, which is why it sounds so familiar. This is exactly why such departments formed, to research literally every phrase in a speech. Trump, not being a politician, did not employ such a vast team in his own or Melania’s speeches, which is how the speechwriter for Melania accidentally plagiarized Michelle Obama’s speech. Such missteps happen all the time, but the public usually doesn’t hear about them because the speech department finds it before the speech goes out.

    Here, again, a social media team would have easily discovered the context of Ilhan Omar’s dancing video.

    Trump should write his Tweets in his own words, for that direct connection, but also use that extra layer of a social media department to catch any missteps. Give it perhaps a few hours delay. There are experts available to provide the most accurate, professional communications. Use them.

    I foresee that future presidents will employ such a team.

    Ilhan Omar and Tlaib get themselves in enough hot water all on their own without any embellishment.

  4. Jonathan Turley:

    “It is reckless and dangerous for a president to retweet such false postings, particularly with a member who has already faced threats of violence.”


  5. Why is the good professor dispositively concluding that Trump intended to spread a falsehood, rather than that Trump simply retweeted some humor? Lighten up, prof.

  6. Why is the good professor dispositively concluding that Trump is retweeting a falsehood, rather than that Trump just spreading the humor???? Lighten up, prof.

  7. It’s actually important to understand that Trump does use fake news to his advantage. Further, Trump is in the process of killing free speech while his followers remain largely, but not completely, silent about it. His case against Assange will get rid of that pesky First Amendment forever.

    Trump followers are easily fooled into believing Trump is a simple victim of fake news. Not so.

    Trump uses Fake News if it advantages him. Look at his actions against the rights of our people/our Constitution and see the truth! See it now because it’s going to be too late (if it isn’t already too late).

    1. Trump is in the process of killing free speech while his followers remain largely, but not completely, silent about it.

      They ‘remain silent’, Jill, because it’s another one of your fantasies.

    2. The reason Trump won is because he ran against the neoliberal agenda and the wars.
      Trump wanted to work with Russia which would have not only brought the risk of nuclear war to a halt but allowed the USA to not be involved in these wars and aggressions in the Middle East and Venezuela.
      Trump as bad as he is tried to pull us out of Syria and Afghanistan and democrats decried him as a Putin puppet.
      Anyone who is now against war is a Russian agent according to democrats.
      Democrats are even pushing for the criminalization of journalisms and cheering the persecution and torture of Assange.
      Thankfully we have people like Sanders and Gabbard who are focused on the real issues and enemies.

    3. Look at his actions against the rights of our people/our Constitution and see the truth!

      With an exclamation point and everything; you should have no problem identifying those actions.

      Ready. Go.

      1. Here is what is going on w/Assange:

        Olly, you better be paying attention to the 2nd amendment and what’s happening with “precrime”. I would go to Mint Press News and start reading, or as I said, if you feel unable to rationally consider arguments from a left wing person, then check w/Ron Paul.

        1. The video didn’t identify any actions you claimed Trump was taking against our rights. BTW, I liked the video.

          If you’ve paid any attention to my posts over my time on this blog, I have been beating the security of rights drum nonstop. Ron Paul is the only candidate I’ve gone to see at a campaign rally in 40 years. He was once asked what was the one book he would recommend everyone read. He did not hesitate when he said Bastiat’s The Law. I frequently quote from that source on this blog.

          So what actions has Trump taken against our rights?

          1. Olly, I don’t think you understand that video. Trump is charging a journalist with the crime of doing journalism. This is going to destroy what little remains of the first amendment. If you ever read up on how Assange came to be arrested for reporting on US war crimes you will see that this case of lawlessness has crossed party lines. (Niels Melzer is good about this.) Nevertheless, Trump is making charges against Assange which will destroy free speech and a free press. I don’t know how to explain it better than what the lawyer in the video said. Maybe you could go to Consortium News and look into this further on that site.

            On pre-crime I would look into Whitney Webb’s interview on Quoth the Raven (he’s right wing). This is Trump using DARPA methods against our population. Of course, you must know that Trump has violated our populations’ 4th and 5th amendment rights. You must also know that he is engaging in illegal wars of aggression if you read Ron Paul.

            All this is available to learn if you really want to know. I think Trump supporters have become like Obama supporters. No matter what he does, it’s o.k. by you guys. You must have seen how dangerous that was, what a complete disaster it was, for our nation under Obama. I am so sorry to see Trump supporters readily follow down this same path. I had truly hoped you all would be different.

            1. Trump is charging a journalist with the crime of doing journalism.

              Yeah, I’m not seeing that in his indictment.

              The indictment issued by Trump’s Department of Justice is instead based on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act—essentially, for a hacking-related conspiracy. The core allegation is derived from a thirteen-page document introduced as evidence during Chelsea Manning’s court-martial, in 2012, and known to U.S. authorities for years.

              Three points: 1. Journalists have been a significant part of the problem by not investigating suspected criminal wrongdoing of preferred administrations and politicians for years. When they don’t do journalism, knowing that it aids in covering up government abuses, they become co-conspirators and not journalists. 2. If you consider being involved in a conspiracy to hack our Intel systems as journalism, then we have a different understanding of 1st amendment protections. 3. I want Assange to have his day in court. Not because I’m particularly concerned about the alleged hacking, but I want what comes from the discovery process and trial. Assange will get the opportunity to prove his innocence and regain his freedom.

              Who knows, President Trump and his Justice Department might actually be doing Assange and journalism a favor. He may be cleared for asylum in the US and a clear line may be drawn between actual journalism and collusion masquerading as journalism.

              1. Olly, you aren’t up on this case, sorry. The indictment you are siting has been superseded. In response to your claims: Assange did not hack the govt. He published documents received from a source which showed absolute proof of the US engaging in war crimes. (Please watch Collateral Murder someday.)

                Your complaint about journalists is often accurate. However, these complaints do not constitute crimes. It’s really weird that you’d complain about this in regard to Assange because he has published information that exposes government wrong doing.

                Assange does not need a day in court. He hasn’t committed any crime. It is not ethical to want another person to be charged for a crime that they did not commit so that you can set some kind of precedent. Why not volunteer yourself for trial regarding something that you didn’t do so you can set a precedent or be sent to jail for 175 years, whichever way it breaks?

                You truly don’t understand what is happening here and I can only refer you back to the video as it explains why Trump’s charges against Assange are false, dangerous and will do in freedom of speech and the press.

                1. Assange does not need a day in court. He hasn’t committed any crime.

                  If this is the most recent indictment then apparently he does, not because he is presumed guilty of a crime, but because A federal grand jury returned an 18-count superseding indictment today charging Julian P. Assange, 47, the founder of WikiLeaks, with offenses that relate to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.

                  Now, Assange is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on each count except for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, for which he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

                  Should President Trump have directed his Justice Department to not bring this case before a grand jury because of the nature of what was exposed? What was the president’s duty regarding this?

                  1. Olly,

                    No, this is not the correct indictment. It was one of the indictments and it was superseded. The indictment Assange is facing extradition for in the US concerns the espionage act. Please go to the Courage Foundation or see the video.

                    No, Trump should not have directed the DOJ to go after Assange for publishing the same things other reporters and publishers do everyday. Obama wanted to press these charges but backed off because his lawyers explained that it would violate the first amendment to pursue that course of action. Further, that indictment would open up all other publishers and reporters to the same charge (something even the NYTimes lawyers admit! And they really hate Assange at the NYTimes!)

                    Trump, in getting the ham sandwich indicted, is going after the First Amendment. He will make illegal, something which is a guaranteed right of our Constitution. What he did/is doing here is very wrong. Fight back! Write the president and tell him to stop now and protect the First Amendment. Don’t be like Obama supporters and just go along with everything the president does. He’s wrong here and this will effect you in the end. First they came…

                    1. Jill – I disagree with your stand. I do agree that he is over-charged. However, he had no right to release the material. He was not a publisher (although he claims to be) and he did not take out sensitive material. You notice they are not going after the newspapers that published the info. That is because under the Pentagon Papers case, if you got it legally, it you print it. They also redacted sensitive material. Julian wanted to hurt people, now he is whining because he might be hurt. Poor baby.

                    2. No, this is not the correct indictment. It was one of the indictments and it was superseded. The indictment Assange is facing extradition for in the US concerns the espionage act.

                      Prove it. Provide a link to the indictment, not a video or reference to a website that also does not have the indictment.

                      And Kurtz is absolutely correct. Trump is courageously navigating a minefield, and it would be stupid for him to “obstruct” justice. Keep in mind that Assange’s troubles are not of Trump’s makings. I have no direct knowledge of the facts of the indictments, but I am certain if Assange makes it to trial, he will do so under president least likely to side with the corrupt and illegal actions of those that were exposed in the leaks. FWIW

                2. Trump does not charge people in federal court, the US attorney does.

                  The US attorney operates with a significant amount of independence, even though he is a political appointee.

                  It’s been long term policy among various presidents to go after people who leak, whistle-blow, aggressively. Obama was known for the record number of people he locked up for telling state secrets.

                  Jill, if you think there is a “Deep State” or a “MIC” and I know you do, then you can easily understand how there is NO WAY Trump could have stood in the way of them going after Assange.

                  Especially since he was under the microscope for what he said publicly about wikileaks.

                  I think what Assange did was covered by the Pentagon Papers case. That case is precedent not only to protect the NYT but even foreign journalists like Assange. I feel like Assange’s first indictment may have been legit but the superseding indictment may go too far. But if so, yes, he will get his chance to overturn any conviction.

                  Now let’s look into strategy for a minute. I think Trump may like what wikileaks published, but as POTUS he is aligned with the MIC and Deep State like it or not, in trying to suppress publications of state secrets.

                  Moreover, he may gleefully anticipate that due to pressure on Assange, Assange will be tempted to introduce into his defense information which exposes his own source. Now we know Assange is holding up to that pressure it seems, to protect his source, but at the same time, after Seth Rich was murdered, he certainly did seem to suggest Seth Rich was his source.

                  We don’t know that. The Dems say otherwise. One suspects the Dems want it to be otherwise.

                  We do know that the narrative that it was a “Russian hack” over the internet is demonstrably impossible and that it must have been a leak


                  If it was a leak who was it? We don’t know.

                  But I feel it’s not an unreasonable speculation, that the guy who got murdered by robbers who took nothing, may have been the leak

                  Now, all the major newspapers call that fake news. and his family denies it. and yet his mother said to NBC’s Washington affiliate WRC-TV, “There had been a struggle. His hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything … They didn’t finish robbing him, they just took his life.”

                  Wow, a couple of “robbers” were willing to murder a guy but forgot to take his wallet?
                  Amazing those murderers were so willing to do the time for a major crime and yet forgot to take their paltry prize. If the official story’s to be believed! Why would robbers refrain from taking his wallet if he was dead?

                  Likely Answer: because they weren’t robbers, it was probably a hit.

                  Assange is perhaps one who can put meat on that skeleton, if anybody. Will he? Wait and see. I would bet not. I would bet he gets convicted and then it’s overturned and in 3 years he’s a free man. If he can survive in the meantime.

                  1. Mr Kurtz – I would posit that Assange tried to get himself covered like the Pentagon Papers, however, IMHO, it is a dodge. Time has not changed my mind.

                    1. Jill’s idea of unimpeachable authority is a J-School graduate in St. Cloud, Mn. with a website.

                  2. Mr. Kurtz,

                    I expect that a president should show courage. They order young people to fight and die in wars. If you ask this from others, a president must ask it from themselves. No excuses.

                    You are mixing things up here. 1. Trump was on board with this indictment. 2. This indictment is not about Hillary’s e-mails. It concerns the publishing of US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you go to Consortium News, you can watch a man who filmed Assange working on this publishing with the NYTimes and The Guardian. He is Mark Davis.


                    1. well Trump could certainly pay a big price if he goes too hard against the “Deep State” — maybe his so willing.

                      as Schumer said:

                      “The new leader of Democrats in the Senate says Donald Trump is being “really dumb” for picking a fight with intelligence officials, suggesting they have ways to strike back, after the president-elect speculated Tuesday that his “so-called” briefing about Russian cyberattacks had been delayed in order to build a case.

                      “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer Tuesday evening on MSNBC after host Rachel Maddow informed him that intelligence sources told NBC news that the briefing had not been delayed.

                      “So, even for a practical supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this,” he added.”

            1. Olly and Paul,

              Here is a link. Olly, I have put so many links to accurate information in my posts on this thread. Why won’t you look into them. I’ve given you the links you want several times now but you are refusing to look into it. Why not look into the links I’ve given you? Why are you asking me to give you the same information I’ve already provided? I don’t understand your unwillingness to research the information I provided.

              Paul, Assange is a publisher. This has been confirmed again and again. Also, if you would bother to look at the links I provided you will see that you believe MSM lies. Mark Davis, interviewed at Consortium News linked above in another post of mine, made a documentary regarding your claim that Assange tried to get people killed with his publishing.

              On this documentary you will see that Assange was working with The NYTimes and the Guardian. They refused to redact names or to help Assange redact names before publication. The NYTimes went ahead and published the unredacted info. Assange in fact had spent hours redacting the names on his own after begging the Times and the Guardian for help. They are the ones you need to hate, not Assange.

              Further, no one was harmed by these publications. The USG had to admit to this in a court of law during Manning’s trial.

              The MSM repeats lies about Assange all the time. You really need to look at the links I provided, as does Olly. Do some research and don’t believe the MSM unless you check out what they are saying!

              1. I’ll try this again. You stated the indictment I provided was not the most recent. I’ve looked for any other indictment and I’ve been unable to locate it. So I will ask you one more time to provide the source that proves this is not the most recent indictment. Not a video, not a story in zerohedge, not couragefund, not an opinion piece, etc. It’s called using original source documents and that is important because…it doesn’t rely on some ideologues spin on the real facts. The indictment facts are found in the indictment. From there I will see exactly what Assange is being charged with, how those charges came to be and then I will be able to work to a logical conclusion. If you haven’t done that, or cannot provide the actual indictment, then your means and methods you use to draw your conclusions are now suspect. Put up and stop whining.

  8. This is of a piece. Trump’s political strategy, which is consciously promoted by his immediate supporters in the White House, is pandering to a proto-violent neo-fascist movement that is extra-parliamentary. This is the latest iteration of it. Note “Democrat” party. This is part of the rhetoric of marginalization, along with the racism and mendacious xenophobia of telling Omar to go back to where she came from, and now the lying that makes reality, to Trump’s supporters, whatever he says it is. Those whom this conduct does not disturb will not be of any use in fending off the subversion of whatever freedom and democracy are left in the United States.

    1. Do you want to outlaw political “pandering?” Or only when the GOP does it? It really irks progressives when they are whipped up and down the street by their political enemies using political weapons authored by progressives.

      Retreat to your safe space on campus!

      1. I think you’re missing the significance of the racism, the deliberate cultivation of a violent movement against the left, and the intentional denial of reality, everything really.

  9. . “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.” ~ Omar

    Yeah it’s far-fetched our Muslim sister (with the brother husband) celebrates the 9-11 anniversary as a “win.” Wrong wagon; wrong star, JT.

    1. CAIR was in existence prior to 9 / 11. Among those subject to their harassment in that era was the late Richard John Neuhaus. Fr. Neuhaus didn’t scare easy and told them to pound sand.

  10. “It was entirely untrue”! What a shock! Trump lies. His entire administration is lies. Why should this be any different.

    1. Sucks to be on the receiving end of a GOP win, doesn’t it? You forgot to call him HITLER! Slacker!

      Should we have voted for “truth-teller” Hillary? LOL

Comments are closed.