Correction: Melania Trump's ghostwriter defends abortion rights in upcoming memoir.
Does anyone think Melania has been up late at night in Trump Tower working on her memoir? Or read every sentence that was written for her? Whatever her private views on abortion are, she's probably learning about this passage along with the rest of us.
Stuff like "climate change" or "equity" are such common and broadly used terms they're going to be all over the place. They're boiler plate buzzwords.
It's weird they even think of "climate change" as political at this point. Climate change as a political conflict rather than a simple description of reality seems long out of date.
What part of their actions could possibly have broken the plexiglass? It's soup. A lack of intent isn't what made this not an "almost ruin", it's that there is no likely outcome where the painting is damaged. You're acting like they took a risk and luckily nothing bad happened, but it was just never in the cards to begin with.
Whether he was in Hong Kong or Nebraska the exact day Tiananmen happened is irrelevant to the part that makes him look good (going to teach in China in the immediate aftermath of Tiananmen).
Hey, don't give them too much credit here. They assigned two writers to write a story about something Minnesota Public Radio covered. Except MPR just talked about the exaggeration for a couple sentences, because it wasn't a particularly important fact in a larger segment about Walz and China. You need big journalism to figure out a way to expand second-hand reporting to a full length article.
You said "there should be some punishment for almost running a work of art". There was no "almost ruin" involved. You don't say your couch was almost ruined when some bird poop hit the window next to it. The couch was never in danger.
I don't know if "coincidental" would be the right term. They were presumably both in response to the same act so there's a good reason they happened at around the same time even if there wasn't coordination.
They didn't almost ruin it though. It's not like they tried to destroy it and we're lucky the defenses held. They explicitly chose a painting and an act that would not result in damage.
His "lie" wasn't even that he was there during Tianamen, it was about where he was when he decided to go to China. Hong Kong was British at the time and no version of his story claims he was in mainland China during Tiananmen.
It's such an irrelevant fact check though. He didn't lie about the actual thing that made the story (going into China shortly after Tiananmen), but they got him on where he was when he decided to go? It's disappointing that his story isn't pristinely accurate, but it's not actually an important detail of it. It's like fact-checking Kerry's military service and focusing on which town he was living in when he signed up.
This just looks like NYT trying to find equivalent numbers of falsehoods so they can prove they're not biased.
He's tried (almost) nothing and he's all out of ideas. He's most definitely not even tested the limits of his influence over Israel. He just doesn't want that influence to involve anything more serious than "c'mon bucko!".