Lies/Misinformation Flashcards
(7 cards)
Current signs don’t point to partisanship as Trump shooter’s motive, despite Republican claims - USA Today - 2024
Investigators found Crooks’ web browsing history included searches about President Biden, the Democratic National Convention, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and FBI Director Christopher Wray, but this conflicts with claims of a political motive.
Evidence of Crooks’ political views are a mysterious jumble. In January 2021, just one day after Biden’s presidential inauguration, Crooks donated $15 to ActBlue, a Democrat-supporting political action committee. However, after he turned 18 later that year, he registered as a Republican.
One former high school classmate told the Philadelphia Inquirer that Crooks, who shot guns in a sportsmen’s club, “definitely was conservative.”
Describing a classroom debate, the student said, “the majority of the class were on the liberal side, but Tom, no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side.”
Another former classmate told CNN that Crooks’ friend group was conservative, and some of them wore Trump hats. But she and others described him personally as quiet and shy, and none said they knew his political views.
That recollection was echoed by a friend from Crooks’ math book club. He recalled to The Wall Street Journal that Crooks would get animated when the group discussed logic concepts but had little to say when conversation turned to politics.
Is RFK Jr. Anti-Vaccine? Everything the HHS Secretary Nominee Has Said - Newsweek; 2024
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Nominated for HHS Secretary: President-elect Donald Trump announced on X that Kennedy, an anti-vaccine activist, will lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), pledging to “restore transparency” and combat chronic disease.
• Kennedy’s Vaccine Stance: Though he claims he isn’t anti-vaccine, Kennedy opposes virtually all vaccines and has promoted debunked claims, including that childhood vaccines cause autism and that the polio vaccine has caused more harm than good.
• COVID-19 Controversy: Kennedy criticized COVID-19 vaccines, compared lockdowns to Nazi Germany, and claimed the virus was “ethnically targeted.” Despite this, he insists he won’t restrict vaccine access and supports informed choice.
• Criticism from Experts: Dr. Anthony Fauci and others have expressed concern over Kennedy’s lack of scientific grounding and his dismissal of established vaccine benefits. Public health experts warn that undermining vaccines could risk global health.
• Political Shift: Kennedy, who initially ran as a Democratic presidential candidate before switching to an independent bid, endorsed Trump after dropping out, securing favor with the president-elect.
Hunter Biden Pardon - December 2024
Destiny Tweets:
Donald Trump pardoned literally every single crook who supported him and violated the law to do so. Bannon, Manafort, Stone, Fynn, etc…what an insanely stupid thing, why are there so many pathetic fucks so desperate to signal to people who cool and non-partisan they are?
TRUMP LITERALLY DID THIS FOR HIS SON-IN-LAW’S FATHER LMAOOOOO, YOU GUYS ARE ACTUALLY JOKES
LOOK UP CHARLES KUSHNER
LOOK UP CHARLES KUSHNER’S PARDON
Ezra Klein Tweet:
It’s terrible politics and precedent but I’m going to be honest and say that the Trump team has been brutally clear they want revenge on their enemies, they are obsessed with Hunter in particular, and that would weigh like hell on me if I were his father and could protect him.
NBC News:
President Joe Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon for his son, Hunter Biden, on Sunday, citing political interference and a miscarriage of justice in the legal cases against him. Hunter Biden, who was set to be sentenced in December for federal gun and tax evasion charges, was pardoned for any offenses committed between 2014 and 2024. In his statement, Biden emphasized his belief in the justice system but condemned what he described as politically motivated efforts to target his son, who has been sober for over five years after struggling with addiction. The president acknowledged the potential political backlash but stated he acted as both a father and a leader to stop what he called relentless and unjust attacks. Hunter Biden expressed gratitude for the clemency, vowing to continue his recovery and help others battling addiction. This decision marks a reversal for Biden, who had previously vowed not to pardon his son, and it has fueled criticism from Republicans who claim the justice system is being weaponized.
Hunter Biden was convicted of two main categories of crimes:
1. Federal Gun Charges: He was found guilty of lying on a federal firearms background check form in 2018 when he purchased a handgun. On the form, he falsely claimed he was not using drugs, despite being actively struggling with addiction at the time.
2. Tax Evasion: He pleaded guilty to federal tax charges, admitting that he willfully failed to pay taxes on substantial income he earned in 2017 and 2018. Reports indicate he owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes during this period.
Additionally, investigations into Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings have raised allegations of corruption and influence peddling, though no criminal charges have resulted from those probes as of now.
CNN:
• President Biden pardoned his son, Hunter Biden, for gun and tax convictions weeks before leaving office, despite previously vowing not to intervene. • The pardon comes after special counsel Jack Smith dropped federal cases against Donald Trump, arguing presidents cannot be prosecuted. • Biden’s decision raises concerns about justice system impartiality and contradicts his earlier pledge to restore Justice Department independence. • The White House initially maintained Biden would not intervene in Hunter’s case, but shifting political dynamics, including Trump’s election victory, may have influenced the reversal. • Hunter Biden’s convictions stemmed from illegally buying a gun while using drugs and failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes, while living a lavish lifestyle. • Biden defended the pardon as protecting his son from selective prosecution, claiming Hunter was unfairly targeted due to his family ties. • Republicans criticized the move as politicizing justice, while Biden’s allies acknowledged the political fallout and potential harm to his legacy. • Trump and his allies seized on the pardon, with Trump suggesting it justified future pardons for January 6 rioters. • Biden’s pardon covers activity dating back to 2014, including Hunter’s controversial work with Burisma, which had raised ethical concerns but no evidence of wrongdoing by the president. • Trump’s history of politicized pardons, including for family and close associates, complicates Republican criticisms of Biden’s actions. • The convergence of legal controversies involving Biden and Trump threatens long-term trust in the justice system.
New York Times:
President Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, for gun and tax convictions has sparked widespread controversy, as it contradicts his prior commitment to not interfere in Justice Department matters. In his statement, Biden claimed Hunter was unfairly targeted due to his family ties, calling the prosecution politically motivated and a miscarriage of justice. This move has drawn criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, with some arguing it undermines the credibility of the justice system and sets a dangerous precedent. Meanwhile, President-elect Donald Trump, who has frequently alleged that the justice system is “weaponized” against him, seized on the pardon to argue for his own claims of selective prosecution.
The pardon also shields Hunter Biden from further investigation into his business dealings, a focus of Republican scrutiny, while fueling accusations of family favoritism and corruption. Critics contend that Biden’s rationale undermines his pledge to restore faith in the judiciary, while others worry it bolsters Trump’s plans to use the Justice Department for political retribution. Comparisons to past presidential pardons highlight a tradition of clemency for allies, yet Biden’s actions are seen as especially damaging to his credibility. The fallout raises questions about the balance of personal loyalty and public trust, with observers warning that the decision strengthens Trump’s narrative of systemic bias.
Trump made up to $160 million from foreign countries as president - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, April 13, 2023
Donald Trump earned up to $160 million from international business dealings during his presidency, according to a CREW analysis of his tax returns, despite promises to avoid conflicts of interest. Trump’s income came from properties in countries like the UK ($58 million), Canada ($36.5 million), Ireland ($24.4 million), and China ($7.5 million), among others. Despite claims that the Trump Organization paused foreign business, new deals and expansions, such as at his Scottish and Irish golf resorts, were pursued.
Trump’s financial ties appeared to influence U.S. foreign policy, including his leniency toward Saudi Arabia after journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder and decisions benefiting Turkey, China, and Argentina, which aligned with Trump’s business interests. Additionally, Trump leveraged his presidency to promote his properties, such as pressuring diplomats to direct events to his resorts.
(One specific instance involves Trump’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Robert “Woody” Johnson. According to a 2020 report by The New York Times, Johnson told colleagues that Trump had asked him to see if the British government could help get the British Open golf tournament held at Trump’s Turnberry resort in Scotland. The request was seen as an attempt to use U.S. diplomacy to benefit Trump’s business interests. This incident drew significant criticism and added to concerns about Trump using his presidency to advance his personal financial gain).
While Trump and his family denied conflicts of interest, CREW’s findings suggest extensive use of the presidency for personal profit, including reviving dormant business deals and planning international expansions post-presidency.
Fact check: Trump falsely claims he ‘never’ faced an impeachment inquiry - CNN; 2023
Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed Monday that he “never” faced an impeachment inquiry.
Trump made the claim in a social media post the day after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said in a television interview that launching an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden is a “natural step forward” from current Republican efforts to gather information on the business dealings of the president’s family.
Trump posted on Sunday that Republicans should swiftly impeach Biden without first holding an inquiry, which is not a mandatory precursor to an impeachment vote. (CNN reported Monday that some members of McCarthy’s caucus remain skeptical of impeachment, with one lawmaker noting that they have not found evidence of Biden abusing his office for family profit.) Then Trump posted on Monday: “I NEVER HAD AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, I HAD AN IMPEACHMENT, WHICH I WON! IT WAS STARTED IMMEDIATELY, NO MEETINGS, NO STUDY, NO DELAYS.”
Facts First: Trump’s claim that he “never” faced an impeachment inquiry is incorrect. Before the Democratic-led House impeached Trump for the first time, over his 2019 efforts to use the power of the presidency to pressure the president of Ukraine to investigate Biden, the House held an impeachment inquiry that lasted more than two months.
The inquiry was announced by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi on September 24, 2019. As part of the inquiry, House committees held closed-door hearings and then high-profile public hearings to hear testimony from witnesses. On December 3, 2019, Democrats released a 300-page report that summarized the inquiry’s findings; it was titled “The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report.” Trump was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, 85 days after Pelosi announced the inquiry.
Trump would have been correct if he had made a more limited claim that Democrats did not conduct an official inquiry prior to impeaching him a second time, in the final days of his presidency in early 2021, over what the House concluded was his incitement of the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol. That impeachment, which the House voted on just seven days after the riot, centered on his public statements and actions that were publicly known at the time.
The Senate acquitted Trump after both impeachments.
Is Trump still “impeached” even though he was acquitted on both charges? - Quora Comments
- Indeed he is. Impeachment is basically akin to an indictment. If you go to trial on an indictment and are found not-guilty, you were still indicted. Impeachment is the same. The House voted to impeach, so he’s impeached. Just like Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached. Neither were convicted in the Senate.
Unless you are asking a semantic question. Before the Senate failed to find him guilty, you could say “Trump is impeached”. After, you can say “Trump was impeached”. - Yes, the House “impeaches”, the Senate votes to convict or not convict. But the impeachment remains. So despite the fact that Trump remains President, his impeachment will go down in history.
- Yes. Just like Clinton and Andrew Johnson were. It is a matter of historical fact. The record can’t be sealed or expunged, like an arrest record. For the remainder of history. Trump will be wearing that red (scarlet?) letter.
- The impeachment is a matter of the permanent historical record. Trump was not “unimpeached” by the acquittal and he was not found to have been without blame. The acquittal simply allows him to remain in office, nothing more and nothing less.
- A POTUS impeached is a POTUS impeached; they don’t have to be found guilty or removed from office in order to still wear that scarlet letter. They were charged with actions that the House of Representatives felt were serious enough to charge them and remove them from office for. That means they’ve been impeached. Whether they’re found guilty in this definition is irrelevant; they still have that stain on their faces and they always will.
Is there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims? - BBC; 2025
President Donald Trump granted asylum to nearly 60 Afrikaners from South Africa, alleging a “genocide” against white farmers, a claim widely disputed by South African officials and unsupported by crime statistics. Trump cited violence and land expropriation fears as justification, stating, “White farmers [are] being brutally killed” and referencing confiscation of land, though South Africa’s government denies this. The controversial move was backed by Elon Musk, who accused South Africa of having “racist ownership laws” after his company Starlink was denied operation due to local ownership rules requiring 30% black ownership. Despite the rhetoric, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa called Trump’s claims “completely false,” stating that those emigrating “don’t want to embrace the changes” post-apartheid. Crime stats from late 2024 show 6,953 murders in the country over three months, with only 12 occurring in farm attacks—just one of which involved a farmer. A South African judge dismissed genocide claims in a legal ruling as “clearly imagined.”
Afrikaners, a 2.5 million–strong white minority descended from Dutch, German, and French settlers, are historically associated with apartheid, which formally ended in 1994. While white South Africans remain overrepresented in top economic positions—holding 62.1% of top management roles despite being only 7.7% of the workforce—some claim they now face reverse discrimination under new equity laws. A controversial political element is the song “Shoot the Boer,” sung by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party. Though Afrikaner groups call it hate speech, courts have ruled it symbolic and not a literal incitement to violence. Despite Trump’s refugee offer, only about 70,000 Afrikaners expressed interest in leaving, and prominent Afrikaner leaders—including right-wing Freedom Front Plus—emphasized their commitment to staying in South Africa. Meanwhile, the U.S. embassy clarified that asylum is open to any racial minority facing persecution, not just Afrikaners.
—————
There is no evidence of a genocide against white farmers in South Africa. While farm attacks and murders do occur, they are not part of a systematic or racially targeted campaign. Experts and official data indicate that these incidents are part of the broader crime challenges facing the country. 
Understanding the Context
• Definition of Genocide: The United Nations defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. The situation in South Africa does not meet this definition. 
• Crime Statistics: According to the South African Police Service (SAPS), there were 51 farm murders in the 2022–2023 period, out of a total of nearly 27,500 murders nationwide. This means farm murders accounted for less than 0.2% of all murders. Moreover, these attacks affect both white and black farmers.  
• Expert Opinions: Analysts emphasize that violence in South Africa is more closely linked to socioeconomic factors such as poverty and inequality, rather than race. Murder victimization is far more correlated to class, gender, and location than race. 
• Political Rhetoric: Claims of a “white genocide” have been propagated by certain political figures and groups, including former U.S. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. However, these assertions have been widely discredited by experts and rejected by many within the Afrikaner community itself.
—————
CNN Article:
Washington
CNN
—
There is a lot of violent crime in South Africa. There is not a genocide against White farmers there.
Claims of genocide can sometimes be difficult to adjudicate. This claim is easy. The facts show that the genocide President Donald Trump suggests might be happening is not happening – and that crime against White farmers in South Africa represents a tiny fraction of the country’s overall crime.
The most recent South African official data shows that the country had 19,696 murders from April 2024 through December 2024 – and that the victim in just 36 of these murders, about 0.2%, was linked to farms or smaller agricultural holdings.
Further, only seven of the 36 victims were farmers. (South Africa has Black farmers, too; the official data is not broken down by race.) The other 29 victims included farm employees, who tend to be Black.
Data from groups representing South African farmers also shows that farm killings number in the dozens per year, a minuscule percentage of the country’s total.
South Africa doesn’t satisfy ‘genocide’ definition
Under the United Nations definition, genocide requires acts, such as murder and serious bodily or mental harm, “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” There is no evidence that South Africa, whose agriculture minister is White, has made or overseen any such effort.
The claim of a genocide against White South African farmers has been pushed for years by White nationalist groups. Trump, who has expedited the processing of White South Africans as refugees even while keeping all other US refugee resettlement suspended, raised the notion of a genocide last week and repeated it during a contentious Wednesday meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in front of cameras at the White House.
Trump said at one point Wednesday: “So we take (refugees) from many locations if we feel there’s persecution or genocide going on. And we had a lot of people, I must tell you Mr. President – we have had a tremendous number of people, especially since they’ve seen this – generally they’re white farmers, and they’re fleeing South Africa.”
During the meeting, Trump brandished printouts of what he said were reports about White South Africans being killed. He also had Ramaphosa sit through a video montage that included a clip of a demonstration featuring white crosses symbolizing South African farmers who were killed.
Trump wrongly identified these as “burial sites” – evoking the image of a mass grave – rather than symbols. And while Trump did tell a reporter that “I haven’t made up my mind” about whether genocide is occurring, he didn’t explain that murders of White farmers are a miniscule percentage of overall murders in South Africa.
Robbery seen as motive for many attacks on farmers
From 1948 to 1994, South Africa was governed under the segregationist apartheid system that subjugated the Black majority (which made up about 81% of the 2022 population) and privileged the White minority (which made up about 7% of the 2022 population). In democratic elections from 1994 onward, it has elected the Black-led African National Congress now headed by Ramaphosa.
Even when White farmers have been killed in South Africa, it has often been unclear that the crime was motivated by race. A South African government commission in 2003 found that the primary motive behind most attacks on farms was robbery. South African experts have reached similar conclusions this year.
“The isolation of farms makes farmers particularly vulnerable to crime, but this is a function of geography and socio-economic conditions rather than political or racial intent,” Anthony Kaziboni, a political and critical sociologist at the University of Johannesburg’s Centre for Social Development in Africa, told FactCheck.org for an article last week.
“Given the UN’s definition, describing farm killings as genocide is a gross mischaracterization,” Kaziboni said. “This does not diminish the seriousness of these crimes, nor the need for targeted rural safety interventions. But it is essential to approach such topics with clarity and care, grounded in credible evidence and context.”
Even some White farmers themselves have said this year that farmers are often victimized because they are vulnerable targets and that what is happening is not “genocide.” And Trump’s own first administration highlighted doubts about the “genocide” narrative.
In 2020, late in Trump’s first term, the State Department released a report on human rights in South Africa in which it said, “Some advocacy groups asserted white farmers were racially targeted for burglaries, home invasions, and killings, while many observers attributed the incidents to the country’s high and growing crime rate.” The State Department went on to surface arguments against the notion of race-motivated farm attacks. It wrote, “According to the Institute for Security Studies, ‘farm attacks and farm murders have increased in recent years in line with the general upward trend in South Africa’s serious and violent crimes.’”
The State Department then noted that, according to official South African statistics for the 2018-2019 period, “farm killings represented only 0.2 percent of all killings in the country (47 of 21,022)” – the same percentage as in the data for the last three quarters of 2024.
Trump on South Africa’s new expropriation law
During the Wednesday meeting, Trump tried to bolster his case by making apparent reference to an expropriation law Ramaphosa signed this year in part to help remedy the racial inequality in land ownership that still plagues South Africa three decades after the end of apartheid. (A 2017 report found that White people owned 72% of the country’s farms and agricultural holdings by individual landowners.) The new law has been attacked by Trump ally Elon Musk, who is from South Africa.
The law requires the government to provide “just and equitable” compensation, in most cases, to a landowner whose land is expropriated. But it also allows seizures without compensation in certain cases – from owners of any race – when the seizure is deemed “in the public interest” and certain conditions are met, such as the land being abandoned, the land being unused because the owner’s main purpose is to benefit from its appreciation, or the land having a market value the same or lower than government investments or subsidies in it.
Trump claimed to Ramaphosa: “You do allow them to take land. And then when they take the land, they kill the White farmer.”
Trump was spinning fiction once more. No land had been seized under the new expropriation law as of mid-May, Bloomberg reported Tuesday, and Trump provided no evidence for his blanket assertion that White farmers are murdered after their land is taken.
In February, after the Trump administration cited the expropriation law in an executive order freezing aid to South Africa, the chief executive of a trade association for South African farmers said in a statement: “To be clear no seizures or confiscations of private property have taken place. Nor has any land been expropriated without compensation. Isolated cases of land grabs and trespassing have been dealt with.” The statement said that while the law allowed for expropriation without compensation, “this does not mean expropriation without compensation is inevitable. The principle of just and equitable compensation remains intact, requiring a careful evaluation of all relevant factors.”
—————
Article from “The Independent” on the white crosses shown in Trump’s Video during the Oval Office Meeting:
A week ago, Elon Musk – one of the leading purveyors of false claims of “white genocide” in South Africa – tweeted out a clip purportedly showing the graves of hundreds of slain white farmers.
“So many crosses,” Musk noted.
That same clip made it into the video montage that Donald Trump ambushed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with during Wednesday’s meeting at the Oval Office, which the president insisted was “evidence” of mass murders of white Afrikaners in Ramaphosa’s country.
The video, meanwhile, showed white crucifixes lining a South African highway while a row of cars and vehicles drove slowly by. According to Trump, this was essentially a mass graveyard where the families of murdered white farmers could mourn the loss of their loved ones.
“Those are burial sites — over a thousand — of white farmers,” Trump bellowed. “And those cars are lined up to pay love on a Sunday morning. Each one of those white things you see is a cross. And there’s approximately a thousand of them. They’re all white farmers.”
Trump added: “And those cars aren’t driving. They’re stopped there to pay respect to the family member who was killed. It’s a terrible sight, I’ve never seen anything like it.”
When Ramaphosa asked Trump for the location of the “burial site” because he’d never seen it before, the president merely said that “it’s in South Africa.”
It would appear that the supposed roadside cemetery full of “genocide” victims was actually a tribute to two farmers who were killed in Normandien, South Africa, in August 2020. At the same time, the demonstration was meant to raise awareness over farm killings in the country.
The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.
Shortly after the tense and chaotic White House meeting, which also featured the president waving around copies of tabloid articles that he claimed represented “thousands of stories” about “death, death, death,” CNN aired a segment providing necessary context on Trump’s video montage.
“He was claiming that there was a thousand roadside graves,” CNN anchor Boris Sanchez stated. “Apparently, this is a video that had been of a political statement made by a specific political party in South Africa, but not of actual gravesites, just a political demonstration to highlight violence against farmers.”
CNN correspondent Larry Madowo, who resides in South Africa, pointed out that South African Minister for Agriculture John Steenhuisen – a white man and a political opponent of Ramaphosa – said during the White House meeting that the nation has a rural crime problem that affects both white and Black farmers and workers.
“If 1,000 white farmers died in South Africa, it would be impossible to hide that,” Madowo said, adding: “This was overall a very good day for white supremacists in South Africa, because they got the validation they could have never imagined from the highest office in the land.”
Meanwhile, the clip that Trump hyped as a “burial site” of “over a thousand” white farmers was initially filmed on September 5, 2020. The tribute alongside the highway was done in response to the murders of Glen and Vida Rafferty, a white farming couple who were shot dead outside their home. An organizer of the demonstration, meanwhile, told South Africa’s public broadcaster that the crucifixes symbolized farmers who had been killed over time.
At the time of the demonstration, South Africa’s Sunday Tribune reported the following about the convoy of vehicles that drove along the road strewn with white crosses:
“Their deaths ramped up calls from community leaders, rights groups and politicians who roundly condemned the country’s latest farm killings, with some calling for more prioritised police focus.
“On Saturday, a convoy of hundreds of ‘concerned Newcastle citizens’ went on a round-trip which looped through the city centre and around the Rafferty’s farm to pay respect to the couple and raise awareness about farm killings.
“Bob Hoatson, who took part in the procession, said the initiative was not about white farmers: ‘It was for people from all walks of life who were concerned about farm murders,’ said Hoatson.”
Four men were eventually convicted of the Raffertys’ murders, receiving life imprisonment for ambushing and killing the couple as part of an armed robbery scheme. At the same time, the Raffertys’ murders were cited by right-wing groups as further evidence of “white genocide,” especially since their killings occurred just hours after tens of thousands of motorcyclists had demanded more action be taken against farm murders.
The demonstration somewhat resembles the Witkruis Monument, a hillside memorial between Mokopane and Polokwane that features roughly 3,000 metal crosses marking the deaths of South African farmers.
Among the rest of the evidence that the president displayed on Wednesday, which supposedly supported his claims about a genocide against white South Africans, was a blog post featuring a photo from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
As he flipped through a stack of printouts of articles, he shouted: “Death of people, death, death, death, horrible death, death!” Trump also claimed that the reports were all published in “the last few days” and were about “people that recently got killed.”However, according to Barron’s, one article – which is from the little-known blog American Thinker – showed an image of Red Cross workers handling body bags. “Look, here’s burial sites all over the place. These are all white farmers that are being buried,” Trump declared.
Instead, as Barron’s pointed out, the image was a screenshot of a months-old YouTube video of “Red Cross workers responding after women were raped and burned alive during a mass jailbreak in the Congolese city of Goma.”
Much of the rest of the video Trump aired during the meeting largely included out-of-context footage of far-left opposition leader Julius Malema and other extremist figures shouting the controversial anti-apartheid slogans “kill the Boer” and “kill the farmers.” Ramaphosa, for his part, kept his cool and denounced Malema’s rhetoric while pointing out that he represents a fringe element.
“We have a multi-party democracy in South Africa that allows people to express themselves, political parties to adhere to various policies. And in many cases, or in some cases, those policies do not go along with government policy,” he told Trump. “Our government policy is completely, completely against what he was saying, even in the Parliament, and they’re a small minority party which is allowed to exist in terms of our Constitution.”
Despite the assertions of the president, who has fast-tracked the refugee status of white Afrikaners and cut off aid to South Africa primarily due to the “white genocide” conspiracy theory, the facts don’t support the claims that white South Africans are being killed en masse in order to seize their farmland.
According to South African police data, 225 people were killed on farms in South Africa from March 2020 to April 2024. One hundred and one of those victims were either current or former workers living on farms, most of whom are Black. Fifty-three of those murdered were farmers, who tend to be white.
“South African police recorded 26,232 murders nationwide in 2024, of which 44 were linked to farming communities,” Reuters noted. “Of those, eight of the victims were farmers.”
