Slashdot Mirror


Trump Adviser Steve Bannon is Leaving White House Post (nytimes.com)

President Donald Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon left his position on Friday (alternative source) as the newly minted chief of staff John Kelly sought to bring order to a White House riven by infighting and power struggles, more than a dozen news outlets report. Maggie Haberman, reporting for The New York Times: The president and senior White House officials were debating when and how to dismiss Mr. Bannon. The two administration officials cautioned that Mr. Trump is known to be averse to confrontation within his inner circle, and could decide to keep on Mr. Bannon for some time. As of Friday morning, the two men were still discussing Mr. Bannon's future, the officials said. A person close to Mr. Bannon insisted the parting of ways was his idea, and that he had submitted his resignation to the president on Aug. 7, to be announced at the start of this week, but the move was delayed after the racial unrest in Charlottesville, Va.

41 of 420 comments (clear)

  1. Well, okay - but by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... as the newly minted chief of staff John Kelly sought to bring order to a White House riven by infighting and power struggles ...

    As we saw on Tuesday - there's only so much discipline and order General Kelly can impose because the biggest problem in that regard is actually Trump being Trump.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Well, okay - but by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given Trump's successes thus far,

      What successes are you referring to?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Well, okay - but by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Trump's successes

      Say what now?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:Well, okay - but by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Winning the primary, then Whitehouse against what would otherwise be called a "shoe in" candidate. The economy, kinda, but more concrete would be supreme court appointment and reduced immigration.

      Mind you, I'm not saying these are good or bad, merely that they're accomplishments.

      More fun has been his work against the media and in working towards replacing ACA. Sure, these are fuzzier accomplishments. You may even question if they count at all given he "failed" to overturn ACA. However, look at what was accomplished; prior to Trump ACA was seen as Obama's signature legislation. Now you routinely hear the left talking about how to fix it ( and as a small business owner, let me tell you; it absolutely needs to be fixed ).

      I thought Trump was a joke at first, but now that I've been watching him for a while I can appreciate how masterfully he manipulates the media and public. If you love or hate the man, put aside your bias for a bit and you'll start to see it too.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    4. Re:Well, okay - but by werepants · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, "trolling the left" has certainly provoked a response. Not just from the left, either - from the business community, from the vast majority of Republican politicians, and from many of Trump's historically more loyal supporters. Apparently, making excuses for Nazis pisses off a lot of people. This week has cost Trump dearly in terms of poll numbers, business support, conservative media support, party support, and even forced his hand on firing Bannon.

      I'd say the left doesn't really need to do "their side" any favors - Trump is doing more for them right now than they could ever do on their own.

    5. Re:Well, okay - but by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Informative

      against what would otherwise be called a "shoe in" candidate.

      Clinton was never a "shoo-in" candidate. That her campaign thought she was is irrelevant. She shares with Trump the honor of being among the least popular major party candidates in history.

      The economy, kinda, but more concrete would be supreme court appointment and reduced immigration.

      None of those are Trump victories.

      The economy has simply continued the trend line that started well before Trump got in office.

      The supreme court appointment was engineered by Congress and no matter who was President, they were going to make an appointment.

      Immigration reduction was also a trend that started well before Trump got in office (although you could argue that he increased the rate of reduction).

    6. Re:Well, okay - but by gnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...it sounds like you're the type of person that can believe a rape victim was "asking for it."

      That accused rapist had a permit for his gun. The so-called "victim" had no permit and only the flimsy excuse of being unarmed. Nobody wants to talk about it, but the accused had a full time job and paid taxes. If you ignore the occasional rape, he had some terrific qualities. He spends nearly all of his time not raping people. Fine people on both sides.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    7. Re:Well, okay - but by mjwx · · Score: 4, Funny

      What successes are you referring to?

      Well, getting elected as President of the United States does come to mind.

      If Trump has demonstrated anything, it's that any idiot can be elected President of the United States.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:Well, okay - but by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given Trump's successes thus far, can his behavior truly be said to be a problem?

      I think you answer your own question right here:

      I would suggest that it seems he's specifically trolling the left to provoke a disproportionate response.

      There are a lot of responsibilities and expectations that people have for the office of President. Trolling Americans in order to provoke a disproportionate response is not one of them. That's a behavior problem. Maybe instead of trolling people he should be trying to set the actual tone of the debate and try to work at healing wounds instead of opening new ones. That's the kind of behavior we expect from a president, from any party. We expect the person to rise to the office, and instead Trump has dragged the office of President down to his level. So, yeah, his behavior can truly be said to be a problem.

      but they aren't doing "their side" any favors by allowing him to further provoke them.

      Here's more evidence that his behavior is a problem. You are suggesting that maybe it is counter-productive or beneath someone to respond to the President. The President Of The United States. That if the President addresses you, with the objective of provoking you, that you somehow need to be the bigger person and not respond. To the President Of The United States. The American people have never had a relationship like that with their president, at least not that I'm aware of. Several months ago when Trump was attacking the Morning Joe show, I think on ABC, with just all of these stupid personal insults, there was a quote by someone with a title that was something like "Senior VP of Communications" or something, and he pointed out that he never expected that it would be beneath him to respond to the POTUS. We are in new territory here, and it is largely because of Trump's behavior. So, yeah, it's a problem.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  2. Which is it? by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Informative

    The CNBC article says both that Bannon resigned and that Trump fired him.

    1. Re:Which is it? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Schrodinger's Bannon.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:Which is it? by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The CNBC article says both that Bannon resigned and that Trump fired him.

      Both, people at that level are very rarely fired, typically they are asked to submit a resignation. The idea is to preserve optics by making the departure seem as amicable as possible.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Which is it? by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

      "The CNBC article says both that Bannon resigned and that Trump fired him."

      I can see that: "You can't resign, you work for me. You're fired."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  3. Trump's base by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like Time's puppet master attack worked.

    Bannon represented Trump's base far better than any other person in his inner circle. Without Bannon Trump will have a far harder time keeping in sync with the people responsible for putting him in office. It wasn't the globalists like McMaster that got him elected, it was people like Bannon who helped him connect with people from the lay person to the disenfranchised (both Dem and Rep).

    1. Re:Trump's base by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is Pro-America?
      America and its values are always changing. An agrarian society to an industrial one to a global power. When we change over our values need to adjust for the new culture.
      As being a global power we are a major influence in the world, but we also get influenced from other cultures back. This isn't a bad thing, or anti-American, it is actually quite American for the modern America.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  4. Re:Hurray! by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One Nazi gone, one to go.

    With the term 'Nazi' being thrown around so casually these days I can only think of Inigo Montoya saying "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

  5. Re:Hurray! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In this case it's true, Bannon isn't a literal Nazi. He shares some of their philosophy and views, but Nazism is just a subset of the alt-right, which Bannon is one of the most important players in.

    He's an awful human being, a racist and a bigot, but not an actual Nazi. Just a friend to Nazis, an admirer of them.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  6. Re:Hurray! by fibonacci8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah yes, the "no true nazi" logical fallacy.

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  7. Cost/Benefit analysis, politics-style by ErichTheRed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been very lucky boss-wise, and only worked for one manager/group of managers in my career that bothered me enough to quit. However, I have many co-workers who have "escaped" from toxic environments run by terrible bosses. Some weren't exactly low-paying jobs either -- think investment banks, elite law firms, and consulting companies. Almost every one has told me that leaving and taking a pay cut was better than dreading going to work every day and dealing with their bosses screaming at them, throwing them to the wolves, or just being a total jerk. Say what you will about Bannon, but I think he's just making a rational decision and answering questions like "Can I control this guy? Is he hurting my long term aspirations? Is the access and influence I have and future untold billions I will have because of it balanced with the probability of everything going sideways?" The problem is always cost/benefit - I know some people who've worked in investment banking as devs or very high-end IT pros, and they say the bonuses are massive and salaries are great, but you have to deal with a company that's basically 100% bro-culture assholes every day in exchange for it.

    My dislike of the current administration mostly stems from its apparently inability to control its emotions. I think Trump is not used to being questioned on _anything_ and people in his inner circle have given him a pass on his behavior forever because they want to keep getting paid. I obviously don't know what he's thinking, but I think he feels that international conflicts and political compromise is just like strong-arming some union boss on one of his construction sites or bribing some city official to get one of his properties expedited through the system.

    One of my favorite political cartoons of late (sorry about the ) came out when Trump started signing his first executive orders and shows him sitting on Bannon's lap saying, "I'm a big boy!" I think that it's pretty obvious that no one can control him at this point, so we'll see what happens.

  8. Re:Just a reminder by fibonacci8 · · Score: 3, Funny

    He was fired because Trump's conflict-avoiding personality has lead to a psychotic monomania by which he fires anyone with whom he has conflict rather than simply shrinking back into passive-aggressive disquiet.

    Trump's... conflict-avoiding... personality... Were you by any chance in a coma during his campaign leading up to his presidency?

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  9. Re:That can't be true! by LifesABeach · · Score: 5, Funny

    The real question is, "Does he use Linux?"

  10. Re:Just a reminder by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By the end of his term it will be clear that Trump is the biggest mistake America has ever made.

    Bigger than allowing slavery? Bigger than Vietnam? Bigger than leaded gasoline?

    I think it is already clear that Trump is the worst President in my lifetime, and probably the worst President we've ever had. But I'm not convinced he is the worst mistake for the US has ever made. Of course, there is still time, so you may turn out to be right. I sincerely hope not.

  11. Disenfranchised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trump is just a symptom and so are all these protests - for whatever reason. People are looking for the one reason for their declining standard of living, healthcare costs going out of control, food prices increasing, housing costs, and just finding it harder to live better than their parents (the American dream) - let alone as well as them.

    People are pissed but unfortunately, they are blaming the wrong people.

    My meds are artificially high priced. Can I go and get them from another country? Nope - it's illegal. Why? For my own safety - because I may get counterfeit drugs from a foreign pharmacy. Amazing, I don't see many deaths from counterfeit drugs in Canada.

    But why are our prices so high here in the USA? Because they can, that's why. And I know who is to blame and they are ALL members of the Republican party. Free markets my ass!

    And when someone is making over $15 and hour - 40 hours a week - and STILL can't afford a place to live in some southeast sub-urban town, there is something really fucked up. We're not talking about the SF Bay area - but nowhere.

    The wealth and income disparity is what is causing all this and it is because the system is rigged against us peons.

  12. The truly interesting bit to me is this part by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A person close to Mr. Bannon insisted the parting of ways was his idea, and that he had submitted his resignation to the president on Aug. 7, to be announced at the start of this week, but the move was delayed after the racial unrest in Charlottesville, Va.

    Now, why would that matter?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  13. More time with his family by T.E.D. · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a statement, Bannon said he wanted to spend more time with Anthony Saramucci's family.

  14. Re:Hurray! by Dorianny · · Score: 4, Informative

    The term 'Nazi' meant a member of the Nazi (National Socialist German Workers) Party. During the war the term Nazi was used to refer to pretty much all Germans. After the war the term was mostly used to describe members of Hitlers government and the Party paramilitary wings, the SA (brown shirts) and the SS. today I believe we can all agree that it has now a become a generic term for their core beliefs in racist nationalism although it is often used in daily speech to describe authoritarian figures.

  15. Re:Hurray! by werepants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can be alt-right, but not a Nazi?

    Yep. The alt-right is a diverse bunch - there are white supremacists who believe in ethnic superiority of anglo heritage, there are nationalists who believe in economic isolationism and are opposed to immigrants, there are religious authoritarians who want the government in our bedrooms, there are antisocial conspiracy theorists who are trying to hide out from government mind rays, and there are desperate suckers whose lives aren't going very well who will naively cling to any ideology, no matter how evil, that promises easy fixes. None of those things, on its own, makes you a Nazi. That said, if you are holding a swastika, or making excuses for someone that does, what should we conclude about you?

  16. Re:That can't be true! by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Funny

    Give alternative facts instead.

    He made a hard right out of the White House.

  17. The imploding speed of this administration... by Lisandro · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...is staggering. So much winning.

  18. Amazing dysfunction and turnover by ganv · · Score: 4, Informative

    Have a look at his original staff and check who is left: http://time.com/4658499/donald... Of those who sometimes communicated their own opinions rather than simply defending Trump, there is only Kushner (family) and Pence (elected VP). Those that left include Bannon, Priebus, Flynn, McFarland, Walsh, Dubke, Spicer, Scaramucci, and more. https://www.bustle.com/p/all-t... We are looking at 3.5 more years of a delusional President who chooses divisive people for his staff and then fires anyone who gets under his thin skin. I can't see how competent people would agree to work there given what we know thus far.

  19. Re:Hurray! by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, no. If you want to see what Nazi currently means, check the clips of the Charlottesville march with people chanting "Blood and Soil" and waving, you know, fucking Nazi flags.

  20. Re:Hurray! by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Motherfucker, we had people goose-stepping through Charlottesville, waving Nazi flags, wearing swastika armbands, chanting "Heil Hitler, Heil Trump", beating people with billy clubs and listening to a speech about how we need to kill all the Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Communists. There is no better word to describe them than "Nazis".

    And they counted Bannon as a thought leader - someone who would make sure Trump followed through on what they perceived as promises.

  21. Re:Hurray! by mjwx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In this case it's true, Bannon isn't a literal Nazi. He shares some of their philosophy and views, but Nazism is just a subset of the alt-right, which Bannon is one of the most important players in.

    He's an awful human being, a racist and a bigot, but not an actual Nazi. Just a friend to Nazis, an admirer of them.

    Strangely enough, the major difference between a Nazi and a regular, garden variety, classical (Italian) fascist is that the Nazi ideology has a serious racist bend to it.

    Both a Nazi and Fascist believe in nationalism, enforced ideologies, control over media, totalitarianism, but a Fascist stops short of thinking, "well that black fellow, he must be subhuman and we white men are the superior race". Sure some fascists are racist by accident, but Nazism has racism baked into its very foundations.

    This is why white supremacists are often (and correctly) labelled as Nazis. There are enough similarities between the two ideologies and if the jackboot fits...

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  22. Re:Hurray! by iwbcman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly I am not so sure about Bannon being a bigot. Trump, however, eliminated any room for doubt on that issue in his most infamous press conference on Tuesday.

    Here is what I am certain about regarding Bannon: Bannon is straight out of the oldest school of political manipulators which has ever existed, the sophists. Plato founded his academy in Athens in reaction to and in opposition to the rampant sophistry, which was destroying Athenian Democracy. The sophists were the then current intellectual hired-guns of Athenian politicians. These hired-guns mastered the rhetorical art of equivocation, showing, in part at least, the originary fundamental relationship between Democracy and Demagoguery. Athenian politicians hired these men to craft their speeches, speeches designed to inflame the passions of their supporters, for short term political gain, regardless of whatever consequences followed, which ultimately led to the downfall of Democracy in Athens. Philosophy, from it's inception in the academy, correctly understood, sought to discredit sophistry in general and equivocation in particular. Remember that, for close to 2,000 years, rhetoric was held to be the highest form of intellectual art, and one wasn't considered to be educated if one wasn't trained in the rhetorical Arts.

    Why do I doubt whether Bannon himself is a racist or biggot, given his work in unleashing Breitbart on the world? Simple really. Bannon never concerned himself with who his fellow travellers were. He simply designed and delivered the rhetorical argumentation which Trump, and many others, used to whip their followers into a frenzy. If modern Americans had even the remotest clue as to the origin and history of the art of rhetorics there would be no need to argue with people about "slippery-slopes", because the "slippery-slope" argument in every single on of it's incarnations is nothing other than plain-ole equivocation, sophistry for those with a somewhat larger vocabulary. So who was speaking when Trump spoke about "many, many sides" or "what's next after the statues of Robert E. Lee, are you gonna take down the statues of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, they were both slave owners....", or the "fine people" amongst the torch bearing, swastika waiving, sieg-heiling brown shirts marching through Chralottesville who had exactly one and only one objective planned with their march- to terrorize the good people of Charlottesville and Americans in general of every color and persuasion?.

    Most of 20th century American politics, and that which still dominates us today, would have been completely impossible had the majority of our citizens been trained to recognized and see through simple rhethoric, and how easily we are manipulated by those who have mastered these arts. How many people had to die in east/southeast asia by virtue of one of the, literally, oldest tricks in the book, 'slippery-slope' rhetoric? Lather, rinse, repeat, Iraq, Libya, Syria, TEH Terruhrism. Even the expression 'Alt-right' is straight up sophism, except that the semantic confusion spread by it has rendered even those who consider themselves to be Alt-Right unable to distinguish themselves from their fellow travellers the fuckin NeoNazis and the KKK. Wake up folks we are being played, and Bannon was damned good at what he did. Fuckin snake.

  23. Re:That can't be true! by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm not sure I understand. Is this an attempt to pretend she didn't fail miserably (intentionally) WRT Benghazi?

    Right, because if there's one thing that defines a secretary of state's job, it's micromanaging security.

    She rightfully took responsibility for the decisions made for people who worked for her regarding security for the compound. The buck always stops with the boss. But the scale of the witch hunt embarked on over that incident was just ridiculous.

    That she didn't delete a bunch of e-mails and have the server (which shouldn't have existed in the first place) wiped with Bleachbit after receiving a subpoena?

    Snopes.

    That Soros isn't funding and directing leftist groups and politicians throughout the world, Hillary included?

    Oh yes, that reminds me, my fellow cucks and I need to get after him, our checks are late this month!

    --
    Ever since, I've been suspicious of Jesus and very careful around chlorine.
  24. Re:Hurray! by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Nazi" may be an abbreviation for "National Socialism", but as for what it means... well, remember it was the Nazis themselves who made that term up. You shouldn't take anything they said about themselves at face value because they were history's greatest bullshitters.

    Naziism isn't really an ideology -- not like socialism, communism, or capitalism for that matter. It is too profoundly anti-intellectual to be one. Not that this prevented from intellectuals from joining. Goebbels was both an intelligent and educated man; he was in charge of manufacturing bullshit for the masses, but like an addict/drug cooker he was a user of his own junk.

    Insofar as Nazis embrace ideology, it is never to the exclusion of any contradictory ideas. If caught in an inconsistency, a Communist will elaborate, a Nazi will simply ignore. That's why Communism as an ideology is so rococo. Nazi ideology is a slovenly, slapdash thing, constructed for the moment and then freely ignored once used.

    They were obsessed with joy. And here at least they were honest, because joy differs from ordinary happiness in that it involves letting go of the past and future, of your very self. And that's what they offered their followers: torchlit rallies in which you could lose yourself and in which what happened yesterday and what was going to happen tomorrow might as well not exist -- not coincidentally an extremely useful attitude for a ruthless politician to encourage in his followers.

    Naziism promises immediate gratification, regardless of obligations (except to the leader) or consequences (which were entrusted to the leader). Nazis are obsessed with virility and vitality, but what they really mean is the momentary freedom weakness of character can grant.

    Now Bannon's followers fit the mold, but as for Bannon himself... well he actually sees himself more in Lenin's mold, he's said so himself. So he fancies himself as an intellectual, and sees the rabble as useful idiots -- a term Lenin actually coined. But Nazi leaders often saw their followers the same way. The question is whether he's a user as well as a dealer.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  25. Re:Hurray! by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Informative

    The nazis in Germany were an extreme rightist group. The neo nazis of today in America and Europe are an extremist right group. The rally they were invited to and shared common ideology with was called "Unite the Right". There is nothing socialist about it. You either are using fake news or revisisionist history sites to get your false information from, or else you're actively engaging in spreading these lies.

    I can understand the logic though. Nazis are evil, liberals are evil, you are good, your friends on the extreme right are good, therefore Nazis must be liberals. It's a comfortable view to take if you are leaning towards extreme right positions. But it's still incorrect.

  26. Re:Just a reminder by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Supposedly Trump actually doesn't deal well with confrontation or conflict. That's not to say that he never gets into conflict, but that he can't effectively deal with conflict.

    If you think about it that way, it fits with his public persona. Trump seems to put everyone into one of two classes:

    (1) People that he likes and who like everything about him
    (2) People who he hates and who hate everything about him.

    There doesn't seem to be anything in between. As long as everything is good and you're praising him, he'll like you and praise you. If he doesn't like something you're doing or you criticize anything he has done, then you're his enemy. It's a bit paradoxical, but labelling someone as an enemy can be a way of avoiding conflict. You don't need to sort the conflict out or come to a resolution. Their opinions and views no longer hold weight. If they don't approve of you, that's not a bad thing because they're "bad people" anyway.

    It's a totally different thing to actually deal with conflict. If you have a conflict with someone that you don't want to be your enemy (or you can't afford to have them be your enemy), then you actually have to deal with the conflict. You have to confront and resolve the issue somehow.

    Apparently, that is the thing that Trump isn't really able to do. If he has some sort of disagreement with someone who he can't afford to berate on Twitter, he just goes silent and stops dealing with them. If they try to confront him, he begs off. He doesn't have to courage to admit that he's wrong or speak truth to power. If he likes you, he'll tell you want you want to hear, and if he doesn't like you, he insults you, but those are the only two types of interactions he can handle.

  27. Re:This was part of the plan all along by Baron_Yam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >He may well be Satan incarnate, hell bent on the destruction of humanity, but he's increasingly competent at what he's doing, and what he's doing is, for the most part, what he promised to do during the campaign.

    That's a lovely narrative you've built there, but it's entirely inconsistent with Trump's every tweet and recorded appearance ever.

    He's a nightmare child who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has bullied his way through life. It got him to the presidency because things were in a state where his particular message sold really well, not because he was a genius tactician, or even remotely qualified to do the job.

  28. That deserves a qualifier by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    like "Only when an arrogant woman with 20 years of bad press and only one real skill (keeping her rivals at bay for 8 years) is the opponent.".

    Seriously, they were both running against the only person they could lose to.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  29. Re:Hurray! by unrtst · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trump+ren...
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=frank+tru...

    His dad's association with the KKK does not seem to be a solid fact (unless I missed something).
    Their company discriminating against black people is well documented, complete with an extensive court case.