Why Do You Lie So Much?--and Eight Other Questions NBC's Chuck Todd Should Have Asked Trump

With his interview of Donald Trump, Chuck Todd threw the country under the bus. He gave the president a prime-time platform to peddle his sociopathic lies, with little pushback. He gave legitimacy to those lies and the liar who tells them.

It is almost impossible to overstate the damage Todd's boot-licking performance has does to civic discourse, public trust, cultural norms, respect for journalism, and even constitutional government. For, now, where is the bottom? What is the institution in our society that people can trust to ferret out truth from lies, sociopathy from civility?

The corporate Democrats--the Nancy Pelosi wing of the Democratic party--have shown they will not hold Trump to account. Now, the mainstream media is showing that it won't, either. Why?

Here are 10 question that any real journalist, indeed, any real man, would have asked Trump, given the venue Todd was offered.

Why do you lie so much?

After the ritualistic indignation and denial, Todd should say, "Mr. President, I didn't ask "whether" you lied. Your lying is as well-documented a fact as there is. I asked you "why" you lie. The reason I ask is that pathological lying is considered a mental disease: the inability to deal with reality. And besides, if your stuff is so good, why do you have lie about it all the time?" Maybe the interview would have ended right there, but it would at least have ended with Todd on his feet, rather than on his knees, servicing Trump.

How many women HAVE you assaulted?

After the ritualistic indignation and denial, Todd should say, "Mr. President, I didn't ask you "whether" you assaulted women. It was you who bragged that you do so, on the Access Hollywood tape--that you like to "grab 'em by the pussy." Remember? And there are more than 20 credible accusations of you assaulting women. Can they all be lying? Once again, how many women would you estimate you have assaulted?"

Can you win an election without help from the Russians?

After the ritualistic indignation and denial, Todd should say, "Mr. President, it was you who publicly asked for Russia's help during the 2016 election. It was your campaign that gave the Russians your polling data so they could help you. And Putin said in front of you, at Helsinki, that he wanted you to win. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal had a story with a headline, "Putin has won," meaning he got his guy elected--you. ALL of the signs point to your accepting help, and intending to do so again for 2020. So, once again, "Can you win an election without help from the Russians?

You ran as a successful businessman, yet, your tax data show that in the 1980s--the boom years of the Reagan economy--you were one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, losers in the entire economy. If you're so good, why did you lose so much money?

After the ritualistic indignation, denials, and diversions, Todd should ask, "Mr. President, I didn't ask you "whether" you lost more money than virtually anybody in the history of tax reporting. That is simply an empirical fact. It's not up for discussion. My question is, 'Given that fact, shouldn't the American people rightly revisit your claim to be a successful businessman, and, therefore, your justification for being president?'"

If you're really as rich as you say, why don't you release your current tax returns and put all this "Biggest Loser" business to rest? Wouldn't that be to your advantage?

After the ritualistic claim that he can't do so because he's "being audited," Todd should say, "Mr. President, you and I both know that there is no law anywhere that says you cannot release your tax returns because you are being audited. Given the huge stakes, I should think you would want to settle the matter. And your tax returns would do that. So, why won't you release them? Could it be that they might reveal you're just as big a loser today as you were in the 1980s?

So many of the flashpoints of your administration are problems of your own making. I'm thinking North Korea, shutting down the border with Mexico, rounding up a million immigrants, Venezuela, Iran. Is that your game? Creating publicity stunts so you can then pretend to be tough by pretending to solve them?"

After the ritualistic indignation and denials, Todd should say, "Well, take Iran, for example. When you came into office, Iran was honoring its agreement that it would not pursue a nuclear weapon. You withdrew from that treaty, made a big scene of it, and now Iran is back to processing uranium. Isn't that a problem of your own making, that you are grandstanding on, but actually making things much worse?"

You've now lost a third ruling in the Emoluments case--whether you are using the Presidency for private gain. If you're not doing so, what are you hiding by fighting the lawsuit?

After the ritualistic indignation and denials, Todd should state, "Mr. President, a bank controlled by the Chinese government is paying you $2 million a year for office space. The governments of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Slovakia, Qatar, Malaysia, and others are paying you money through your properties, presumably to buy influence. Isn't that wrong? Doesn't it raise the question of whether you're pursuing your own interests, versus those of the country? And don't the American people have a right to know about it?

The Mueller Report spends hundreds of pages documenting how you obstructed justice. If you didn't, then why are you ordering your people not to testify? What are you hiding?

After the ritualistic indignation and denials, Todd should say, "Mr. President, Mueller said 'If we could have exonerated him, we would have. But we couldn't.' In other words, you're specifically not exonerated. Again, if you're innocent, why don't you let your people testify and reveal the truth? What are you hiding by saying they can't testify?

Where's the Wall you promised voters? And where's the payment for it from Mexico?

After the ritualistic indignation, diversion, and denials, Todd should say, "Mr. President, your own Homeland Security Department says that you've built only 39 miles of wall, and about half of that is replacement. So, 20 miles of new wall in 2+ years. Ten miles per year. At that rate it will take 200 years to build your wall. Since this was your number one campaign issue, shouldn't you apologize to the American people--and especially your base--for having failed to deliver?

The point is that we can either suck up to Trump, as Chuck Todd does, which means buying his entire sick, twisted, self-dealing world view. Or, we can defend the truth, defend democracy, and defend the country. But we can't do both. We desperately need better sentinels.