As the United States braces for the loss of as many as 200,000 of its citizens, President Donald Trump continues to attack anything he dislikes as a “hoax”—and to attack anyone who dares pose legitimate questions to him.
On March 27, this exchange occurred between Trump and ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl.
Karl asked Trump what the President could do to assure “these states, these hospitals, that everybody who needs a ventilator will get a ventilator.”
TRUMP: “I think we’re in really good shape. This is a pandemic, the likes of which nobody’s seen before.”
KARL: “But everybody who needs one will be able to get a ventilator?”
TRUMP: “Look, don’t be a cutie pie, okay? Nobody’s done what we’ve been able to do.”
One week earlier, on March 20, Trump had blown up when NBC reporter Peter Alexander dared to pose a question about Coronavirus that the President didn’t want to answer.
After citing the latest pandemic statistics showing that thousands of Americans are now infected and millions are scared, Alexander asked, “What do you say to Americans who are scared?”
TRUMP: “I say that you’re a terrible reporter. That’s what I say. I think it’s a very nasty question, and I think it’s a very bad signal that you’re putting out to the American people. You’re doing sensationalism. And the same with NBC and Comcast [the parent company of NBC]. I don’t call it Comcast. I call it ‘Con-Cast. Let me just tell you something. That’s really bad reporting. And you ought to get back to reporting instead of sensationalism.”
Alexander said in a statement: “The bottom line is, this is a president whose experiences in life are very different than most Americans across this country right now. Not a person who likely worries about finances or had, not a person who in the course of his life is worried about his future.
“Not a person who is worried about where to find a paycheck for his bills or for his rent and as evidenced by the president suggesting that an opportunity to provide for American some reassurance about how they should feel right now, the president instead took it out on me.”

That’s why this is a good time to remember the closing remarks of Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) before the House of Representatives turned over its Articles of Impeachment against Trump to the United States Senate.
Schiff was addressing the unwillingness of Trump—and his defenders—to accept any evidence, no matter how damning, against him.
ADAM SCHIFF: “Anyone watching these proceedings, anyone reading the deposition transcripts would have the same impression that you evidently had from hearing my colleagues talk about the Russia hoax, that the whole idea that Russia had gotten involved in the 2016 election was a hoax put out by the Democrats.
“And of course, they’re not alone in pushing out this idea; it is trumpeted by no one other than the President of the United States who, almost on a daily basis at times, would comment and tweet and propagate the idea that Russia’s interference in our election was a hoax….
“The impression they would have you take from ‘It’s all hearsay’ is, because we in this committee were not in that Ward Room with you, Dr. Hill, we were not in that meeting earlier with Dr. Bolton, that because we’re not in the room, it’s all hearsay.
![]()
Adam Schiff
“After all, you’re relating what you heard, and you’re saying it, so it must be hearsay, and therefore, we don’t really have to think about it, do we? We don’t have to consider that you have direct evidence that this meeting in the White House was being withheld because the president wanted these meetings, these investigations. We can’t accept that.
“Well, if that were true, you could never present any evidence in court unless the jury was also in the Ward Room. That’s absurd. They don’t accept the documentary evidence, all the text messages about quid pro quos, and ‘Are we really saying,’ and ‘That’s crazy,’ and ‘My worst nightmare is the Russians will get it, and I’ll quit.’
“…But apparently, it’s all hearsay. Even when you actually hear the president, Mr. Holmes, that’s hearsay. We can’t rely on people saying what the president said. Apparently, we can only rely on what the president says, and there, we shouldn’t even rely on that either.
“We shouldn’t really rely on what the president said in the call record. We should imagine he said something else. We should imagine he said something about actually fighting corruption, instead of what he actually said, which was, “’I want you to do us a favor, though. I want you to look into this 2016 CrowdStrike conspiracy theory, and I want you to look into the Bidens.’”
For those who want to understand Trump’s behavior—and to predict how he will react the next time he’s faced with truths he doesn’t want to acknowledge—the key lies in seeing how he had reacted to bad tidings in the past.

ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, COMCAST, CORPORATIONS, CROOKS AND LIARS, CUSTOMER SERVICE, DAILY KOS, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, HANS VESTBERG, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HUFFINGTON POST, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, VERIZON, YELP!
“DON’T CALL US–JUST SEND US YOUR MONEY”
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Social commentary on January 31, 2023 at 12:10 amIt’s hardly a national security secret: Corporations don’t want to talk to their customers.
Their love is reserved exclusively for their customers’ wallets.
Don’t believe it?
In mid-January I called Verizon Communications to report a disgraceful experience at one of its stores. Fifteen minutes later, with no one deigning to pick up the phone, I hung up.
I decided that Verizon’s CEO, Hans Vestberg, should know how irresponsibly his company was operating. So I sought an email address for him on Verizon’s website.
Naturally, the website refused to provide such an address.
Fortunately, its corporate headquarters address was available.
Hans Vestberg
Pombo Photography, CC BY 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
So that’s where I sent my letter. Its contents:
On January 13, I had a thoroughly despicable experience while visiting your store at [EXCISED].
I currently have an Alcotel flip-phone provided by your company and wanted to upgrade this to a better-quality one. Through Verizon’s Instant Messaging service on Twitter, one of your customer service reps had recommended the Kyocera DuraXV Estreme Prepaid phone.
But when I entered your store one of your representatives told me:
The rep said one of these was available. But when I asked to see it, he held up a box with a picture of the phone on it and said he couldn’t open the box until I bought it.
I told him I wouldn’t pay for something I couldn’t even see before I bought it. When I’m thinking of buying a book I want to see how well-written it is before I make a purchase.
I said: “If I just wanted to look at a photo I could have done this on my computer.”
He said that I might be able to see one at Best Buy because the Verizon store I was visiting doesn’t have a display model of the kind of phone I wanted. But they had plenty of iPhones—which of course cost far more—on display.
The rep then tried to pressure me into buying an iPhone, saying it would be cheaper than the one I was interested in.
I told him I wanted a simple phone, without a lot of needless bells and whistles. In addition, the size of a flip phone better fits my hand than does an iPhone.
Verizon’s headquarters in New York City
Eden, Janine and Jim from New York City, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
He told me that the phone I wanted could be bought for about $7 a month, which would stretch to about 36 months. I asked him if I could pay it off in larger sums, so I could get the purchase out of the way more quickly.
He said no, and to my surprise explained why: It was Verizon’s way to ensure the customer stayed with the company for at least that length of time.
In short: Verizon doesn’t count on its superior technology and service to retain consumer loyalty.
The rep said I should have phoned the office before coming in, so someone could tell me they didn’t have on display any phones I wanted to see.
I replied that in the past I had phoned that office—and found they didn’t deign to answer their phones.
Again to my surprise, he admitted that that was actually the store’s policy.
To which I replied: “So you sell phones—but you don’t deign to answer your own phones.”
Needless to say, I left without buying anything.
On January 25, I got a call from a secretary at Verizon.
She wanted to let me know that CEO Vestberg had gotten my letter.
First, she apologized for the difficulties I had encountered.
Then she sympathized with my desire to see an expensive cell phone before I actually bought it. She said that her mother felt exactly the same way when she wanted to buy something.
But when I asked her what Verizon intended to do to correct these outrages, she offered nothing.
Clearly she expected me to be fully satisfied with a pro-forma apology—and nothing else.
I explained that an apology is an admission of failure—and without an effort to correct that failure, the “apology” means nothing.
The secretary simply offered her original apology on behalf of Verizon.
“Thank you for calling,” I said, and hung up.
That same week, a friend of mine named Dave had a similar disappointing encounter with Comcast. He wanted to file a change of address with the company.
And, like me, he found it impossible to reach anyone by phone.
So he got onto Comcast’s website on Twitter—and left a message: “Why is it so hard to get someone at your stores to answer the phone? Have you considered hiring a few operators?”
About five minutes later, Dave got a call—from Comcast.
Apparently the company monitors Twitter 24/7, but doesn’t feel the need to hire enough operators to man its phone banks.
So Dave finally got to make his change-of-address.
Moral: If you can embarrass a company on Twitter, Yelp! or other social media website, chances are it will treat you with the respect it should have shown in the first place.
Share this: