Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

The guy imploring him is wrong. He DID earn that rank and he had it for a couple years active duty. He didn’t get to KEEP it and the retirement benefits at that rank when he separated because there are additional rules for that- usually what they call “time in grade”. If you want to keep that rank in retirement and get the bigger retirement check, you have to wait a certain amount of time and check the right boxes. It’s a lot of drama over semantics.

No. You make the E9 list. You must attend the SGM academy in Texas to actually be promoted.

Walz dropped out of the academy. He has never explained why he didn’t complete his academy training and graduate. Without graduating, he couldn’t have ever been promoted to E9. That’s why he retired as an e8.

Why are you repeatedly spreading misinformation and outright lies?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

The guy imploring him is wrong. He DID earn that rank and he had it for a couple years active duty. He didn’t get to KEEP it and the retirement benefits at that rank when he separated because there are additional rules for that- usually what they call “time in grade”. If you want to keep that rank in retirement and get the bigger retirement check, you have to wait a certain amount of time and check the right boxes. It’s a lot of drama over semantics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

The guy imploring him is wrong. He DID earn that rank and he had it for a couple years active duty. He didn’t get to KEEP it and the retirement benefits at that rank when he separated because there are additional rules for that- usually what they call “time in grade”. If you want to keep that rank in retirement and get the bigger retirement check, you have to wait a certain amount of time and check the right boxes. It’s a lot of drama over semantics.

How long did he have that title while serving?

I think I read that it was two years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

The guy imploring him is wrong. He DID earn that rank and he had it for a couple years active duty. He didn’t get to KEEP it and the retirement benefits at that rank when he separated because there are additional rules for that- usually what they call “time in grade”. If you want to keep that rank in retirement and get the bigger retirement check, you have to wait a certain amount of time and check the right boxes. It’s a lot of drama over semantics.

How long did he have that title while serving?

I think I read that it was two years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

The guy imploring him is wrong. He DID earn that rank and he had it for a couple years active duty. He didn’t get to KEEP it and the retirement benefits at that rank when he separated because there are additional rules for that- usually what they call “time in grade”. If you want to keep that rank in retirement and get the bigger retirement check, you have to wait a certain amount of time and check the right boxes. It’s a lot of drama over semantics.

How long did he have that title while serving?

Anonymous wrote:Peggy Flanagan, the MN Lt. Governor, tells the best stories about Walz. Ones that are in fact very similar to funny "America's dad" Reddit memes. She called him crying because her daughter had lice. He instructed her to go to Target and to FaceTime him once she was there so he could walk her through the correct products to buy, the process etc. The guy is such a mensch.

And for anyone who doesn't know, she'll be the first Native American governor if he and Kamala are elected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

The guy imploring him is wrong. He DID earn that rank and he had it for a couple years active duty. He didn’t get to KEEP it and the retirement benefits at that rank when he separated because there are additional rules for that- usually what they call “time in grade”. If you want to keep that rank in retirement and get the bigger retirement check, you have to wait a certain amount of time and check the right boxes. It’s a lot of drama over semantics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

While there is no evidence that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, an ABC News review of hours of footage from his past interviews and speeches, along with years of records from his initial campaigns, shows that journalists, some of his colleagues in the National Guard, and even voters have sometimes been left with an inaccurate picture of his military service that has led to criticism dating back years.

These inaccuracies, which at times went uncorrected, include Walz not denying the statement that he served in Afghanistan, and Walz repeatedly saying that he retired with a rank he achieved but did not retire with, as well as an instance in 2018 of Walz claiming that he carried weapons of war "in war," about which the Harris-Walz campaign said that he misspoke.

In the National Guard, Walz began serving as command sergeant major, a leadership position, in 2004, and was officially appointed to the role in April 2005, shortly before he retired from service, according to a statement from Army Col. Ruan Cochran. However Walz did not remain in the role long enough to keep the title in retirement.

Still, Walz repeatedly referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" for years.

In 2016, Behrends penned a private letter to Walz, thanking him for his service but imploring him to stop using the title, which he said Walz didn't earn.

"It saddens me that after your long career in the National Guard, that you did not fulfill the conditions of your promotion to Command Sergeant Major," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to ABC News. "It's quite a title to have, when it has been earned. I would hope that you haven't been using the rank for political gain, but that is how it appears."

Wow— has Walz made a public statement about all the criticism?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Washington Post gave Democrat Gov. Tim Walz (MN) “four Pinocchios” in a Thursday fact-check for lying about Republican Sen. JD Vance (OH) during a recent campaign event.
Walz, who’s been slated to be Kamala Harris’ VP pick, claimed Vance, Donald Trump’s VP pick, is not pro-worker and has “never cast a vote on a pro-worker bill in his life.”

The Post said they were “struck” by such false language from Walz and suggested he borrowed the talking point directly from a far-Left interest group. The Democrat earned four Pinocchios for the remarks — the most a false rating can receive.

“We were struck that Walz said that Vance was one of four senators who had never cast a vote for a pro-worker bill,” the fact-check said. “That was rather specific and sounded as if he was borrowing from a legislative scorecard compiled by an organization or interest group.”
Walz’s “source” for the attack “was a union report card that covered only two bills in one year,” the Post continued. “Vance has voted for at least two bills that helped workers and had union support.”

Walz’s claim that Vance knows nothing about working people was also untrue, the fact-check said, noting it was literally the “subject of his book,” “Hillbilly Elegy.”

Since becoming a senator, Vance has pushed pro-worker and pro-family legislation. Notably, just last month, the Republican was praised by Teamsters President Sean O’Brien for caring about working people and supporting pro-worker legislation.

This was not Walz’s first fib against Vance. Walz suggested a false, vulgar smear about Vance and a “couch” was true during his first rally with Vice President Kamala Harris. The comment was so false and egregious that CNN’s Jake Tapper brought it up on his show, calling it a “gross smear.”

I’ll take the WaPo seriously once they start fact-checking Trump.