JULIE THUNDER DEFENDS A FALSE CLAIM BY MAKING ANOTHER FALSE CLAIM

​(Two lies do not add up to the truth)

When confronted with Saturday's Coast News article calling her out for making a false claim about her opponent (and violating the Clean Campaign Pledge), Julie Thunder's defense is another mis-statement, a second false claim that is easily disproved.

Mayoral Candidate Julie Thunder

Thunder's first false claim is that Mayor Blakespear didn't denounce the derogatory language in an inflammatory email from a supporter.

From The Coast News:

"Encinitas mayoral candidate Julie Thunder took to social media on October 8, sharing a screenshot of a harassing email she received in which a resident called her a 'human pig.' In her Facebook post, Thunder went on to falsely accuse The Coast News employees and incumbent Mayor Catherine Blakespear of not denouncing the content or responding to the email’s author.

" 'Not one of the 18 people copied on that message spoke out against his vile words. Not one. Including the mayor. This is where we are Encinitas — and these are the disgusting politics that have been ruling over our City,' Thunder wrote.

"However, Thunder’s claims ignore previous conversations about the email between Thunder, Blakespear and reporters during a podcast segment recorded last month discussing The Coast News’ Clean Campaign Pledge initiative."

Julie Thunder recently made a public statement in the form of a Facebook post defending herself against The Coast News article. She said:

"Caitlin [the Coast News reporter] texted me later to say she also allowed Blakespear to re-record her response to include comments about the letter, which I never heard, because those words were cut from the podcast, I did not know that Blakespear supposedly denounced the email. What I do know is that the mayor stayed silent, and has continued to do so. Also, the other 16 people copied on the email still remain silent to this day."

The screenshot of her full statement is below:

This defense has become the party line for her surrogates as well.

Basically, Julie Thunder is claiming that she didn't know that Blakespear denounced the derogatory language in the email from her supporter because the relevant audio was "cut from the podcast".

This isn't true. The words were not "cut from the podcast".

There is a long segment in the podcast that went public on September 18 which specifically addresses this email. Julie and Catherine both speak about the email in the segment. When asked about the email - this was the *topic* of the segment - Catherine denounced the use of derogatory language that is insulting, offensive, and disrespectful.

To introduce Catherine's remarks, Caitlan said she "reached out to her for a response" (to the email, the topic of the segment). I belabor the point because of Thunder's defense.

Catherine said (about the email), “I don’t support anybody using derogatory terms that are insulting and offensive and disrespectful to the core person.It’s important that you recognize where people are coming from and when there are disparaging terms like that used, it’s basically just meant to demean and belittle them, so I don’t support that.”

Caitlin subsequently says "The mayor doesn't condone that" (just in case it wasn't clear).

What was actually cut from the podcast was a snippet of audio that seems redundant given what Catherine said earlier, but that the Thunder camp seems to have seized on because it includes a reference to the individual who sent the email. The additional statement from Blakespear is this: “There’s just no question about it, it is abusive. I receive emails from [him] all the time, some of them being positive about the work that’s been done but most of them negative about the city.”

But let's be clear: In the podcast that was posted to the public on September 18, the topic of the segment in question was the email from the Blakespear supporter and Catherine strongly denounced the derogatory language in the email with framing that also sent a very clear message to all supporters.

It is not true that the relevant audio was "cut from the podcast".

This defense amounts to making a false claim to defend a false claim.

Here's the podcast link. The relevant segment starts at about 12:50. Listen for yourself.