Tim Walz was left red-faced at last night’s debate after being challenged over a lie about being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square massacre.
‘I got there that summer and misspoke on this,’ the Democratic VP hopeful said before trailing off in confusion.
For years, he had claimed he was there when the Chinese government violently suppressed the pro-democracy movement in June 1989.
But reports showed while he was in fact in Hong Kong that year, he did not get there until August at the earliest.
It is just the latest in a string of ‘misspeaks’ by Walz and psychologists tell DailyMail.com there now appears to be a pattern.
Walz is pictured above at the moment where he tried to deflect a question on why he lied about being in Tiananmen Square during the pro-Democracy protests
Dr Christian Hart, a psychologist at Texas Woman’s University who has previously written about why politicians lie, suggested two theories for Walz’s embellishments.
He said: ‘When we look at lying, we see people only lie when they believe they are going to derive something beneficial out of it.
‘If there is no potential perceived benefit, people are almost exclusively honest according to research.
‘For Walz, he may believe he gets some sort of favor out of it — whether that’s burnishing his reputation or appearing as someone who has more expertise on a topic than he actually does.’
The Minnesota governor has repeatedly suggested he used IVF to conceive his two children, most recently making the claim in his first joint rally with Kamala Harris in August and in fundraising letters posted in April, which began with: ‘My wife and I used IVF to start a family.’
But when pressed on the claims, it turned out he had actually used intrauterine insemination, or IUI, a different treatment.
IVF is being targeted by anti-abortion activists because it involves creating, and possibly destroying embryos. IUI — which involves inseminating a woman artificially, not creating embryos — has faced no such action.
In another case, Walz said in 2018 while he was running for Congress that he had used ‘weapons of war, that I carried in war.’
But this was not true, with the claims having upset many veterans after it emerged that Walz, who served in the National Guard for 26 years, was never deployed to combat or overseas — and retired from his battalion shortly before they were sent to fight in Iraq.
Another theory is that Walz, who is from a tiny town in Nebraska and has been catapulted onto the national stage, is insecure — and thus was lying in order to appear more like what he considers to be a vice presidential candidate.
Many viewers concluded after last night’s debate that Republican vice presidential rival JD Vance had put on a stronger performance
Dr Hart added: ‘One thing we also see is that people who have low self esteem tend to lie considerably more than people who are more secure.
‘It could be that he sees himself maybe not quite at the level one would expect a presidential candidate to be at, and so is making some exaggerated claims to help seem more like he is.’
During his 2006 campaign for Congress, his team claimed that his drunk driving arrest was not because of drinking, saying he had instead failed the alcohol test due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss from his time in the National Guard.
Court records show, however, he was pulled over for driving at 96mph in a 55mph zone and was then taken to a local hospital, where a test showed his blood alcohol level was 0.128 — above the legal limit of 0.1.
Also in the 2006 campaign, he claimed he had received an award from the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce in 1993 for his work in the business community.
A blistering letter from the Chamber revealed in August and sent to the Walz campaign at the time, refuted this and said he had never received an award.
Ryan Waite, vice president of public affairs at the corporate marketing firm Think Big, told DailyMail.com that there appeared to be a ‘concerning’ pattern emerging in Walz’s lies.
He said: ‘I would have chalked this up to inexperience a little bit, but there is also a pattern now that is starting to get a little deeper I think.’
He said, however, that Walz didn’t appear to lie more than other politicians, although added that politicians normally learn not to make these sort of claims during the primaries process. But with Walz, he added, there were no primaries.
‘Normally, these sort of kinks would be worked out during the primaries process before hitting the national stage,’ he said.
‘But with Walz, he has been catapulted forward without the normal on ramp.’
During the debate, Walz criticised for appearing nervous and making unsual facial expressions.
Body language experts also noted how at points Walz’s eyes appeared to open ‘wide as saucers’.
Joe Navarro, a published author and expert on body language, told Politico it was a ‘dynamic and emphatic facial motion that grabbed the viewer’s attention’.
‘Early humans would have made such facial gestures to communicate strong emotions, like “danger is close”.
‘For Walz, it gave extra weight to his feelings and held our gaze.’
On the debate stage, Walz particularly faced heat over suggestions he had been in Tianamen square during the democracy protests.
He obfuscated his response, calling himself a ‘knucklehead’ and then adding that he gets ‘caught up’ in the moment.
