Mr. Trump's Presidency: The Beginning of the End or more of the Same?
Comments
-
America, the new Banana Republic! This is the beginning of a mess.
The Unprecedented Corruption Of President Donald Trump | All In | MSNBC
America, get your head out of the sand.
CM
-
@C_M_ said:
America, the new Banana Republic! This is the beginning of a mess.The Unprecedented Corruption Of President Donald Trump | All In | MSNBC
America, get your head out of the sand.
CM
I can't view the video, can you give a synopsis?
-
@reformed said:
I can't view the video, can you give a synopsis?
The Trump Administration is the most corrupt in USA History. CM
-
I'm not a good enough student of history to judge whether the Trump administration is the most corrupt EVER. But I am a good enough student of American history over the last 50 years to know that by orders of magnitude, this is the most corrupt administration during the last half century.
It's important to note that presidents who preside over, even contribute to, expanding economies and rising poll numbers can be corrupt. While there are positive data points Trumpsters can proudly and rightfully point to, the fact remains that the president has debased his office, poisoned civility, corrupted truth, and elevated baseless, unfounded conjecture and conspiracy theories to a status that his recent predecessors would have rejected without discussion. (example: Today the president tweeted the title "Spygate" for the non-story about an FBI informant who interacted with three Trump campaign people in 2016, then in a brief exchange with media had the gall to tell them that THEY - the media - were the ones calling it "Spygate.")
This is a sad, depressing, and dangerous time for our nation.
-
Based on what? That doesn't tell me anything.
@Bill_Coley said:
I'm not a good enough student of history to judge whether the Trump administration is the most corrupt EVER. But I am a good enough student of American history over the last 50 years to know that by orders of magnitude, this is the most corrupt administration during the last half century.
No, nowhere near as corrupt as the Obama Administration.
It's important to note that presidents who preside over, even contribute to, expanding economies and rising poll numbers can be corrupt. While there are positive data points Trumpsters can proudly and rightfully point to, the fact remains that the president has debased his office, poisoned civility, corrupted truth, and elevated baseless, unfounded conjecture and conspiracy theories to a status that his recent predecessors would have rejected without discussion. (example: Today the president tweeted the title "Spygate" for the non-story about an FBI informant who interacted with three Trump campaign people in 2016, then in a brief exchange with media had the gall to tell them that THEY - the media - were the ones calling it "Spygate.")
This is a sad, depressing, and dangerous time for our nation.
Aside from "Spygate" you just described Obama to a T.
-
@reformed said:
No, nowhere near as corrupt as the Obama Administration.You're welcome to the opinions of your choice. Your claim, however, is profoundly false. Only in a world of "alternative facts" or "relative" truth** is your claim even worthy of serious assessment. No objective fact finder believes the Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter/Ford administrations rivaled Trump's in terms of corruption.
Aside from "Spygate" you just described Obama to a T.
The old "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. Neither helpful nor original, but when your client is Donald Trump, it's perhaps your best option.
** In an interview with the Washington Post published Wednesday, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani expressed concerns about the president's sitting for an interview with the Mueller investigation because, he said, "truth is relative," and "they may have a different version of the truth than we do."
Somewhere in the White House, Kellyanne Conway, the "alternative facts" maven, smiles broadly.
Everywhere people in the U.S. should moan in despair and outrage that an attorney for the president of the United States holds so little regard for the truth, and for the fact that said attorney represents a president who lies more often and about more subjects than any president - perhaps any politician - in history.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
No, nowhere near as corrupt as the Obama Administration.You're welcome to the opinions of your choice. Your claim, however, is profoundly false. Only in a world of "alternative facts" or "relative" truth** is your claim even worthy of serious assessment. No objective fact finder believes the Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter/Ford administrations rivaled Trump's in terms of corruption.
Aside from "Spygate" you just described Obama to a T.
The old "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. Neither helpful nor original, but when your client is Donald Trump, it's perhaps your best option.
I think we need to define what we mean when we say corrupt, what do you consider to be corruption? I found Obama to be extremely corrupt abusing power, lying about legislation to gain national support, coverups, etc.
-
@reformed said:
I think we need to define what we mean when we say corrupt, what do you consider to be corruption? I found Obama to be extremely corrupt abusing power, lying about legislation to gain national support, coverups, etc.It's been a week since you posed this question, reformed, but today's news brings clarity to one response to your query.
The day started with Roseanne Barr's ugly, racist tweet about former Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett. When pressed for a White House response, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president was looking at other things (she said "we have a lot bigger things going on in the country right now"). Then Tuesday night, the president spoke for nearly an hour to a rally in Tennessee and chose not to mention Barr's despicable words.
A few months ago, the president thought Barr was worthy of mention when her show's ratings were high and the show itself, in his view, reflected favorably on him and his electoral base. But when Barr speaks disgusting vile racism, the president does not believe she or her words deserve mention. That's not political corruption, but it IS moral and spiritual corruption, especially when paired with the president's pattern of embracing fringe and racist views, or giving equal time to the same (remember Trump's championing of birtherism, and how there were "good people on both sides" in Charlottesville).
The president's moral and spiritual corruption has, in my view, without a doubt coarsened our culture and brought us to a place we have NEVER been to in American history: where we EXPECT the president of the United States to lie regularly and about almost everything, to say disgusting things about people he doesn't like, and to embrace, either by silence or rhetorical turn, bigotry and hatred.
On that basis (and others) I judge the Trump administration to be the most corrupt in American history.... And I haven't even mentioned Scott Pruitt, Ryan Zinke, Tom Price, or the other members - past and present - of his cabinet's cast of chaos.
I know we won't agree on this, and that's okay. But to me, the case is clear and the evidence overwhelming.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I think we need to define what we mean when we say corrupt, what do you consider to be corruption? I found Obama to be extremely corrupt abusing power, lying about legislation to gain national support, coverups, etc.It's been a week since you posed this question, reformed, but today's news brings clarity to one response to your query.
The day started with Roseanne Barr's ugly, racist tweet about former Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett. When pressed for a White House response, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president was looking at other things (she said "we have a lot bigger things going on in the country right now"). Then Tuesday night, the president spoke for nearly an hour to a rally in Tennessee and chose not to mention Barr's despicable words.
Why should he? That has nothing to do with his administration. Personally I think Barr's comments are blown way out of proportion. Were they appropriate? Absolutely not, but the media kicked into overdrive for political reasons, not because they cared about the comment.
A few months ago, the president thought Barr was worthy of mention when her show's ratings were high and the show itself, in his view, reflected favorably on him and his electoral base. But when Barr speaks disgusting vile racism, the president does not believe she or her words deserve mention. That's not political corruption, but it IS moral and spiritual corruption, especially when paired with the president's pattern of embracing fringe and racist views, or giving equal time to the same (remember Trump's championing of birtherism, and how there were "good people on both sides" in Charlottesville).
Again, Barr's comment has nothing to do with the President and the President has better things to worry about. This is race baiting Bill. And no, that is not moral and spiritual corruption. Nor has the President embraced racist views and your Charlottesville comment proves that you can't be objective.
The president's moral and spiritual corruption has, in my view, without a doubt coarsened our culture and brought us to a place we have NEVER been to in American history: where we EXPECT the president of the United States to lie regularly and about almost everything, to say disgusting things about people he doesn't like, and to embrace, either by silence or rhetorical turn, bigotry and hatred.
So in other words the Administration isn't actually corrupt, like the Obama Admin, and you are grasping for straws.
On that basis (and others) I judge the Trump administration to be the most corrupt in American history.... And I haven't even mentioned Scott Pruitt, Ryan Zinke, Tom Price, or the other members - past and present - of his cabinet's cast of chaos.
Which is utterly ridiculous.
I know we won't agree on this, and that's okay. But to me, the case is clear and the evidence overwhelming.
You actually have no case or evidence.
-
@reformed said:
Why should he? That has nothing to do with his administration. Personally I think Barr's comments are blown way out of proportion. Were they appropriate? Absolutely not, but the media kicked into overdrive for political reasons, not because they cared about the comment.
He "should" comment on Barr's comments because as president of the United States - my goodness, as an American - racism in our culture "should" matter to him. Presidents help shape the nation's moral and cultural tone.
He thought it important that he comment on NFL players' kneeling during the playing of national anthems - so much so as to suggest that players who don't want to "stand proudly" during the anthem "maybe... shouldn't be in the country." If how athletes express their protests is legitimate fodder for presidential commentary, why isn't actors' public racism?
Barr's comment, as well as many of her other comments over the years - such as her comment about Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice - was despicable. Your attempts to distract from or minimize the comment's true nature and the accountability it deserves will fail.
Again, Barr's comment has nothing to do with the President and the President has better things to worry about. This is race baiting Bill. And no, that is not moral and spiritual corruption. Nor has the President embraced racist views and your Charlottesville comment proves that you can't be objective.
It's not race baiting. It's racism.
Your assertion that presidents of the United States have "better things to worry about" than racism expressed publicly by influential public figures is telling. Knowing silence in response to racism is complicity.
The president chose to draw a moral equivalence between the two "sides" in Charlottesville. He said there were "good people" on "both sides." He refused to condemn in no uncertain terms the racial hatred that fueled the neo-Nazi march. Exactly what part of that description of what happened isn't "objectively" true?
So in other words the Administration isn't actually corrupt, like the Obama Admin, and you are grasping for straws.
No. You badly - perhaps intentionally? - misread my post.
It's a claim about which I didn't expect to have to say this, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree whether serial lying from the president of the United States is a serious matter.
Please notice that your attempts to draw moral equivalences between the Obama administration's failings with those of the current president's never come with supportive evidence (because evidence of such equivalences does not exist). Instead, your attempts come across as simplistic variations on the schoolyard taunt, "I know you are, but what am I?" Perhaps such fact-less repetition of unfounded talking points is ALSO "grasping at straws"?
On that basis (and others) I judge the Trump administration to be the most corrupt in American history.... And I haven't even mentioned Scott Pruitt, Ryan Zinke, Tom Price, or the other members - past and present - of his cabinet's cast of chaos.
Which is utterly ridiculous.
Are you familiar with the ethical troubles of Messers Pruitt, Zinke, and Price? If you are, then I'm surprised that you would call my reference to them "utterly ridiculous."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Why should he? That has nothing to do with his administration. Personally I think Barr's comments are blown way out of proportion. Were they appropriate? Absolutely not, but the media kicked into overdrive for political reasons, not because they cared about the comment.
He "should" comment on Barr's comments because as president of the United States - my goodness, as an American - racism in our culture "should" matter to him. Presidents help shape the nation's moral and cultural tone.
So everytime a private citizen makes a racist comment or something that culture doesn't agree with the POTUS should comment? Good grief no wonder nothing gets done in Washington.
He thought it important that he comment on NFL players' kneeling during the playing of national anthems - so much so as to suggest that players who don't want to "stand proudly" during the anthem "maybe... shouldn't be in the country." If how athletes express their protests is legitimate fodder for presidential commentary, why isn't actors' public racism?
That was an ongoing disgraceful display, not one comment.
Barr's comment, as well as many of her other comments over the years - such as her comment about Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice - was despicable. Your attempts to distract from or minimize the comment's true nature and the accountability it deserves will fail.
Again, Barr's comment has nothing to do with the President and the President has better things to worry about. This is race baiting Bill. And no, that is not moral and spiritual corruption. Nor has the President embraced racist views and your Charlottesville comment proves that you can't be objective.
It's not race baiting. It's racism.
No I am saying the media reaction and overhype is race baiting.
Your assertion that presidents of the United States have "better things to worry about" than racism expressed publicly by influential public figures is telling. Knowing silence in response to racism is complicity.
No it isn't Bill, let's not be ridiculous. I didn't elect a president to comment everytime someone in hollywood makes a despicable comment. Obama sure didn't, so why should Trump?
The president chose to draw a moral equivalence between the two "sides" in Charlottesville. He said there were "good people" on "both sides." He refused to condemn in no uncertain terms the racial hatred that fueled the neo-Nazi march. Exactly what part of that description of what happened isn't "objectively" true?
Do you deny that there is a possibility of good people on both sides? What defines good?
So in other words the Administration isn't actually corrupt, like the Obama Admin, and you are grasping for straws.
No. You badly - perhaps intentionally? - misread my post.
No, I read your partisan bias pretty clearly.
It's a claim about which I didn't expect to have to say this, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree whether serial lying from the president of the United States is a serious matter.
I believe I already said it was, but he isn't the first President to lie repeatedly in office either.
Please notice that your attempts to draw moral equivalences between the Obama administration's failings with those of the current president's never come with supportive evidence (because evidence of such equivalences does not exist). Instead, your attempts come across as simplistic variations on the schoolyard taunt, "I know you are, but what am I?" Perhaps such fact-less repetition of unfounded talking points is ALSO "grasping at straws"?
That is false actually. I have given instances of Obama many times.
On that basis (and others) I judge the Trump administration to be the most corrupt in American history.... And I haven't even mentioned Scott Pruitt, Ryan Zinke, Tom Price, or the other members - past and present - of his cabinet's cast of chaos.
Which is utterly ridiculous.
Are you familiar with the ethical troubles of Messers Pruitt, Zinke, and Price? If you are, then I'm surprised that you would call my reference to them "utterly ridiculous."
No, your assertion that it is the most corrupt is ridiculous. We learn every day something new about the corrupt Obama Administration.
Benghazi coverups, Unmasking, FBI Spies, etc.
-
@Bill_Coley I do also wonder, where is your outrage over the White House Correspondents dinner?
-
@reformed said:
So everytime a private citizen makes a racist comment or something that culture doesn't agree with the POTUS should comment? Good grief no wonder nothing gets done in Washington.The reason we all know about her racist comments is that Roseanne Barr is not just "a private citizen." She is a public figure, the star of a highly-rated television series, and a supporter of the president's whom he has very publicly embraced. If her stature and achievements deserved his mention when her show's ratings cast a favorable glow on him and his political base, then her openly racist comments - NOT made in private, by the way, but on a Twitter account that has more than 750,000 followers - also deserve mention.
That was an ongoing disgraceful display, not one comment.
As I demonstrated in my previous post, yesterday's was NOT Barr's first "disgraceful" comment (see the link to her comment about Susan Rice). Is it your view that in between Barr's comments about Rice and Jarrett there were likely no similarly-themed comments?
No I am saying the media reaction and overhype is race baiting.
Perhaps one sign that we're making progress in our struggle to bridge the racial divide in this country will be that people no longer believe media coverage of racism is "overhyped."
No it isn't Bill, let's not be ridiculous. I didn't elect a president to comment everytime someone in hollywood makes a despicable comment. Obama sure didn't, so why should Trump?
It's not "ridiculous" to expect the president of the United States to reject overt, public racism from a very public figure whom he has previously and very publicly embraced and highlighted as one of his supporters.
Do you deny that there is a possibility of good people on both sides? What defines good?
This is an argument that defies reason, in my view. By this argument, there were "good" people on both sides of the WWII. Sure, some of the things the Nazis did - that Holocaust thing, for instance - were not too good, but there WERE good people among the Nazis! After all, what defines "good"?
There is NO moral equivalence between neo-Nazis who marched shouting anti-Semitic slogans in Charlottesville and those who marched to protest their anti-Semiticism. Just as there is NO moral equivalence between a president who lied a few dozen times over eight years in office and a president who lies a few dozen times a week.
No, I read your partisan bias pretty clearly.
The issue I raised wasn't "partisan bias;" we both have "partisan bias." The issue I raised was whether we accurately report each other's point of view before commenting on it? You didn't. You badly and/or intentionally misread my post before commenting on it.
I believe I already said it was, but he isn't the first President to lie repeatedly in office either.
That is false actually. I have given instances of Obama many times.
Again you make an invalid moral equivalence. Please provide links to reputable news sources which reported and detailed Obama's thousands of lies while in office, so as to justify your claim that Obama was just as bad as Trump. (For a more compelling comparison of the two leaders, cite reputable sources that documented Obama's thousands of lies over his first 16 months in office.)
Are you familiar with the ethical troubles of Messers Pruitt, Zinke, and Price? If you are, then I'm surprised that you would call my reference to them "utterly ridiculous."
No, your assertion that it is the most corrupt is ridiculous. We learn every day something new about the corrupt Obama Administration.
Benghazi coverups, Unmasking, FBI Spies, etc.
Benghazi: Eight Congressional investigations, all of which recommended systemic improvements, but found no nefarious wrongdoing.
Unmasking: A Devin Nunes conspiracy theory that was unmasked to be without merit or substance.
FBI spies: A Trump conspiracy theory, according to the people who have seen the intelligence - including GOP member of Congress Trey Gowdy - about conduct that was in no way inappropriate or different from standard FBI practice.Your examples are commonplace right-wing talking points that reflect what you call your "partisan bias," reformed; but as is usually the case with right-wing talking points, they are not based in fact... and that doesn't really matter. For example, birtherism; three million people voted illegally in 2016; and Obama wiretapped Trump's phones - each of those was objectively false when Trump first asserted them, objectively false every time he repeated them, and each remains objectively false today. But their lack of objective truth doesn't matter to substantial percentages of Trumpster nation. The same seems to be true about your three examples: They're all baseless and unfounded... but that doesn't matter.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
So everytime a private citizen makes a racist comment or something that culture doesn't agree with the POTUS should comment? Good grief no wonder nothing gets done in Washington.The reason we all know about her racist comments is that Roseanne Barr is not just "a private citizen." She is a public figure, the star of a highly-rated television series, and a supporter of the president's whom he has very publicly embraced. If her stature and achievements deserved his mention when her show's ratings cast a favorable glow on him and his political base, then her openly racist comments - NOT made in private, by the way, but on a Twitter account that has more than 750,000 followers - also deserve mention.
That was an ongoing disgraceful display, not one comment.
As I demonstrated in my previous post, yesterday's was NOT Barr's first "disgraceful" comment (see the link to her comment about Susan Rice). Is it your view that in between Barr's comments about Rice and Jarrett there were likely no similarly-themed comments?
No I am saying the media reaction and overhype is race baiting.
Perhaps one sign that we're making progress in our struggle to bridge the racial divide in this country will be that people no longer believe media coverage of racism is "overhyped."
No it isn't Bill, let's not be ridiculous. I didn't elect a president to comment everytime someone in hollywood makes a despicable comment. Obama sure didn't, so why should Trump?
It's not "ridiculous" to expect the president of the United States to reject overt, public racism from a very public figure whom he has previously and very publicly embraced and highlighted as one of his supporters.
Do you deny that there is a possibility of good people on both sides? What defines good?
This is an argument that defies reason, in my view. By this argument, there were "good" people on both sides of the WWII. Sure, some of the things the Nazis did - that Holocaust thing, for instance - were not too good, but there WERE good people among the Nazis! After all, what defines "good"?
There is NO moral equivalence between neo-Nazis who marched shouting anti-Semitic slogans in Charlottesville and those who marched to protest their anti-Semiticism. Just as there is NO moral equivalence between a president who lied a few dozen times over eight years in office and a president who lies a few dozen times a week.
No, I read your partisan bias pretty clearly.
The issue I raised wasn't "partisan bias;" we both have "partisan bias." The issue I raised was whether we accurately report each other's point of view before commenting on it? You didn't. You badly and/or intentionally misread my post before commenting on it.
I believe I already said it was, but he isn't the first President to lie repeatedly in office either.
That is false actually. I have given instances of Obama many times.
Again you make an invalid moral equivalence. Please provide links to reputable news sources which reported and detailed Obama's thousands of lies while in office, so as to justify your claim that Obama was just as bad as Trump. (For a more compelling comparison of the two leaders, cite reputable sources that documented Obama's thousands of lies over his first 16 months in office.)
Are you familiar with the ethical troubles of Messers Pruitt, Zinke, and Price? If you are, then I'm surprised that you would call my reference to them "utterly ridiculous."
No, your assertion that it is the most corrupt is ridiculous. We learn every day something new about the corrupt Obama Administration.
Benghazi coverups, Unmasking, FBI Spies, etc.
Benghazi: Eight Congressional investigations, all of which recommended systemic improvements, but found no nefarious wrongdoing.
Unmasking: A Devin Nunes conspiracy theory that was unmasked to be without merit or substance.
FBI spies: A Trump conspiracy theory, according to the people who have seen the intelligence - including GOP member of Congress Trey Gowdy - about conduct that was in no way inappropriate or different from standard FBI practice.Your examples are commonplace right-wing talking points that reflect what you call your "partisan bias," reformed; but as is usually the case with right-wing talking points, they are not based in fact... and that doesn't really matter. For example, birtherism; three million people voted illegally in 2016; and Obama wiretapped Trump's phones - each of those was objectively false when Trump first asserted them, objectively false every time he repeated them, and each remains objectively false today. But their lack of objective truth doesn't matter to substantial percentages of Trumpster nation. The same seems to be true about your three examples: They're all baseless and unfounded... but that doesn't matter.
Your examples are common place liberal talking points. So we are at an impasse. You live in a fantasy world of political correctness where liberals do nothing wrong.
Benghazi did not find that there was no coverup, quite the opposite. We know it wasn't about a stupid video. Proven fact.
We know General Flynn was unmasked.
Trump tower was being surveiled. Fact.
-
@reformed said:
Your examples are common place liberal talking points. So we are at an impasse. You live in a fantasy world of political correctness where liberals do nothing wrong.An impasse, perhaps. My world is comprised first of objective facts. Our respective personal interpretations of facts produce our partisan divide. But before we disagree as to interpretation, we must agree to the objective facts, which is why I asked you to provide links to support the moral equivalence you claim exists between Obama's and Trump's lying. I'm still waiting.
Please note that while I directly and substantively engaged nearly every one of your points, you chose not to address any of mine. I bet you've found to be true what I've found over the years: that people who have facts on their side in a given debate tend to use them. And when they don't have facts on their side, they produce posts such as your response here.
Benghazi did not find that there was no coverup, quite the opposite. We know it wasn't about a stupid video. Proven fact.
I encourage you to revisit the findings of those eight congressional investigations.
Recall that your original claim about Benghazi et al was that they proved Obama administration corruption. Your contention that the fact that there were factors at Benghazi in addition to the video - which DID exist and DID contribute to the situation, by the way - proves corruption? That's a low bar for such a finding. You must be outraged over the lies the Trump administration has told.
We know General Flynn was unmasked.
I encourage you to review the facts surrounding the Nunes allegation of unmasking, and the circumstances in which American persons are caught up in such episodes.
I also encourage you to review the plea deal Gen Flynn signed in which he admitted to lying to the FBI about his contact with a Russian ambassador that led to his "unmasking."
Trump tower was being surveiled. Fact.
Recall that the president claimed Obama tapped his phones. That was a lie.
Recall also that in September 2017, the government reported in a court filing that "both FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets," the tweets in which the president claimed Trump Tower was surveilled.
Facts ARE stubborn things.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Your examples are common place liberal talking points. So we are at an impasse. You live in a fantasy world of political correctness where liberals do nothing wrong.An impasse, perhaps. My world is comprised first of objective facts. Our respective personal interpretations of facts produce our partisan divide. But before we disagree as to interpretation, we must agree to the objective facts, which is why I asked you to provide links to support the moral equivalence you claim exists between Obama's and Trump's lying. I'm still waiting.
Please note that while I directly and substantively engaged nearly every one of your points, you chose not to address any of mine. I bet you've found to be true what I've found over the years: that people who have facts on their side in a given debate tend to use them. And when they don't have facts on their side, they produce posts such as your response here.
Benghazi did not find that there was no coverup, quite the opposite. We know it wasn't about a stupid video. Proven fact.
I encourage you to revisit the findings of those eight congressional investigations.
Recall that your original claim about Benghazi et al was that they proved Obama administration corruption. Your contention that the fact that there were factors at Benghazi in addition to the video - which DID exist and DID contribute to the situation, by the way - proves corruption? That's a low bar for such a finding. You must be outraged over the lies the Trump administration has told.
The video had nothing to do with what happened there. It barely had any views before the event, it was unknown.
We know General Flynn was unmasked.
I encourage you to review the facts surrounding the Nunes allegation of unmasking, and the circumstances in which American persons are caught up in such episodes.
I also encourage you to review the plea deal Gen Flynn signed in which he admitted to lying to the FBI about his contact with a Russian ambassador that led to his "unmasking."
They caught him on a technicality, he did not lie, nor is that a reason to unmask an American.
Trump tower was being surveiled. Fact.
Recall that the president claimed Obama tapped his phones. That was a lie.
Figure of speech.
Recall also that in September 2017, the government reported in a court filing that "both FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets," the tweets in which the president claimed Trump Tower was surveilled.
Facts ARE stubborn things.
Yes and you tend to twist them.
-
@reformed said:
The video had nothing to do with what happened there. It barely had any views before the event, it was unknown.
I encourage you to read the NY Times' detailed review of the Benghazi tragedy, a lengthy article in which they quote persons on site the day of the attack who reference the role of the video as a trigger. My point is providing the link is to suggest that the view that the video played NO role is not universally shared.
Clearly the Obama administration overplayed the significance of the video; of that there is no doubt. Your seeming suggestion that their failure with regard to the video reflects corruption on par with or greater than that of the Trump administration, however, in my view is totally without merit.
They caught him (Michael Flynn) on a technicality, he did not lie, nor is that a reason to unmask an American.
From a document titled "Statement of the Offense" Flynn signed as part of his plea deal. This court filing identifies the "technicality" on which you claim they caught him (emphasis added):
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the United States of America and the defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, stipulate and agree that the following facts are true and accurate. These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the charged offense; they are being submitted to demonstrate that sufficient facts exist that the defendant committed the offense to which he is pleading guilty.
"1. The defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Campaign"), as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team ("Presidential Transition Team"), and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C. At the time of the interview, the FBI had an open investigation into the Government of Russia's ("Russia") efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia, and whether there was any coordination between the Campaign and Russia's efforts.
"2. FLYNN's false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination Case 1:17-cr-00232-RC Document 4 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 6 between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election."
You claim Flynn "did not lie." Flynn signed a document in which he confessed to making "materially false statements and omissions" in his FBI interview. And lest you contend that he signed the document only to get the plea deal, not because it was true, note that at the end of the same document, just above his signature, was this: (emphasis added)
"DEFENDANT'S ACCEPTANCE The preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement of the Offense fully.
"I have read every word of this Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, after consulting with my attorneys, I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct."
Under penalty of perjury Flynn confessed to making materially false statements that impeded an FBI investigation. By federal law, that's a crime, not a "technicality." Do you claim Flynn lied when he signed that document?
Recall that the president claimed Obama tapped his phones. That was a lie.
Figure of speech.
In his March 4, 2017, tweets, the president claimed BOTH that Obama had had his "wires tapped" AND that Obama was "tapping (his) phones" in October of the previous year. I understand calling "wiretapping" as a potential figure of speech, but not "tapped phones," a phrase that is quite specific as to the target of the tapping.
And recall that Trump's own justice department submitted a court filing (see link in my previous post) that acknowledged it had no evidence to support any of the president's March 4 tweets - not those with figures of speech, and not those without such figures.
Facts ARE stubborn things.
Yes and you tend to twist them.
It's easy to cast one line accusations. What's not easy, at least in your posts, apparently, is providing support for one line accusations. You'll notice that I provide links and quotations to support many of my assertions of fact. You will also note that I make few, if any, one line accusations.
So don't just accuse me of tending to twist facts - which sounds like you think I have a pattern - show me. Please quote and demonstrate a few of my alleged twists of facts. If you need a place to begin, start with my use of facts in this post.
