What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

An FBI agent lied to a few and got fired; Trump lies to everyone and what is the penalty?

Status
Not open for further replies.

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,619
Points
290
Location
D.C.
It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.
-- Noël Coward, Blithe Spirit


Let me be clear here. When I write "lie," I'm not talking misreading the "tea leaves," as it were. Plenty of honorable people carefully evaluate a situation and predict that events will pan out one way, invest their full energies into making their prediction come to fruition, only to later have it be that events don't go as they predicted. I'm also not talking about "little white lies," nor am I'm not talking about bluffing in a game. I'm also not talking about a politician's occasional lying because they all do it, and even though I don't approve of their doing so, that they do forces one to evaluate the preponderance of their lies rather than the mere existence of them. [2]
  • I'm talking about saying things one knows to be untrue at the time of utterance.
  • I'm talking about saying things about which one has no clue of their veracity.
  • I'm talking about making untrue statements about things one knows or has reason to know [1] are untrue. (Click on this sentence or the link in the preceding one.)
  • I'm talking about making statements having the nature of the bullet-pointed ones above to individuals who've placed their trust in the fact that one's understanding of the matter about which one speaks is as comprehensive as possible and will thus rely on the form, substance and implications of ones statements.
  • I'm talking about palteringly availing oneself of one's audience's unmitigatable ignorance on the matter about which one remarks.
  • I'm talking about saying things so insipidly senseless that it's insulting to one's intelligence that one even uttered the remarks.
Trump lies over and over and over about everything, to anyone and everyone -- he even lied to at least one head of state of one of the U.S.' very closest (literally, figuratively and in substance) allies -- yet there is from within his party no call or action to effect his ouster, and many Republicans despise the fact that there is a criminal investigation into Trump's interactions with agents and officials of America's most capable thus most dangerous adversary.

The same charge of inveterate partisanship didn't exist among Democrats with regard to the "Monica Affair" whereof 31 House Democrats voted for proceedings to investigate whether impeachment was warranted and five Democrats voted to impeach him for perjury.

Trump has perjured himself too. Trump in 2008 wrote, "Hillary is smart, tough and a very nice person and so is her husband. Bill Clinton was a great president,” yet in a 2016 deposition, Trump was directly asked if he said Bill Clinton was a great president, and he responded, "I might have said it." He went on to say, "I would probably say that it's not something I gave very much thought to then because I wasn't in politics."

That was a bold-faced lie under oath. We know damn well that Trump's been thinking a lot about politics since at least 1999. Amidst the Lewinsky scandal, he said, “While I have not decided to become a candidate at this time, if the Reform Party nominated me, I would probably run and probably win." He also in 1999 discussed his political future in an interview with Tim Russert.
MR. RUSSERT: The Daily News had this to say. And let me put it on the board. "Trump's decision to spend up to three months weighing a candidacy has the potential to generate tens of millions of dollars in free publicity for his empire of buildings, hotels, and casinos."

MR. TRUMP: Probably true. Probably true.

MR. RUSSERT: Is that what you're really after?

MR. TRUMP: No. I am really looking at this very seriously. And I think if I do it—and I wouldn't do it unless I thought I could win. I'm not looking to get 21 percent or 19 percent or 15 percent and they say, "Oh, what a great job, Donald. That's unbelievable. You got more than anybody else ever." I'm—as an Independent—I'm really only going to do this, Tim, if I can win. Meaning win. The big one. Not the Reform Party against a Pat Buchanan, who I guess pretty soon is going to be joining, because he got thrown out of the Republican Party.
(Source)​
Nobody in their right mind would assert that someone who is "very seriously" weighing their own presidential prospects does not consider literally everything the currently sitting POTUS' actions, matters surrounding them, character, etc. Yet come 2016, Trump said -- under oath -- that he hadn’t thought about politics “much” as late as 2008, nine years after his first planned run for the presidency. Read the deposition. What Trump literally did was claim in sworn testimony from the aforementioned and linked deposition that he was writing blog posts without thinking and said many things he did not believe.

In another part of the deposition, Trump was confronted with a marketing video in which he said professors and adjunct professors would be teaching the classes for Trump University. He was then asked if he knew the identities of the adjunct professors. “I know names, but I really don't know the identities,” he said.

What the hell? The professors didn't wear masks. Nobody asked the identify of Batman or some other comic hero having both a name and a secret identity.

And what penalty has faced? None. Nobody charged him with perjury. Congressional Republicans and Democrats suspected Bill Clinton had perjured themselves and impeached him. According to Quinnipiac, some 60%+ of the nation thinks Trump is dishonest, yet Congress won't send him packing!

As the first president without a track record in politics or the military, he essentially asked voters to take his word for it on literally everything he claimed, and what do we now see? We see his reputation and track record for dishonesty, and nothing but that, has made it nigh impossible for him to deliver. Indeed, in every instance in which there comes an opportunity to vette Trump's veracity, the man acts in every way possible to prevent that from happening. Trump’s trustworthiness has made it harder for him to sell his legislative agenda: O-care, though bashed and bruised, is still in place; there is no wall, there is no infrastructure bill (hell, people aren't even talking about it), the swamp is no different, and but for the tax bill and Gorsuch appointment, none of Trump's major Contract With The American Voter legislative commitments have come to fruition, despite having a Republican House and Senate.

In closing, let me be clear. My furor doesn't accrue from partisanship; its derives from my concern for the U.S. as a nation. Republicans should share my concern and do something to put the kibosh on Trump's presidency, even if only to preserve their political primacy in Congress. Trump's ineptitude and dissembling, more than anything else will be the reason the GOP loses the House and/or Senate. When that happens, one can only hope that Democrats will give Trump his walking papers.


When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.
-- John O. Brennan (I), remarking on Donald Trump​


Notes:
  1. It's important to note that in the context of the "knows or has reason to know" standard, one that applies to everyone at all times, there are different kinds of knowledge. Generally speaking, as one's personal, social and professional status increases, so too does the nature and extent of knowledge one possesses and is presumed (fair or not, and clearly there are instances where the presumption and the reality are dissimilar) to possess, and so too does one's corresponding fiduciary and care onus.
    • “Actual knowledge” typically includes only the information of which the person whose knowledge is at issue is consciously aware. It refers only to what the person knows when they make a statement.
      • "Personal knowledge" is a form of actual knowledge.
    • Constructive knowledge” includes matters that a person is supposed to know or could have found out. A person can have constructive knowledge of something even if that person does not have, and never had, actual knowledge of it. More precisely, it is knowledge that one using reasonable care or diligence should have, and therefore that is attributed to a given person.
      • "Superior knowledge" is tortious concept derived from the duty of care and fiduciary duty concepts. It is knowledge greater than that possessed by another, particularly awareness of a condition or fact that affects another who was not aware of it. While one's possessing superior knowledge, thus being burdened with the obligations attendant thereunto, can be a basis for a finding in tort matters, the notion of superior knowledge is material in non-tort matters too. Superior knowledge's burden is what lies the heart of the sayings such as "you should have known better" and "you knew X, and yet you deliberately [acted in away contraindicated by X]."
    • Imputed knowledge” means knowledge of one person attributed to another person. Knowledge is imputed from one person to another based on their relationship. For example, an agent's knowledge imputes to the principal, the knowledge of an employee or officer imputes to the employer or company, a family member's knowledge often imputes to other immediate family members, and the knowledge of one partner imputes to other partners and to the partnership as a whole.
    • Best knowledge” is an epistemological qualifier about the nature of one's knowledge that is perhaps most often expressed with a statement such as “the following is true to the best of my knowledge,” or when a written statement or representation begins with “to the best of the knowledge, information, and belief of the undersigned.” It refers to one's having exhausted the means and modes of obtaining constructive knowledge and the nature and extent of knowledge that may be imputed to oneself.
  2. As goes the preponderance of Trump's lies, he is unrivaled among any president for whom such things are traceable. Hell, he's unrivaled with regard to minors.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
69,439
Reaction score
19,423
Points
2,220
Well, when you put it that way.....
LOL

I don't know enough details about what McCabe did to have an opinion on the decision, but the fact that Sessions has good reason to placate Trump may have been a factor in taking that "recommendation" to fire the guy.
I have a feeling that losing the $60 thou a year isn't going to ruin the man's life, but it has to be a huge slap in the face to get taken out like this after twenty two years with the FBI by a petty bastard who is far more guilty of not being "candid" than he is.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,126
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
The consequences? We have to listen to leftists who never met a lie they didn’t love lecture us on how lying is wrong when trump does it.
 

AyeCantSeeYou

Platinum Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
15,985
Reaction score
5,004
Points
445
  • Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.
Thread closed. Read the rules!
 
OP
usmbguest5318

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,619
Points
290
Location
D.C.
It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.
-- Noël Coward, Blithe Spirit


Let me be clear here. When I write "lie," I'm not talking misreading the "tea leaves," as it were. Plenty of honorable people carefully evaluate a situation and predict that events will pan out one way, invest their full energies into making their prediction come to fruition, only to later have it be that events don't go as they predicted. I'm also not talking about "little white lies," nor am I'm not talking about bluffing in a game. I'm also not talking about a politician's occasional lying because they all do it, and even though I don't approve of their doing so, that they do forces one to evaluate the preponderance of their lies rather than the mere existence of them. [2]
  • I'm talking about saying things one knows to be untrue at the time of utterance.
  • I'm talking about saying things about which one has no clue of their veracity.
  • I'm talking about making untrue statements about things one knows or has reason to know [1] are untrue. (Click on this sentence or the link in the preceding one.)
  • I'm talking about making statements having the nature of the bullet-pointed ones above to individuals who've placed their trust in the fact that one's understanding of the matter about which one speaks is as comprehensive as possible and will thus rely on the form, substance and implications of ones statements.
  • I'm talking about palteringly availing oneself of one's audience's unmitigatable ignorance on the matter about which one remarks.
  • I'm talking about saying things so insipidly senseless that it's insulting to one's intelligence that one even uttered the remarks.
Trump lies over and over and over about everything, to anyone and everyone -- he even lied to at least one head of state of one of the U.S.' very closest (literally, figuratively and in substance) allies -- yet there is from within his party no call or action to effect his ouster, and many Republicans despise the fact that there is a criminal investigation into Trump's interactions with agents and officials of America's most capable thus most dangerous adversary.

The same charge of inveterate partisanship didn't exist among Democrats with regard to the "Monica Affair" whereof 31 House Democrats voted for proceedings to investigate whether impeachment was warranted and five Democrats voted to impeach him for perjury.

Trump has perjured himself too. Trump in 2008 wrote, "Hillary is smart, tough and a very nice person and so is her husband. Bill Clinton was a great president,” yet in a 2016 deposition, Trump was directly asked if he said Bill Clinton was a great president, and he responded, "I might have said it." He went on to say, "I would probably say that it's not something I gave very much thought to then because I wasn't in politics."

That was a bold-faced lie under oath. We know damn well that Trump's been thinking a lot about politics since at least 1999. Amidst the Lewinsky scandal, he said, “While I have not decided to become a candidate at this time, if the Reform Party nominated me, I would probably run and probably win." He also in 1999 discussed his political future in an interview with Tim Russert.
MR. RUSSERT: The Daily News had this to say. And let me put it on the board. "Trump's decision to spend up to three months weighing a candidacy has the potential to generate tens of millions of dollars in free publicity for his empire of buildings, hotels, and casinos."

MR. TRUMP: Probably true. Probably true.

MR. RUSSERT: Is that what you're really after?

MR. TRUMP: No. I am really looking at this very seriously. And I think if I do it—and I wouldn't do it unless I thought I could win. I'm not looking to get 21 percent or 19 percent or 15 percent and they say, "Oh, what a great job, Donald. That's unbelievable. You got more than anybody else ever." I'm—as an Independent—I'm really only going to do this, Tim, if I can win. Meaning win. The big one. Not the Reform Party against a Pat Buchanan, who I guess pretty soon is going to be joining, because he got thrown out of the Republican Party.
(Source)
Nobody in their right mind would assert that someone who is "very seriously" weighing their own presidential prospects does not consider literally everything the currently sitting POTUS' actions, matters surrounding them, character, etc. Yet come 2016, Trump said -- under oath -- that he hadn’t thought about politics “much” as late as 2008, nine years after his first planned run for the presidency. Read the deposition. What Trump literally did was claim in sworn testimony from the aforementioned and linked deposition that he was writing blog posts without thinking and said many things he did not believe.

In another part of the deposition, Trump was confronted with a marketing video in which he said professors and adjunct professors would be teaching the classes for Trump University. He was then asked if he knew the identities of the adjunct professors. “I know names, but I really don't know the identities,” he said.

What the hell? The professors didn't wear masks. Nobody asked the identify of Batman or some other comic hero having both a name and a secret identity.

And what penalty has faced? None. Nobody charged him with perjury. Congressional Republicans and Democrats suspected Bill Clinton had perjured themselves and impeached him. According to Quinnipiac, some 60%+ of the nation thinks Trump is dishonest, yet Congress won't send him packing!

As the first president without a track record in politics or the military, he essentially asked voters to take his word for it on literally everything he claimed, and what do we now see? We see his reputation and track record for dishonesty, and nothing but that, has made it nigh impossible for him to deliver. Indeed, in every instance in which there comes an opportunity to vette Trump's veracity, the man acts in every way possible to prevent that from happening. Trump’s trustworthiness has made it harder for him to sell his legislative agenda: O-care, though bashed and bruised, is still in place; there is no wall, there is no infrastructure bill (hell, people aren't even talking about it), the swamp is no different, and but for the tax bill and Gorsuch appointment, none of Trump's major Contract With The American Voter legislative commitments have come to fruition, despite having a Republican House and Senate.

In closing, let me be clear. My furor doesn't accrue from partisanship; its derives from my concern for the U.S. as a nation. Republicans should share my concern and do something to put the kibosh on Trump's presidency, even if only to preserve their political primacy in Congress. Trump's ineptitude and dissembling, more than anything else will be the reason the GOP loses the House and/or Senate. When that happens, one can only hope that Democrats will give Trump his walking papers.


When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.
-- John O. Brennan (I), remarking on Donald Trump​


Notes:
  1. It's important to note that in the context of the "knows or has reason to know" standard, one that applies to everyone at all times, there are different kinds of knowledge. Generally speaking, as one's personal, social and professional status increases, so too does the nature and extent of knowledge one possesses and is presumed (fair or not, and clearly there are instances where the presumption and the reality are dissimilar) to possess, and so too does one's corresponding fiduciary and care onus.
    • “Actual knowledge” typically includes only the information of which the person whose knowledge is at issue is consciously aware. It refers only to what the person knows when they make a statement.
      • "Personal knowledge" is a form of actual knowledge.
    • Constructive knowledge” includes matters that a person is supposed to know or could have found out. A person can have constructive knowledge of something even if that person does not have, and never had, actual knowledge of it. More precisely, it is knowledge that one using reasonable care or diligence should have, and therefore that is attributed to a given person.
      • "Superior knowledge" is tortious concept derived from the duty of care and fiduciary dutyconcepts. It is knowledge greater than that possessed by another, particularly awareness of a condition or fact that affects another who was not aware of it. While one's possessing superior knowledge, thus being burdened with the obligations attendant thereunto, can be a basis for a finding in tort matters, the notion of superior knowledge is material in non-tort matters too. Superior knowledge's burden is what lies the heart of the sayings such as "you should have known better" and "you knew X, and yet you deliberately [acted in away contraindicated by X]."
    • Imputed knowledge” means knowledge of one person attributed to another person. Knowledge is imputed from one person to another based on their relationship. For example, an agent's knowledge imputes to the principal, the knowledge of an employee or officer imputes to the employer or company, a family member's knowledge often imputes to other immediate family members, and the knowledge of one partner imputes to other partners and to the partnership as a whole.
    • Best knowledge” is an epistemological qualifier about the nature of one's knowledge that is perhaps most often expressed with a statement such as “the following is true to the best of my knowledge,” or when a written statement or representation begins with “to the best of the knowledge, information, and belief of the undersigned.” It refers to one's having exhausted the means and modes of obtaining constructive knowledge and the nature and extent of knowledge that may be imputed to oneself.
  2. As goes the preponderance of Trump's lies, he is unrivaled among any president for whom such things are traceable. Hell, he's unrivaled with regard to minors. To see what I mean, see Note 2 here (same name, but it's a different thread): An FBI agent lied to a few and got fired; Trump lies to everyone and what is the penalty?
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
69,439
Reaction score
19,423
Points
2,220
Well, when you put it that way.....
LOL

I don't know enough details about what McCabe did to have an opinion on the decision, but the fact that Sessions has good reason to placate Trump may have been a factor in taking that "recommendation" to fire the guy.
I have a feeling that losing the $60 thou a year isn't going to ruin the man's life, but it has to be a huge slap in the face to get taken out like this after twenty two years with the FBI by a petty bastard who is far more guilty of not being "candid" than he is.
 

AyeCantSeeYou

Platinum Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
15,985
Reaction score
5,004
Points
445
What part of what I wrote above do you not understand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$191.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top