Stand by, accidentally deleted my response…
I’m a little confused.
How can an “interpretation” be “a lie”?
Is it not a “reasoned OPINION”?
Wish I could like this twice
Yes, focus on the minutia and not the substance.
Can you answer the question?
No he can’t.
By saying that . . . you DID. Thanks very much, sincerely.
And yet the OP is defending Trump and criticizing Rep Wilson. Imagine that, standing on principle rather than party or ideology…
What does what the press would or wouldn’t do have to do with me? I’ve proven in the OP that I will defend Trump if I think it appropriate.
So when Clinton said he didn’t have sex with Lewinski, if I tried to make a distinction between oral and normal sex, you wouldn’t have perceived my interpretation of those events as dishonest?
Not all opinions are “reasoned”. Some are quite unreasonable.
For instance, I was highly critical of Clinton trying to claim he didn’t have sex with Lewinski. My reasoned opinion at that time was he knew that oral sex is sex and he was exploiting the law (specifically that it must be demonstrated that when you lie about something you know it’s a lie).
An example of an unreasonable opinion is to conclude that Trump wasn’t lying when he said: "“If you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn’t make calls,”
If you are really interested in debating me on the topic, address what I said, demonstrate how my opinion about what the president said is, in fact, unreasonable.
Actually, President Trump (still rankles doesn’t it?) was right. Most previous Presidents did NOT make calls—at least not to every gold star family.
Whether that’s true or not, that’s not what Trump said with respect to Obama and that was the point of what I said.
Look in the overall scheme of things, it’s a minor point. Every President makes false or misleading statements. I’m sure some of the false statements Presidents make are mistakes, the problem is Trump makes these sorts of false statements ALL the time. He has shown he has little regard for the truth and that’s the issue.
After the fact, the defense for his proven-to-be-false comments relies on plausible deniability or that he received bad information or he was just passing along something he heard (when you are passing the info along without sourcing that info, isn’t that akin to plagiarism?).
On several issues we get the president saying one thing and his advisors saying another. Who should we believe, Mattis, Kelley, H.R. McMaster, SH Sanders, Tillerson?
I VASTLY prefer a President who tells us PRECISELY what he’s thinking than one who parses every sentence to make sure it’s (1) politically expedient, (2) politically correct, (3) casts him in the best light for media consumption. And that goes EVEN if he’s not factually precise all the time. Funny part is, much of what he says that the media tout as “lies” eventually turn out to be the truth.
“Obama wire-tapped us at Trump Tower.” - Denied, but later shown to be happening…maybe not by Obama PERSONALLY, but certainly by his administration and with his approval.
Drafting a response.
I wouldn’t count on getting away with this unchallenged.
All we know is that Manafort was surveilled and that may have included incidental conversations with Trump that presumably were masked unless there was probable cause to unmask them, something that as of right now, we don’t know has happened. We don’t even know for sure that conversations between even happened while Manafort was under surveillance. According to the campaign (IIRC), Trump downplayed Manaforts involvement in the campaign so what would there be to capture if that was true?
We know that Manafort has a residence at Trump Tower and that it stands to reason that if Manafort was there he may have been surveilled. That’s a million miles away from the Presidents claim that “Obama had his wires tapped” and you know it.
- Obama didn’t order it
- Trump wasn’t under surveillance.
Given the information that’s come to light with respect to Manafort, sounds like investigating him was a good move. Not sure how I see this as the least bit unjustified,
Is that your one example of where the media lies?
How exactly did the media lie about this event anyway?
That’s not what you asked. You asked for an example of the media calling President Trump a liar when he wasn’t lying. Now you want to change the criteria? The media WAS lying when they claimed that President Trump was lying. He was RIGHT. He (his campaign) WAS under surveillance–and BY the Obama FBI–during the campaign. Are you going to try and claim that Comey was NOT operating under the orders of Obama during last year’s campaign?
Only Mary Lou Retton style mental gymnastics could you not call these lies:
Fact: Obama didn’t authorize surveillance of Trump
Fact: “Wiretapping” isn’t even a thing
Fact: Trump tower (the building) was never physically surveilled (that we know of). If Manafort’s communications were being monitored, it was his cell phone and email. There were no devices planted in Trump Tower (Again, that we know of).
Fact: Trump was not the target of surveillance
Fact: According to the Trump campaign, Manaforts Indictment has nothing to do with the campaign (if that’s true then they are essentially admitting that they beleive that Trump wasn’t the target of incidental surveillance).
What Trump said was a lie.
Oh, BS on a shingle! “Wiretapping” is a generic term for electronic, surreptitious surveillance. In that regard, the Obama Administration most certainly DID “wiretap” the Trump campaign, so once again, csbrown doesn’t have a clue what he’s posting about. Obama was a micromanager. NOTHING that his administration did was done without at LEAST his knowledge and tacit approval.