The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Yeah, no. If you dig into those, and you don't have to dig very far, you'll find the overwhelming majority of those "false or misleading" statements are fact checks of simple hyperbole (he wrote a whole book about how he speaks in hyperbole), or they fact check opinions, or a lot of "is technically true, but if you change the context, or what he's taking about, he's pants on fire."
Analysis | Fact Checker: Trump has made 15,413 false or misleading claims over 1,055 days — The Washington Post
The impeachment probe over the president's Ukraine doings has led to an explosion of false and misleading claims.apple.news
Well here is something he can be proud of.....
On example, Trump had a football team visiting the White House and had fast food brought in for lunch. Trump said they had burgers piled a mile high. WaPo fact checked it and managed to turn that into 4 separate lies. One, they weren't an actual mile high, two there were chicken sandwiches in the mix, and three and four were when he repeated those lies later.
The "nothing to hide" argument has things backwards, as it suggests that we are all worthy of suspicion until proven otherwise. Privacy is a fundamental right, and you don't need to prove the necessity of fundamental rights to anyone. It's interesting how the "nothing to hide" argument is an argument usually made by people when the loss of privacy involved is someone else's and not their own. The incredibly low bar of "articulable suspicion" is all that is required to open a counterintelligence investigation into a presidential campaign, or to search your vehicle after having been pulled over by the police, but "nothing to hide" doesn't even come close to the absurdly low bar of "articulable suspicion."
"Nothing to hide" is arguably the identical twin of the equally fallacious "appeal to motive" (what are you really thinking?), both of which are further related to the argumentum ad hominem. There are tons of websites dedicated to the ridiculousness of this argument, legal and otherwise. It's arguably the lamest argument to be made for someone giving up, or for violating, civil rights.
"Nothing to hide" is arguably the identical twin of the equally fallacious "appeal to motive" (what are you really thinking?), both of which are further related to the argumentum ad hominem. There are tons of websites dedicated to the ridiculousness of this argument, legal and otherwise. It's arguably the lamest argument to be made for someone giving up, or for violating, civil rights.
If it hasn't been proven that Trump isn't worthy of suspicion, then Nixon wasn't a crook.
Uhm, OK. But so far, for three years, everything the Dems have suspected of him, has turned out to be a figment of a Democrat imagination. It's a long list, but if you like I'll list them.
Edit: Only the truly lost supporters can rationalise breaking the law.
Doesn't matter what ideology you follow.
The same type of people that think ....
Democrats are destroying this country.
Democrats are tearing this country apart.
Are the same type of people that think ...
Republicans are destroying this country.
Republicans are tearing this country apart.
It took the UK three yrs to figure out, yah gotta follow the law. Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree.
Who is breaking the law? What law?
Federal Criminal Offenses and the Impeachment of Donald J. Trump
Experts conclude President's conduct involves multiple federal crimes.
www.justsecurity.org
A campaign to defraud - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Donald Trump may have committed up to eight criminal offenses while campaigning and during the first year of his presidency.
www.citizensforethics.org
A bunch of ticky tack stuff.Federal Criminal Offenses and the Impeachment of Donald J. Trump
Experts conclude President's conduct involves multiple federal crimes.A campaign to defraud - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Donald Trump may have committed up to eight criminal offenses while campaigning and during the first year of his presidency.
Yes, you can. But if you do, you are then subject to being found guilty of contempt at a contempt hearing. The penalty for ignoring a subpoena is usually a monetary fine, although in rare instances jail time is given. So it's best to not ignore a subpoena. You can, however, challenge a subpoenae in court, or at a contempt hearing, to assert privilege or some other defense.
So what do you think should be the punishment for those who refused to appear?
No. Absolutely not. LolUsing that logic, should the Detroit Lions show up for sundays game.
Depends of the reason for the subpoenas, and for the reason for the refusal to appear. In this case, the reason for the subpoenaes in the first place was dubious, as Congressional Oversight doesn't extend to Executive deliberation and privileged communication. The White House asserted as much, and the remedy for that is to have the Judicial Branch resolve the dispute. If the Judiciary were to rule against the White House, Congress has the option to refer to the DOJ anyone who continues to refuse to comply with the subpoenas.
Mulvany lost his bid in a lower court to refuse his subpoena, and ordered that he had to appear before the congressional committee. Said he had to appear, but he didn't have to say anything or answer any questions, saying he could assert Executive Privileges, but he had to at least appear. Upon that ruling, Congress withdrew their subpoenae because they knew they couldn't compel him to talk.
Last edited: