In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

EdwardHeisler · 2018-02-01 15:58:06

In 365 days, President Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

The Fact Checker’s ongoing database of the false or misleading claims made by President Trump since assuming office.

Updated Jan. 19, 2018

Here's the list:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … 8b50f4f782

kbd512 · 2018-02-01 18:52:39

Nobody bothered to keep track of the number of times former President Obama lied because there was real news to report. Reporting that any politician lied is like reporting that the sky is blue. If partisan rags like WaPo disagree with anyone over a matter of opinion, then the other party obviously "lied". That's also part of regressive logic. Ignore what you don't like and continue pretending that you're right about everything. It worked so well during the last election cycle. That whole election thing was just everyone else letting the regressives at places like WaPo know what they think of regressive opinions.

Enjoy the next three years. I know I will.

EdwardHeisler · 2018-02-01 20:01:48

[Excerpt]

Trump’s All-Out Attack on the Rule of Law
Accusing the FBI and DOJ of partisanship and conspiracies, the president is setting the stage for a constitutional crisis.
By Bob Dreyfuss
February 1, 2018
The Nation

With the imminent release of the jury-rigged “Nunes memo” and the resignation of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who had been under fire from the president, Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have expanded their all-out assault on the American system of justice, including the FBI, the Justice Department, the US intelligence community, and the Office of the Special Counsel. It’s an unprecedented attack on what Team Trump refers to as an imagined “Deep State,” a “secret society” within the FBI, and a conspiracy of judges, courts, and intelligence officials who have allegedly banded together to bring down his presidency.

There is of course a reality-based way to look at these events—namely, that the White House and the Trump campaign are under investigation by seasoned prosecutors and several congressional committees over plausible allegations that the president’s 2016 campaign colluded with or encouraged a Russian effort to influence the election’s outcome, and that since his inauguration Trump has engaged in a systematic effort to obstruct justice.

Over the past month or so, however, Trump’s obstruction efforts—as the president sees it, “you fight back, oh, it’s obstruction”—has kicked into high gear. At its center is a sustained White House–led attack on both special counsel Robert Mueller and the FBI, including several top FBI officials. Supporting Trump’s attack are the Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), who put together and then, on Monday, voted to release to the public a memorandum apparently designed to show that the FBI is partisan, pro-Democratic, and engaged in a broad conspiracy to undermine Trump’s presidency.

This is part of a broader pattern. Since taking office, Trump has targeted investigators, and other law-enforcement officials. He fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who had informed him of Gen. Mike Flynn’s vulnerability to potential Russian blackmail. He ousted US Attorney Preet Bharara in New York (along with all the other Obama-appointed US Attorneys), who had overseen New York real-estate fraud and money-laundering investigations. He demanded FBI Director James Comey’s political loyalty, asked Comey to go easy on Flynn, and then fired Comey over, as Trump famously said on national television, “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia.” He made inappropriate requests of CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and NSA Director Mike Rogers, seeking their help in winding down the FBI investigation. He pressured his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, not to recuse himself from the Russia inquiry, sharply criticized Sessions when he did, and then repeatedly slammed Sessions via Twitter and in media interviews, at one point indicating that he wanted Sessions gone. He repeatedly attacked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has overseen the Russia inquiry since Sessions’s recusal. Last week, reports surfaced that Trump wants to get rid of Rosenstein, too. And Trump has explicitly attacked the entire FBI, saying that it’s “in tatters”—which received strong pushback from the man Trump himself appointed to lead the bureau, Director Christopher Wray. Wray himself threatened to resign over Trump’s uncalled-for attacks against the now-departed Deputy Director McCabe.

To most observers, Trump’s actions amount to a massive campaign to obstruct justice, one of the counts that Mueller is charged with looking into. Never before in American political history—not during Watergate, not during the Iran/Contra investigation in the 1980s, and not during the 1990s special prosecutor’s investigation of Whitewater—has a president so openly challenged the legitimacy of the entire justice system. Others have questioned the interpretation and meaning of evidence, but Trump and his GOP allies—backed in the right-wing media by the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh—have disparaged the patriotism, political neutrality, and professionalism of the entire US Justice Department, including the FBI, as well as the US intelligence community.

Read the full article at:

https://www.thenation.com/article/trump … le-of-law/

kbd512 · 2018-02-01 20:41:50

The only evidence I've ever seen pertaining to obstruction of justice has been the FBI's refusal to do their jobs because some of their top members supported a partisan political agenda. When law enforcement officials behave like political partisans, they no longer serve the public interest of law enforcement. The decision not to prosecute former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for theft of classified information before the investigation was completed is the most obvious example. The people who made that decision were pro-criminal behavior, not pro-democracy.

Sally Yates was fired for refusing to do her job. She thinks the US should have open borders. Those of us who live in border states disagree. The letter of the law also disagrees with the refusals to enforce immigration laws. Political appointees who disagree with their present employer have the right to resign.

There never was any collusion with the Russians to win the election. The Democrats did see fit to sell a substantial quantity of Uranium to Russia's RosAtom and then lied about it. What purpose that served is unclear. Since the Russians sell Uranium and Plutonium to us, it was a bit inexplicable, like a lot of what they do.

Most of President Obama's term in office was a massive obstruction of justice, from using the IRS to target political opposition, to selling guns to drug cartels and terrorists, to theft of classified information, to sale of nuclear materials to countries they considered hostile to the US. I'm sure someone made a buck off of it all who contributed to Democrat political campaigns, which is why it was permitted to continue under his watch. The only "line in the sand" that you can't cross is the bottom line. Someone from our government will come along to kill anyone dumb enough to do that.

Apart from that, the Democrat Party's prime movers pretty much lie their rear ends off and their useful idiots eat it up and ask for more.

EdwardHeisler · 2018-02-01 22:33:12

James Comey
Former Director of the FBI

"All should appreciate the FBI speaking up. I wish more of our leaders would. But take heart: American history shows that, in the long run, weasels and liars never hold the field, so long as good people stand up. Not a lot of schools or streets named for Joe McCarthy."

3:51 PM - Feb 1, 2018

Last edited by EdwardHeisler (2018-02-01 22:33:29)

SpaceNut · 2018-02-01 23:13:56

Is it better to have so many lies that no one can believe you or lesser larger ones?

https://www.factcheck.org/

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obama … 16-update/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … /96773058/

elderflower · 2018-02-02 02:48:34

USA today is, I understand, a Murdoch product. As such you should take what it prints with a large spoonful of salt. We have several such outlets in the UK and not all of them are noted for veracity, even handedness and diligence in their reporting!

JoshNH4H · 2018-02-02 08:33:01

I'm just going to leave this here

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[7][8][9]
The term "whataboutery" has been used in Britain and Ireland since the period of the Troubles (conflict) in Northern Ireland.[10][11][12] Lexicographers date the first appearance of the variant whataboutism to the 1990s,[1][10] while other historians state that during the Cold War Western officials referred to the Soviet propaganda strategy by that term.[7][13] The tactic saw a resurgence in post-Soviet Russia, relating to human rights violations committed by, and criticisms of, the Russian government.[7][14][15] The technique received new attention during Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Ukraine.[16][17] Usage of the tactic extended to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his spokesman, Dmitry Peskov.[18][19][20]
The Guardian deemed whataboutism, as used in Russia, "practically a national ideology".[21] Journalist Julia Ioffe wrote that "Anyone who has ever studied the Soviet Union" was aware of the technique, citing the Soviet rejoinder to criticism, And you are lynching Negroes, as a "classic" example of the tactic.[22] Writing for Bloomberg News, Leonid Bershidsky called whataboutism a "Russian tradition",[23] while The New Yorker described the technique as "a strategy of false moral equivalences".[24] Jill Dougherty called whataboutism a "sacred Russian tactic",[25][26] and compared it to the pot calling the kettle black.[27]
Critics of US President Donald Trump charge that he and his supporters make use of whataboutism.[4][2][28]

Terraformer · 2018-02-02 11:16:03

Whataboutery - the response people give when accused of hypocrisy.

kbd512 · 2018-02-02 11:37:22

Nobody in the liberal regressive media uttered a word of criticism when former President Obama lied and they're the undisputed champions of "whataboutism". All they ever did when people brought up whatever Obama lied about was claim racism or that Bush did X, Y, or Z, too. I didn't vote for Bush or Obama because I thought they were both poor choices for POTUS who would spend us into oblivion and start unnecessary wars that we're still fighting to this day.

Regressives think that because they're obsessed with race, religion, or sex that everyone else must be, too. I couldn't care less if the President is a Portuguese-Indian first generation immigrant transvestite porn star who had a sex change operation to look like a woman as long as he supports an agenda that is good for all Americans, rather than pandering to every special interest group in existence.

In the following order of importance to me:

1. Government shows respect for all of its people and defends its people in every action it takes
2. Government accepts economic reality and makes all reasonable attempts to improve our economy
3. Government limits itself to what is necessary to execute its duty to its people

This Russia farce is a complete fabrication from political partisans who are pitching a fit because they didn't get their way during the last election and reality made them look like the fools they truly are. Nobody, including former FBI Director Mueller, has ever shown a single shred of evidence that would indicate that their claims are anything but total lies from political hacks because they don't have any. I didn't vote for Clinton for President because I don't trust her and disagree with her policies. That was all that actually happened during the last election.

EdwardHeisler · 2018-02-02 13:10:52

James ComeyVerified account @Comey · 19 minutes ago

James Comey
Former Director of the FBI
On The Just Released Republican Memo

"That’s it? Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House intel committee, destroyed trust with Intelligence Community, damaged relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen. For what? DOJ & FBI must keep doing their jobs."

10:47 AM - 2 Feb 2018

Last edited by EdwardHeisler (2018-02-02 13:11:39)

JoshNH4H · 2018-02-02 14:38:24

kbd512 wrote:

What about Obama and Hillary?

kbd512 · 2018-02-02 17:47:22

JoshNH4H,

I like how you quoted something I never stated in this thread. It's a nice technique, but it's also exactly what's wrong with Hillary's supporters and the Democrat Party in general. They make a habit of projecting their own faults onto others. What I did say is that the Hillary supporters didn't care about lies when they were told by someone they supported, but now that someone they don't like is in office, the rest of us are supposed to believe that it matters. It doesn't and it never did. If it did, then you'd support putting her in jail, which is where people who steal classified information belong, and you'd choose another candidate. Since you've never given any indication that you'd support that course of action, I can only presume that you don't really care. You're just miffed that your candidate of choice wasn't elected.

There's an election every four years. I didn't vote for former Presidents Bush or Obama, so my candidate of choice wasn't elected for 16 years. I didn't even vote for President Trump in the primary because I liked Senator Cruz's message / policies better and he's a fellow Texan, but between President Trump and former Secretary of State Clinton, it was the easiest choice I ever made.

At this point, what difference does it make?

SpaceNut · 2018-02-02 19:42:44

This the same method that was used to twist the election by counter punching back with negative, fake news retorts to which the declassified Nunes memo refers to a four-page memo written by Republican staff members. Being used to make the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant in the early phases of the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States election illegal and get the evidence thrown out. It is alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI will tarnish the legitimacy of the entire Russia probe, that argument may be undercut by a single sentence buried near the end of the four-page document.

The memo highlights the investigators’ interest in Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page in the investigation, alleging that information used in October 2016 to obtain permission to monitor his activities was politically tainted. But the memo also points to another individual with ties to the Trump campaign, George Papadopolous, as a key factor in the instigation of the FBI’s Russia probe.
Papadopoulos, a young foreign-policy consultant who pleaded guilty in the special counsel’s investigation, is now reported to be a cooperating witness.

“The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok,” the memo noted in its final paragraph.

It is funny that the GOP has resorted to the same old campaign as #ReleaseTheMemo social media campaign emerged in mid-January 2018 during the ongoing Special Counsel investigation. The hashtag was used by Mark Meadows and other House conservatives before it spread virally. Russian-linked bots on Twitter helped spread the hashtag.

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/ … -SD001.pdf

kbd512 · 2018-02-02 21:59:01

SpaceNut,

This entire attempt to discredit President Trump's election is the most pitiful partisan nonsense I've ever seen. If a majority of votes in the majority of electoral districts are what decide who will be President, rather than campaign speeches, political propaganda, innuendo, or outright lies, then please explain how President Trump "stole" the election from anyone. Did President Obama "steal" the election from Hillary Clinton, or was she just as unlikeable back then as she was during the last election cycle. Are you here complaining that President Trump ran a better political campaign than Hillary Clinton did? If so, then cry me a river.

Here's a thought. Politicians say whatever they can to get elected. After they get elected, they may or may not do what they claim they'll do, if elected. So far, President Trump has attempted to do most of what he claimed he'd attempt to do and that's a very refreshing change for this Republican.

Thus far, the economy seems to like President Trump's economic agenda. Thus far, no new wars. Thus far, our government's spending is in line with what all previous Presidents have spent, which is to say absurdly too much, full stop. The sky is not falling. It's business as usual. The liberal regressives didn't get the memo, but the election is over and President Trump won because people voted for him. There's another election in 3 years. It's time to move on.

SpaceNut · 2018-02-03 20:44:46

Here’s what we know so far based on news reports, public statements, court documents and the U.S. government’s unclassified report on Russian election interference.
Lots of calendar dates....
58d7d89c112f70e0018b6f2c-1201

Dossier allegations June 20, 2016:
July 7, 2016: Carter Page
Dossier allegations July 19, 2016:

Mar. 26, 2017
A timeline of events that unfolded during the election appears to support the FBI's investigation into Trump and Russia

Time line 03/03/2017 07:30 PM EST Updated 12/01/2017 10:42 AM EST
The definitive Trump-Russia timeline of events

Jun 22, 2017
Trump, Comey and the Russia investigation: What we know so far

The disclosure of a memo written by James B. Comey saying that President Trump had asked him to shut down the FBI’s investigation of former national security advisor Michael Flynn followed months of intrigue.

July 11 2017

Tuesday’s acknowledgment of collusion—or at the very least attempted collusion—with a foreign adversary comes after months of Trump, Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort denying that any such effort took place.

12.01.17

The Twisted, Ever-Morphing Timeline Of The Ties Between Donald Trump And Russia

Interactive Timeline: Everything We Know About Russia and President Trump

SpaceNut · 2018-02-04 16:12:03

No political bias here as Nunes ‘abused’ his power on intelligence committee, former CIA director says in selectively releasing information to accuse law enforcement officials of improperly obtaining a warrant to monitor the communications of a former Trump campaign adviser. The Republicans may be setting the stage for a "constitutional crisis" if they use the Nunes memo to end the special counsel's Russia investigation which would be obstruction of justice since the investigation has not come to a close. The President to end this investigation, is basically saying that in America, one man is above the law, and that's not a fact. With more fake news claims from Trump Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) hit back at President Trump: Memo does 'quite the opposite' of vindicating you as Nunes memo as a ‘political hit job’ on FBI.

"The most important fact disclosed in this otherwise shoddy memo was that FBI investigation began July 2016 with your advisor, Papadopoulos, who was secretly discussing stolen Clinton emails with the Russians," it shows that the investigation into Russian election interference began after the FBI obtained information about former Trump campaign adviser George Papdopoulos, and not from the warrants on Page.

GW Johnson · 2018-02-04 17:36:36

I've read the memo and its cover letter in their entirety.

Point 1: there was nothing in either document worthy of "confidential" classification, much less "top secret / noforn". What I saw was then not the unwise release of classified information, but the abuse of classification laws and regulations for political purposes. Seems to rampant in DC generally, in my humble opinion.

Point 2: what was left entirely out, rendering it misleading, was the original genesis of the "Steele dossier" project. This was begun during the primary season, funded by Republican opponents of Trump, trying to find some way to deflect him from the nomination. When that failed, they ceased funding it, and it languished until the Democrats funded it hoping for something to discredit him during the general election. That lack of informational detail should emphasize just how far politics has trumped truth, which is quite evil in my humble opinion.

GW

Terraformer · 2018-02-04 17:43:14

According to the memo, the dossier was instrumental in getting a warrant from FISA, though. If the dossier was known to be baseless at the time... that's pretty damning information.

GW Johnson · 2018-02-04 17:53:23

I didn't say the Nunes memo was baseless. I said it was misleadingly incomplete. As to whether the Steele dossier was baseless is another question entirely. I honestly don't know. I only know that what it claims is very disturbing. That should have sparked further investigation, and it did. We will have to wait and see what that investigation finally produces. These things take time if done correctly.

GW

SpaceNut · 2018-02-06 19:50:22

One of the reasons that the 10 page rebuttal is in his hands now.....

Speaking of falsehoods remember the university....

A federal appeals court refused Tuesday to derail a $25 million Trump University settlement to allow a former student to take the president to trial.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided unanimously that a district judge acted appropriately when he approved the settlement, reached days after Donald Trump was elected president.
The settlement stemmed from lawsuits charging the now-defunct real estate school with fraud. The 9th Circuit called the settlement "highly favorable" to former students.
The suits accused Trump University of falsely advertising that it would teach students Trump's "secrets of success."

This is a crime and Trump is getting off free via the law suit.....

kbd512 · 2018-02-08 19:33:11

SpaceNut,

Former President Obama never went to trial for using the IRS to target political enemies and neither did Lois Lerner.

Former Attorney General, Eric Holder, never went to trial for approving the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartel members.

Former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, never went to trial for theft of classified information.

Apart from a couple of Russians, nobody has gone to trial over the Uranium One deal. The State Department she headed approved the sale of roughly 20% of our Uranium reserves to the Russians, the Clinton Foundation received $145M in "charity" from the lobbyists who made the deal for her, and thus far, no trial.

Every time you point a finger at the Republican Party, three more are pointing back at the Democrat Party.

SpaceNut · 2018-02-09 18:03:47

Are you talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal a stupid attempt to trace how guns were ending up in the wrong hands, sounds like a leak, mole in the know since they were able to use the program against the ATF .....Stings are not always effective but police are never charged with committing any crime when doing so.....

https://nypost.com/2013/12/01/book-exce … g-cartels/

The capture was a bit slow but did happen El Chapo’s Capture Puts ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ Back in the Headlines

SpaceNut · 2018-02-09 18:28:27

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy tax cheats trying to use the nonprofit organizations tax exempt status. It is the IRS job to do get more audits as a function of what was seen as a naming of groups to which the investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the controversy, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting". Sounds like the political groups tax exempt status was called into question....

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … next-move/ was draining of the swamp coined....

https://freedomoutpost.com/irs-lois-ler … l-pension/

The IRS all boils down to taking of taxation when it is said to be voluteered and if you do not pay they come after you for it....

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … l-account/

Back to email claims... again....a form of private discusion where as Twitter gives no expectation.......pleading the 5th seems to be the way to go.....

SpaceNut · 2018-02-09 21:44:14

American Spies Paid $100,000 to Russian Who Wanted to Sell Material on Trump

After months of secret negotiations, a shadowy Russian bilked American spies out of $100,000 last year, promising to deliver stolen National Security Agency cyberweapons in a deal that he insisted would also include compromising material on President Trump, according to American and European intelligence officials. Several American intelligence officials said they made clear that they did not want the Trump material from the Russian — who was suspected of having murky ties to Russian intelligence and to Eastern European cybercriminals.
He claimed the information would link the president and his associates to Russia. But instead of providing the hacking tools, the Russian produced unverified and possibly fabricated information involving Mr. Trump and others, including bank records, emails and purported Russian intelligence data.
The United States intelligence officials said they cut off the deal because they were wary of being entangled in a Russian operation to create discord inside the American government. They were also fearful of political fallout in Washington if they were seen to be buying scurrilous information on the president.
The Central Intelligence Agency declined to comment on the negotiations with the Russian seller.

Then again the other memo is being sent back .....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-02-01 15:58:06

In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#2 2018-02-01 18:52:39

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#3 2018-02-01 20:01:48

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#4 2018-02-01 20:41:50

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#5 2018-02-01 22:33:12

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#6 2018-02-01 23:13:56

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#7 2018-02-02 02:48:34

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#8 2018-02-02 08:33:01

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#9 2018-02-02 11:16:03

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#10 2018-02-02 11:37:22

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#11 2018-02-02 13:10:52

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#12 2018-02-02 14:38:24

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#13 2018-02-02 17:47:22

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#14 2018-02-02 19:42:44

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#15 2018-02-02 21:59:01

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#16 2018-02-03 20:44:46

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#17 2018-02-04 16:12:03

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#18 2018-02-04 17:36:36

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#19 2018-02-04 17:43:14

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#20 2018-02-04 17:53:23

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#21 2018-02-06 19:50:22

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#22 2018-02-08 19:33:11

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#23 2018-02-09 18:03:47

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#24 2018-02-09 18:28:27

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

#25 2018-02-09 21:44:14

Re: In 365 days, Trump has made 2,140 false or misleading claims

Board footer