Comey Fired!

[Joe Fan]

.....
"A lie isn’t just a false statement. It’s a false statement whose speaker knows it’s false."...

Someone has been brushing up on their definition of 'lie"
But that' still not exact enough, IMO

I say a lie is a "knowing and intentional misstatement of fact"

"Santa Claus is real" = a lie. Forgivable or not.
"Keith Olbermann is an idiot" = a statement of opinion. But supportable with facts.
"The world is flat" = a lie now but not a lie in the 14th century (They did not know. Thus, they were wrong but not liars)
"The Sun will always rise in the East" = more of a statement of a principle of math or physics than of fact. Wording it this way, it's not a lie since it involves a future event -- and, some day, it wont rise at all. I guess it would be truthful to phrase it as "the Sun has always risen in the East." But, at some point back it time, it did not rise at all as it did not exist.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Seattle Husker]

 

[Seattle Husker]

Not only that, if you look at what the media often calls "lies," it applies a radically different (and lower) standard for using the term than it ever has with other politicians. Most of what they call "lies" don't have any evidence that he knew his statement was false.

If you look at this BuzzFeed hack's into, you can see the game she's playing.

"A lie isn’t just a false statement. It’s a false statement whose speaker knows it’s false."

This is a fair definition - a false statement plus actual, subjective awareness by the speaker that the statement is false. It's a high standard that's very hard to prove, which is why reporters rarely call statements "lies." But if you follow her rationale, she dramatically relaxes the definition to justify her repeated use of a word that by her own initial definition, isn't applicable.

She then says this.

"In these instances, the president — or his administration — have clear reason to know otherwise."

Well, this relaxes the definition significantly. First, we've deemed a statement by the Administration to be a statement by Trump. That's a huge leap when there's an intent requirement.

Second, we've relaxed the actual subjective awareness requirement by substituting "clear reason to know otherwise." So now we can call something a lie basically because we assume the speaker should know better.

Her next statement:

"The cases we call "lies" are ones where we think it's fair to make that call: Trump is saying something that contradicts clear and widely published information that we have reason to think he's seen."

Now we've effectively eliminated the requirement that the speaker be subjectively aware that the statement be false and substituted the accuser's subjective belief that contradicting information (not even necessarily true or verifiable information) is "widely published" and that the accuser has "reason to believe" (whatever that means) the speaker has seen.

"This list also includes ********: speech that is — in its academic definition — "unconnected to a concern with the truth.""

Now we're completely outside the realm of proving actual lies and going with simply characterizing statements as false and presuming, without evidence, that the speaker has no concern with the truth.

And that's how language gets eroded to drive a political narrative.

Here is the actual definition of a lie:

The speaker doesn't need to know it's false. Heck, Spicer could be relaying the lie (thinking it's true) but rather it's being done with the intent to deceive and is false, that makes it a lie. This "misdirection" language that's being used is simply a lie by another name, in most cases. It's what some conservatives are now saying to justify the person representing their team. Those on the fence on whether to support Trump or jump into the anti-Trump camp are lying to themselves when they simply call this "misdirection":



You could say that was a lie with the intention to misdirect but it's still a lie.

Of course, any POTUS Administration lies. We call it "spin" but they are attempting to "convey a false impression" a good percentage of time, as do all politicians. This administration is so bad at it though and the stakes they choose to use it are seemingly greater.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The speaker doesn't need to know it's false.

There are different nuances that people apply in defining a "lie." I went with the initial definition the Buzzfeed reporter described.

Heck, Spicer could be relaying the lie (thinking it's true) but rather it's being done with the intent to deceive and is false, that makes it a lie.

Spicer is in a different position, because his job is to speak for somebody else. If Trump tells him to say something that Trump knows to be false (or with Trump's intent to deceive), that's Trump's lie. It may or may not be Spicer's.

Of course, any POTUS Administration lies. We call it "spin" but they are attempting to "convey a false impression" a good percentage of time, as do all politicians. This administration is so bad at it though and the stakes they choose to use it are seemingly greater.

You are correct, but the point is that other POTUS Administrations were seldom called "liars" by mainstream media sources, which is my point. The standard is different for Trump. The presumption of knowledge that the statements are false or the intent to deceive is much stronger with him, and for previous administrations, it was virtually non-existent. If there wasn't a smoking gun conclusively proving that the speaker knew the information was false, they weren't called liars. Frankly, the standard was higher than what you'd need to win a defamation lawsuit (which is knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard for whether or not it's true or false).

 

[Seattle Husker]

You are correct, but the point is that other POTUS Administrations were seldom called "liars" by mainstream media sources, which is my point. The standard is different for Trump. The presumption of knowledge that the statements are false or the intent to deceive is much stronger with him, and for previous administrations, it was virtually non-existent. If there wasn't a smoking gun conclusively proving that the speaker knew the information was false, they weren't called liars. Frankly, the standard was higher than what you'd need to win a defamation lawsuit (which is knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard for whether or not it's true or false).

I'd agree that Trump is being held to a different standard than his predecessors. Let's explore why? Is this simply a facet of the "librul media" bias? If so, why haven't previous Republican administrations endured the "lies" accusation as much? Has the media industry itself become more partisan? What role has Trump himself played in fomenting the rancor through his own language/statements about the media and opposition?

We could probably agree that it's all the above and would merely argue about apportioning the blame. It won't come as a surprise but I think Trump's actions have largely created this new standard. We all laughed at "little Marco", "Low Energy Jeb" and when he singled out reporters would didn't laud him in their publications during rallies. Trump used inflammatory rhetoric that was uncoventional throughout his campaign and continues to this day. In turn, wouldn't it be logical that if you've cast everyone but your supporters "enemies" that you'd expect little support from those same people? Furthermore, Trump has demonstrated greater disconnect from the truth than previous administrations. Typically, it's for stupid ego topics like "my inauguration crowd was bigger" or "I would have won the popular vote if not for illegal voters". When you lie about the small stuff (yes, he is lying) then when you need credibility the most there is none to be found. This is why his approval rating now sits at 38-40%. At this point, the only people that believe him are the ones that Trump stated would vote for him even if he shot someone on 5th avenue for everyone to see.

 

[djimaplon]

how about you include the full quote rather than just what suits your argument. good thing our President is pallling around with Russian diplomats sans American press, but alas good thing Russian press was there to document.

Guess that palling around includes trying to impress his pals by giving up classified information...all of which he more or less confirmed and had the right to do with his tweet; in the process throwing yet another member of his administration under the bus.

 

[iatrogenic]

Oh no, another fictional Trump scandal du jour! How will we ever survive?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Here comes the wrath of the FBI. Comey wrote a memo 1 day after Flynn was fired based on a conversation he and Trump had. In the memo he claims that Trump asked him to halt the Flynn investigation.

Comey didn't respond but agreed with Trump that Flynn was "a good guy". Threats don't seem to carry the weight they once did.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Senator Angus King (I-ME) has said that if this is true then this fits the "obstruction of justice" that would be grounds for impeachment.

 

[Garmel]

Here comes the wrath of the FBI. Comey wrote a memo 1 day after Flynn was fired based on a conversation he and Trump had. In the memo he claims that Trump asked him to halt the Flynn investigation.

Comey didn't respond but agreed with Trump that Flynn was "a good guy". Threats don't seem to carry the weight they once did.

Just like the mainstream media you're reaching for everything you can find to get rid of a president you don't like. How in the hell does this memo prove anything?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Just like the mainstream media you're reaching for everything you can find to get rid of a president you don't like. How in the hell does this memo prove anything?

Nothing. Enough smoke and eventually you may need to start looking around for fire.

 

[Garmel]

Nothing. Enough smoke and eventually you may need to start looking around for fire.

Or the media keeps putting out ******** and see what sticks.

 

[iatrogenic]

Nothing. Enough smoke and eventually you may need to start looking around for fire.

Start by checking your pants.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Or the media keeps putting out ******** and see what sticks.

Let's talk in 6 months.

 

[Clean]

As Trey Gowdy said; "newspaper articles aren't admissible in any court room in the country".

This is just another anonymously sourced article. Supposedly a Comey associate read parts of a memo to a reporter. Seems odd that the guy didn't fax a copy to the reporter instead of reading it over the phone!

 

[Crockett]

If Trump is called a liar when he simply is speaking a lot when he doesn't know any verifiable facts one way or another, poor guy is going to be called a liar every day and twice on Sunday.

 

[iatrogenic]

If Trump is called a liar when he simply is speaking a lot when he doesn't know any verifiable facts one way or another, poor guy is going to be called a liar every day and twice on Sunday.

If that is true, we may as well disband the FBI, CIA and NSA because the briefings they give Trump are inaccurate and useless.

 

[Crockett]

From the circumstances now it looks like Comey has Trump by the balls. By some accounts his is livid at how Trump and his surrogates have treated him. Oh, and by the way, Comey has great big hands.

 

[iatrogenic]

From the circumstances now it looks like Comey has Trump by the balls. By some accounts his is livid at how Trump and his surrogates have treated him. Oh, and by the way, Comey has great big hands.

According to Trump, Comey is going to need those big hands.

Comey may be livid, but who cares? He only has himself to blame. Besides, if he really had Trump by the balls, he never would have been fired.

 

[Crockett]

I'm not saying Trump knows nothing. Alas he suffers from the billionaire narcissist problem of considering himself an expert on stuff he's taken no time to learn. By the way, as much a billionaire can surround himself with yes men, a president can, and too often does, insulate himself from critics/experts who can help him avoid saying and doing really stupid stuff.

Tump's confidence didn't spring from nowhere. He's incredibly successful in business, media and politics -- running autocratic organizations. Governance when power is shared even within the executive branch is a whole new game for him.

 

[iatrogenic]

I'm not saying Trump knows nothing. Alas he suffers from the billionaire narcissist problem of considering himself an expert on stuff he's taken no time to learn. By the way, as much a billionaire can surround himself with yes men, a president can, and too often does, insulate himself from critics/experts who can help him avoid saying and doing really stupid stuff.

It seems plausible that Trump supporters are in favor of Trump's stated policies more so than his personal characteristics, and that Democrats try and use his personal failings as a way to discredit his stated policy goals. Republicans use the same strategy with Hillary.

Regardless of his goofy personal actions, he still supports a tougher immigration stance, lower taxes, getting rid of/changing a failing Obamacare, less business regulation, trade deals that don't hurt American workers, etc.

 

[Crockett]

Regardless of his goofy personal actions, he still supports a tougher immigration stance, lower taxes, getting rid of/changing a failing Obamacare, less business regulation, trade deals that don't hurt American workers, etc.

There is much to like in his agenda. I don't believe big tax cuts targeted to billionaires will stimulate unprecedented economic growth, but I can see merit in a lot of his ideas.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'd agree that Trump is being held to a different standard than his predecessors. Let's explore why? Is this simply a facet of the "librul media" bias? If so, why haven't previous Republican administrations endured the "lies" accusation as much? Has the media industry itself become more partisan? What role has Trump himself played in fomenting the rancor through his own language/statements about the media and opposition?

We could probably agree that it's all the above and would merely argue about apportioning the blame. It won't come as a surprise but I think Trump's actions have largely created this new standard. We all laughed at "little Marco", "Low Energy Jeb" and when he singled out reporters would didn't laud him in their publications during rallies. Trump used inflammatory rhetoric that was uncoventional throughout his campaign and continues to this day. In turn, wouldn't it be logical that if you've cast everyone but your supporters "enemies" that you'd expect little support from those same people? Furthermore, Trump has demonstrated greater disconnect from the truth than previous administrations. Typically, it's for stupid ego topics like "my inauguration crowd was bigger" or "I would have won the popular vote if not for illegal voters". When you lie about the small stuff (yes, he is lying) then when you need credibility the most there is none to be found. This is why his approval rating now sits at 38-40%. At this point, the only people that believe him are the ones that Trump stated would vote for him even if he shot someone on 5th avenue for everyone to see.

I don't necessarily disagree with you here. I don't think the media is more partisan than it used to be. I don't think it's more Democratic than it was 10, 20, 30, or even 40 years ago. However, I do think it's more overt in its hostility than it used to be. Is a lot of that Trump's fault? Of course. He behaves like a buffoon, is borderline dangerous with his words, and routinely acts like a jerk to the press and pretty much everybody but his most rabid supporters. Sometimes the rips on the press are deserved, and sometimes they aren't. He definitely doesn't do himself any favors. (The Comey firing is basically the textbook example of how not to fire somebody.)

Nevertheless, journalists are supposed to be professionals. I understand why they don't like Republicans. They detest their worldview. I also understand why they especially don't like Trump. He ran on and catered to what they think are the worst parts of the Republican worldview - traditionalism and nationalism. If you're a staunch secular globalist, he's about as bad as it gets. Furthermore, he's a reckless prick about it, which makes it even worse. However, if you're a professional, the criteria that you apply in deciding whether to use a very loaded term like "lie" shouldn't change just because you don't like the person you're writing about. The standard should remain the same, and if a journalist decides to relax it, that reflects on his or her credibility, not Trump's.

 

[iatrogenic]

There is much to like in his agenda. I don't believe big tax cuts targeted to billionaires will stimulate unprecedented economic growth, but I can see merit in a lot of his ideas.

Your statement concerning tax cuts targeted to billionaires is another example of a falsehood being repeated. Do billionaires pay taxes? Of course. However, the tax cuts proposed are for businesses, not individuals. The only individual tax cut proposed relates to the pass through nature of S-Corp and LLC business income that is paid by company owners at the personal level. The tax cuts are targeted for businesses because businesses drive employment and GDP.

 

[I35]

Senator Angus King (I-ME) has said that if this is true then this fits the "obstruction of justice" that would be grounds for impeachment.

The word impeachment has been used even before Trump took office. It's getting to be like the word "racist" that's over used.

Here comes the wrath of the FBI. Comey wrote a memo 1 day after Flynn was fired based on a conversation he and Trump had.

He use to be a respectable guy by all. He got too political in a position that's not suppose to be political. It makes it hard to trust anything he says or put out.

 

[Crockett]

I have to say, as a Democrat who dislikes Trump, that a portion of the media is so over the top in its gleeful presentation of purported Trump failures, that what I hear from them is beginning to sound like the "wop wop wop" of adult speak in the Peanuts cartoon.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I have to say, as a Democrat who dislikes Trump, that a portion of the media is so over the top in its gleeful presentation of purported Trump failures, that what I hear from them is beginning to sound like the "wop wop wop" of adult speak in the Peanuts cartoon.

And that's the problem. He screws up routinely, but the absurdity of the American media and how it has covered him from Day 1 damages their credibility.

 

[Phil Elliott]

but the absurdity of the American media and how it has covered him from Day 1 has ruined their credibility.

FIFY.

 

[Seattle Husker]

What's absurd is CNN's coverage of Trump getting 2 scoops of ice cream when other attendees get 1 or the attempts to catch him golfing. Would you consider the coverage of the inauguration crowd size poorly done? What role does Trump play in spouting verifiably untrue statements like "my crowd was the biggest"? Did the media drive that drivel or Trump? Remember, Spicer stated it was the largest the afternoon of the inauguration.

What's lost in this "media is biased" narrative is that they are doing some damn fine investigative reporting. Afterall, if not for the WaPo, Flynn would still likely be DNI and now we know that either he was intentionally hiding his proximity to Russia/Turkey or was incompetent. The media kept Trump accountable for his absurd "Obama wiretapped" me claim. If a special prosecutor or blue ribbon panel is appointed to investigate Russia's involvement in the election and potential collusion with the Trump campaign you can thank the media because the Republican's have abdicated their "check" authority on the Executive Branch.