Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1072820 Posts in 71168 Topics- by 18855 Members - Latest Member: Disco
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Recusal, Removal, or Indictment?  (Read 4010 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18148
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: Mar 08, 2017, 06:27AM »

I think you have to intend to lie for it to be a lie. Otherwise, you're just mistaken or misinformed.
In that case dogmatism and intellectual irresponsibility get a pass--most lies come from those who first convinced themselves of the lie.
 
There's a point at which intellectual negligence is indistinguishable in any way from lying--it's lying all the same, just from a slightly different angle.
 
Lying includes advocating self-deceptions to others and imposing or attempting to impose your own intellectual negligence upon others.
 
Lying is being directly responsible for dishonesty or deception, and again, intellectual irresponsibility and negligence are just applications of dishonesty and deception, and elf-deception counts when it spills over onto the outside world. If you only want to satisfy yourself that you're honest when you're not, you'll be far more inclined to stick with overt or willful intent as a necessary element of lying. If you take honesty seriously you recognize and acknowledge and address the lies behind the end results. That's where it all starts, after all.
 
However, I don't think Jeff Sessions was mistaken or uninformed about his own activities.
Well ... there's also that.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Stan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: Mar 2, 2003
Posts: 494

View Profile
« Reply #121 on: Mar 08, 2017, 08:24AM »

Do you realize that what you just posted made no sense at all?

There's that ad hominem I predicted.

It makes perfect sense unless you're trolling. 

You can lie unintentionally.  Sessions might not have caught that Franken was asking about all contact with the Russians, and then he didn't correct himself.  That's a lie.

You can lie and not intend to.  Sessions might not have remembered either of his specifically-paid-for meetings with the Russians.  He may have meant "no" when he said "I don't know of anybody that's spoken to the Russians."  But when the tape and the meetings were made public, it was Sessions' responsibility to say, "You know what, I made an error.  I was wrong.  I did meet with Russian officials during the time in question, and I would like to formally amend my testimony for the record." 

He didn't do that.  He made up an excuse.  That makes the statement a lie, plain and simple.

And yes, being willfully ignorant is the same thing as lying.  It's the spreading of dishonesty.
Logged
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9738

View Profile
« Reply #122 on: Mar 08, 2017, 10:05AM »

I draw the line slightly lower.

An intentional falsehood is of course a lie.

A false statement than could have been known to be false is also a lie, if a reasonable person would have checked.

That's a good point. Saying something without having any particular reason to believe it, or without making any effort to verify if it's true, is still dishonest.

I've noticed there's a sort of ecosystem for spreading these stories, and it's apparently quite efficient. After the lie about Obama wiretapping James Rosen popped up on the forum, I noticed that someone brought it up in every Facebook discussion of the wiretap allegations.

Trump understands this perfectly--it doesn't matter if what he says is true, as long as it's useful. For Trump, and for a lot of his supporters, saying something that's not true seems to be viewed roughly the way an NBA player might view getting away with a goal tend--whatever works, right? So his claim that over 100 Gitmo detainees released by Obama returned to terrorism (in fact, nearly all of them were released by Bush) works nearly as well being false as true: many people will repeat it because they like the way it sounds, or because they don't read or believe the credible sources that debunk it.

The other thing I've noticed is that when people spread these stories, they never seem to appreciate when you point out that they're hoaxes. I would be grateful to be told that something I was saying wasn't actually true, because I'd quit saying it. It's a little embarrassing, like being told your fly's down, but it's better to know. Besides, if a person were genuinely outraged over something, wouldn't they be relieved to learn it wasn't true?

So, yeah, people who spread these 'alternative facts' are doing something very near to lying. Indifference to truth is still dishonesty.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9738

View Profile
« Reply #123 on: Mar 08, 2017, 10:13AM »

For the record, james Rosen's phone records and emails were subpoenaed but he was not wiretapped. From a Fox News interview:

Quote
I have to clarify that I was not wiretapped, my parents were not wiretapped, which is where you place a listening device on someone’s telephone line and you listen to their conversations,” Rosen said. He continued, “What happened to me was that the Attorney General, Eric Holder, under Barack Obama as president secretly designated me a criminal co-conspirator and a flight risk and thereby had a federal judge give the government permission to rifle through all my gmails."
[emphasis added]

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/05/james-rosen-on-being-the-target-of-surveillance-under-the-obama-administration/

I actually agree that the Justice Dept. went a bit overboard on this case, because it seemed to go after the press too hard. But you can object to Holder's behavior without lying about it. The point of the lie is to say, Obama wiretapped someone before, so he probably did it again. It kicks up some useful dust for a person who's more interested in partisanship than accuracy.

There's further dishonesty in making a comparison between the two situations. The Rosen subpoena was pursuant to a legitimate national security concern over leaks that could compromise ongoing operations. The investigation led to several convictions. On the other hand, if a president wiretapped a candidate for political reasons, it would be a crime.

Whaddya wanna bet the the people spreading the fake story on this forum will continue to do so elsewhere, knowing it's untrue?
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
bhcordova
Wielder of the Cat Litter Scoop

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
Joined: May 18, 2000
Posts: 7042
"Carpe Felix"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #124 on: Mar 08, 2017, 03:07PM »



You can lie unintentionally.  Sessions might not have caught that Franken was asking about all contact with the Russians, and then he didn't correct himself.  That's a lie.

You can lie and not intend to.  Sessions might not have remembered either of his specifically-paid-for meetings with the Russians.  He may have meant "no" when he said "I don't know of anybody that's spoken to the Russians."  But when the tape and the meetings were made public, it was Sessions' responsibility to say, "You know what, I made an error.  I was wrong.  I did meet with Russian officials during the time in question, and I would like to formally amend my testimony for the record." 

He didn't do that.  He made up an excuse.  That makes the statement a lie, plain and simple.

And yes, being willfully ignorant is the same thing as lying.  It's the spreading of dishonesty.

Knowingly spreading untruths is called 'malicious gossip'.  It can also be called 'slander', or if in print 'libel'.

Logged

Billy Cordova, MBA
Forum Administrator
bcordova@tromboneforum.org

Beware the Jabberwock, my son! - Lewis Carroll

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup - Anon.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9738

View Profile
« Reply #125 on: Mar 08, 2017, 04:13PM »

Stan, you raise an excellent point.

How often do you hear Trump correct the record?
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1144
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: Jun 29, 2017, 08:23PM »

So was Claire McCaskill lying when she incorrectly claimed not to have met with any Russians?
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 50359
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: Jun 30, 2017, 10:15AM »

So was Claire McCaskill lying when she incorrectly claimed not to have met with any Russians?

It's not unreasonable for Senators and Representatives to meet with Russian representatives when they are acting as Senators and the Russians are acting as Lobbyists.

The problem is one of optics.  Sessions was an official of the Trump campaign when he had these meetings with the Russians and we don't know if he was acting as a Senator or as a representative of the Trump campaign.  Some promises were apparently made (somehow) to the Russians since they didn't respond to Obama's actions following revelations of hacking.  This is unusual and raises suspicions.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9738

View Profile
« Reply #128 on: Jun 30, 2017, 10:26AM »

So was Claire McCaskill lying when she incorrectly claimed not to have met with any Russians?

No.

Of all the lies being told lately, if this is the one that stands out in your mind, you're trying way too hard. McCaskill said that as a Senate Armed Services member she didn't have calls or meetings with the Russian Ambassador. A black-tie event at the Ambassadors house honoring her mentor, James Symington, was not a call or meeting and had nothing to do with her duties as an Armed Services committeeperson.

She could have worded it more arftully, but it was a 140-word Tweet, not sworn testimony, and the substance of her claim stands.

By contrast, the criticism of Jeff Sessions was that he apparently lied under oath, rather than a slightly inaccurate Tweet. He omitted very recent meetings that were precisely of the character the hearing was looking for. His personal meeting with Kislyak was at the GOP convention, which was plainly Trump campaign business and not Senate Armed Services business.

In the case of Flynn, he took a public and official stance that he did not discuss sanctions with the Russians. Given the timing of the conversation, and the Russian response, it's absolutely implausible that Flynn could have forgotten the nature of the conversation. The only reason he got caught is that the Russian was under routine surveillance.

Like I said, you're trying too hard. As the leaky Trump ship founders, you're trying to make something out of nothing with the McCaskill tweet.

Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Molefsky

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ohio
Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 1144
"Very old photo..."


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: Jul 02, 2017, 10:41AM »

Sorry piano, your whataboutism notwithstanding, CNN disagrees with you.

Claire McCaskill attended reception at Russian ambassador's home - CNNPolitics.com

http://us.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/mccaskill-russian-ambassador/index.html

More to the point, Sessions' original answer still stands. Whether he met, or was in the same building  Yeah, RIGHT., with a Russian while performing his job as a US senator clearly wasn't the intent of the question. It was whether he'd been involved in this virtually meaningless "collusion" business or not. His answer remains unchanged in this regard. He's in a much better position, ethically, than say... Loretta Lynch.
Logged

Molefsky
freelance trombonist
Full-time Environmental Engineering Consultant
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9738

View Profile
« Reply #130 on: Jul 02, 2017, 11:29AM »

Sorry piano, your whataboutism notwithstanding, CNN disagrees with you.

Claire McCaskill attended reception at Russian ambassador's home - CNNPolitics.com

http://us.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/mccaskill-russian-ambassador/index.html

I'm not sure where you see the disagreement. I mentioned the reception in the Ambassador's home in my post.

As regards my purported 'what-about-ism', you're the one who brought up Claire McCaskill in a conversation about Jeff Sessions's lying, which is the very definition of the term. I"m just responding to your question.

Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9738

View Profile
« Reply #131 on: Jul 02, 2017, 11:45AM »

More to the point, Sessions' original answer still stands. Whether he met, or was in the same building  Yeah, RIGHT., with a Russian while performing his job as a US senator clearly wasn't the intent of the question. It was whether he'd been involved in this virtually meaningless "collusion" business or not. His answer remains unchanged in this regard. He's in a much better position, ethically, than say... Loretta Lynch.

Look, you're going to make excuses for the guy because he's your guy, and you have to. There aren't any imaginable circumstances where you would not.

I understand you're repeating the talking point here, but Jeff Sessions wasn't performing his Senatorial duties when he met with met with Kislyak. The convention is a political event, and by Sessions's own account he was a Trump surrogate.

This is from the article you posted:
Quote
Indeed, the controversy over McCaskill's comments started once it was revealed that Attorney General Jeff Sessions failed to disclose during his Senate confirmation proceedings the fact that he had multiple meetings with Kislyak during the election year. The meetings raised suspicions given Russia's role in trying to sway the elections and Sessions' role as a high-profile Trump surrogate.

McCaskill was dumb to send the tweet as she did. And I understand Sessions's excuse--that he was answering in the constext of collusion only and not answering the question literally. But her omitting a 2015 social event in a 140-character tweet is more understandable than Sessions omitting a very recent conversation at a political event with Kislyak and multiple other election-year meetings, while testifying under oath to Congress.

If you can't see the difference between sworn testimony and a tweet, the difference between a political event and a social one, you could pretend that the cases are similar. Your problem would still be that McCaskill's point was that the Senate Armed Services committee doesn't have much business with the Russian ambassador. That point still stands even if she went to a black tie social event, and it undercuts Sessions's defense of his lie.

It's the same problem you have with Flynn. If the conversations were appropriate, they wouldn't have lied about them.

Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9243

View Profile
« Reply #132 on: Jul 02, 2017, 02:14PM »

You guys still arguing over the nothing burger? LOL!
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 50359
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #133 on: Jul 02, 2017, 02:22PM »

You guys still arguing over the nothing burger? LOL!

It's as much a nothing burger as Benghazi, and "you guys" seemed happy to continue to flog that.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9738

View Profile
« Reply #134 on: Jul 02, 2017, 11:27PM »

You guys still arguing over the nothing burger? LOL!

Yeah, the McCaskill thing.

By the way, just because someone cooler than you said 'nothingburger' one time doesn't mean it's cool when you say it all the time. You have to pace yourself. Go back to 'disingenuous', or ' sycophant', or one of the other words you copied.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9243

View Profile
« Reply #135 on: Jul 03, 2017, 07:34AM »

It's as much a nothing burger as Benghazi, and "you guys" seemed happy to continue to flog that.

No, that's not exactly true. We have documented evidence that Hillary spouted the lie that the attack was caused by a video.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
slide advantage
*
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 18, 2016
Posts: 599

View Profile WWW
« Reply #136 on: Jul 03, 2017, 08:39AM »

Yawn

Meanwhile Trump lies everyday, yet you don't have a problem with that.

Latest polls:

Now just 37 percent of Americans say they approve of the job the president is doing in office, down three percentage points since last Thursday.

Fifty-seven percent say they disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president.

And no, that wasn't from CNN.
Logged
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9738

View Profile
« Reply #137 on: Jul 03, 2017, 09:41AM »

No, that's not exactly true. We have documented evidence that Hillary spouted the lie that the attack was caused by a video.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't warrant multiple investigations. And it's not.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9243

View Profile
« Reply #138 on: Jul 03, 2017, 01:50PM »

Even if that were true, it wouldn't warrant multiple investigations. And it's not.
It is true. So, supplying false evidence of what happened is obstruction of justice. Is it not?
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 50359
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: Jul 03, 2017, 02:22PM »

It is true. So, supplying false evidence of what happened is obstruction of justice. Is it not?


Is it true?  Eight investigations have failed to prove it.  If I say Donald Trump is the Devil Incarnate, does that make it true?  Even though nobody has proved that to be the case?
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: