Is he or isn't he?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jun 19, 2017.


Who do you believe "The Donald"

  1. His lawyer

    0 vote(s)
  2. The Donald

    0 vote(s)
  3. None of the above

    7 vote(s)
  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    On Friday Trump said he was under investigation. On Saturday and through the weekend his attorney repeatedly and clearly stated Trump wasn't under investigation. When the media pointed out that Trump's attorney's assertion was dubious at best, because the FBI doesn't always notify people under investigation, Trump's attorney suddenly changed his story.

    Trump's lawyer is now saying he is unaware of any investigation of "The Donald".

    So who do you believe, "The Donald" or is lawyer?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I don't think either of them have been told one way or another if they are under investigation.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    #JesusTroll | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The thing is that Jay Sekulow is supposed to be, at the very least, a good lawyer. That is to say, certes, the current context really is outside his specialty, but has he really been playing Word Games for Jesus so long, now, that he cannot recognize the gravity of what is going on?

    Responding to the multiple news outlets that reported the developments, Trump complained on Twitter, "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" The statement seemed to represent a not-so-subtle shot at Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, but it also seemed to confirm the underlying story.

    Or so we thought. As Rachel noted on Friday's show, the White House balked soon after, arguing that just because the president wrote, "I am being investigated," it doesn't mean he's being investigated.

    If that wasn't confusing enough, things got worse yesterday. Jay Sekulow, best known for his role as the head of TV preacher Pat Robertson's legal group, appeared on several Sunday shows in his capacity as a leading member of Trump's defense team. He repeatedly insisted the president is not being investigated and Friday's tweet was intended to paraphrase media accounts. (This is not the first time Trump World said it's the media's fault the president used words the White House didn't want him to use.)

    But Sekulow's case took a strange turn during an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace: I bolded the phrase that stood out as especially problematic:

    "And now he's being investigated by the Department of Justice—because the special counsel under the special counsel regulations reports still to the Department of Justice, not an independent counsel—so he's being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the termination. So that's the constitutional threshold question here."

    When the host noted that Sekulow had just twice said the president is under investigation, the attorney insisted otherwise. "No, he's not being investigated," the president's lawyer said.

    "Sir, you just said two times that he's being investigated," Wallace responded, looking rather annoyed. "No," Sekulow said, "The context of the tweet, I just gave you the legal theory, Chris, of how the Constitution works."

    Sekulow went on argue that to say he claimed Trump is under investigation is "unfair," adding, "I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth."


    It's worth looking at Sekulow's response—

    SEKULOW: No. The context of the tweet, I just gave you the legal theory, Chris, of how the Constitution works. If, in fact, it was correct that the president was being investigated, he would be investigating for taking action that an agency told him to take. So that is protected under the Constitution as his article one power. That's all I said. So I appreciate you trying to rephrase it, but I'm just being really direct with you, Chris. This is—let me be—

    WALLACE: No, I—I—sir, I didn't rephrase it. The tape will speak—Jay, the tape will speak for itself. You said he is being investigated. And it's not that big—

    SEKULOW: Chris, he is—just—no, Chris—that's (INAUDIBLE) unfair, Chris.

    (FOX News↱)

    —which Benen, for his part disdains. And it's true, I have a problem with this aspect of reportage and analysis, but what I do not have is any real solution. To wit, Chris Wallace is, in the moment, dealing with what he has before him; Mr. Benen never really addresses Sekulow's excuse—"The context of the tweet, I just gave you the legal theory ...".

    But there is a reason why both FOX News anchor and msnbc blogger fail to meet the pathetic and dishonest lamentation according to its terms. What Mr. Sekulow is saying, essentially, is that as Mr. Trump's attorney, he is just speaking colloquially, like a twelve year-old trying to tell us about this ... y'know ... thing.

    Which, y'know—I don't know—maybe it passes muster when shopping jurisdictions for frivolous lawsuits intended to render language meaningless in order to assert First Amendment tort claims. Mr. Sekulow is supposed to be, in his own context, a good attorney. And, to be certain, we can say what we want about being out of his league trying to defend the White House against a potential treason case, but it just seems like it should be easy enough to help your client by taking the case seriously, and not having the effect of answering people's questions about why a religious-liberty lawyer whose specialty is actually fundraising PR has joined the president's personal legal defense team by baking his client look worse for not taking the situation seriously.

    Jay Sekulow's performance yesterday was the stuff of legend.


    Benen, Steve. "Team Trump looks for nuance in the words 'under investigation'". msnbc. 19 June 2017.

    Wallace, Chris. Interview with Jay Sekulow. Face the Nation. FOX News. 18 June 2017. Transcript. 19 June 2017.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Trump's not the only one having a great deal of difficulty trying to keep Trump's stories straight. They didn't have a televised press conference today. I guess Trump's people are now hiding lest they be asked some difficult questions.
  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Difficult questions... I'm pretty sure you could ask them what gender Trump is and they would stammer and freak out... being truthful is a literal antithesis to what they are...
    sideshowbob likes this.
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    As is always the case with pathological liars, or the boy who cried "wolf" one time too many, or with entertainers whose routines begin to wear a bit thin from too much repetition, at some point the novelty of the lying president stops having an effect and entertainment value. It lost its appeal for most of us some considerable time ago.

    Notice also that when it was discovered that CNN had misreported a Trump scandal that proved to be false, they were fired in the name of journalistic integrity. That's what the consequence of lying is SUPPOSED to be, not the circus or fiasco Trump seems happy to be making of it.

    Want to really shock us, Donald? Start telling the truth on a regular basis, and when you do, don't make a big deal of your doing so, either. That's how everyone whose job does not require holding an audience in wrapt attention manage to do our jobs and live our lives and avoid getting fired for telling lies. Who knows? You might even get nominated as your party's candidate for the next presidential election if you managed to keep the lid on your steamer for the next 3-1/2 years. If you choose not to do that, I won't lie to you about the chances, they might just opt to put up a candidate that does not plan to win elections by the skin of their teeth, or with the assistance of Vladimir Putin.

    Want a conservative rich guy who is everything to everyone Trump appeals to, but with better political chops and doesn't lie? Vote for Ben Stein. I'm a democrat, and would vote for him over Trump in half a heartbeat. I didn't even like "Expelled". At least, it made sense to Ben. Good enough! Give Ben a cowboy hat and a six gun and even Ted Nugent would vote for him. I can almost hear a slightly modified "ballad of Irving" as a campaign jingle. He'd get all of Bernie's voters, too. Anyone else behind this idea?
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2017
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Last edited: Jun 28, 2017
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

  12. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member


Share This Page