Lies, Lies, and More Lies

Trump: “The Democrats, a lot of it had to do, they say, with Ukraine. It’s very interesting. It’s very interesting. They have this server, right? From the DNC, Democratic National Committee. The FBI went in and they told them, ‘Get out of here. You’re not getting it. We’re not giving it to you.’ They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. You know, the FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?”

Steve Doocy of “Fox and Friends”: “Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?”

Trump: “Well, that’s what the word is.”

“The Democrats [What about the Democrats?], a lot of it [A lot of what? What’s “it”?] had to do [do what?], they say[Who?], with Ukraine. It’s very interesting. It’s very interesting [What’s so very interesting? It’s ALL innuendo without coherent substance].They [Who is “they”?] have this server, right[How do you know?]? From the DNC, Democratic National Committee. The FBI went in [Went in where, exactly?] and they [Who is “they”?] told them [Who is “them?], ‘Get out of here [Where is “here”?]. You’re not getting it. We’re [Who is “we”?] not giving it to you [Who is “You”?].’ They [Who is they?] gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it’s called [Why don’t you know, or are you unsure, who or what the server was given to?], which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian [Who? And how do you know?]  [You seem to have so much “information” so why don’t you know or disclose the name?]. And I still want to see that server [Do you even know what a server is? Please define it for us.]. You know [No,We don’t “know”], the FBI has never gotten that server [How do you know this? I thought the FBI was part of the deep state? Wouldn’t they conceal that fact from you?]. That’s a big part of this whole thing [What “whole thing”?]. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?[How do you know they did this? Who told you this information? Who is your “Whistleblower?”].”

Steve Doocy of “Fox and Friends”: “Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?”

Trump: “Well, that’s what the word is.” [Who gave you “the word?” Was it Putin? Where do you get your information? Where do you get your gossip? Or is this just made up out of “whole cloth”].

whole cloth (uncountable) (figuratively, used attributively or preceded by various prepositions) The fictitious material from which complete fabrications, lies with no basis in truth, are made.

Something made completely new, with no history, and not based on anything else.

Trump talks like this almost all the time, but especially when he is evading questions or flat-out lying. He chooses repetitious, vague, simplistic descriptive language, and overly broad generalities which he infuses with repetitive innuendos. Most of his innuendoes are rooted in blatant accusatory lies he has uttered in the past. In those events when Trump is actually praising or commending someone or some group, his speech patterns are usually laced with the same ridiculously vagarious, broad, vague, and vacuous generalities. He talks like a snake oil salesman.

Trump characteristically attacks people with impunity, making outrageously vile and provably untrue and damaging accusations which appeal to those who thrive on the hatred and suspicion of specific individuals, groups of Americans and immigrants alike. He does so without a shred of proof, devoid of any reality-based, rational thought. He relentlessly attacks on so many fronts, with so many targets, it’s overwhelming and difficult to parse the components of his incoherent rants and accusations. His supporters seem nourished and energized by Trump’s caustic vileness and vitriol. They lap up the destructive feelings expressed through his corrosive rhetoric and derive a cathartic, vicarious sense of personal power and retribution over Trump’s carefully crafted enemies, foreign and their fellow Americans.

Trump is a master manipulator. He learned from the “best” – Roy Cohn, and most likely his father. The American tragedy is the numbers of Americans who feel so powerful having their thoughts and feelings manipulated and targeted by Trump. Manipulated by their failure to examine and reflect upon their core American values. Manipulated by a failure to critically examine the substance, truth and credibility of Trump’s words, and how they match his actions, his vacillations, his “evolving” accounts of his “truths. There are massive contradictions, numerous examples of lies and evasion. Unfortunately for American Democracy, the Republicans in Congress are actively or passively complicit in Trump’s dangerous charade. Trump is America’s first Fake President, who aspires to be her first Monarch or dictator since we fought the Revolutionary War against King George. Some Americans even believe Trump to be divine providence. What happened to “beware false idols?” For it is plainly obvious his core followers idolize him in a perverse, unblinking, unflinching swoon of idolatry.

Trump — An Ends Justify the Means President, When the End Satisfies Trumps Own Interests and Security — Not America’s and the American People’s Interest And Security

I agree with Devin Nunes’ closing comments on the second day of the impeachment investigation, with one caveat. The Impeachment Proceeding is Not the embarrassment or “Performance Art.” It is Nunes’ own behavior and that of his Republican colleagues, that is the performance, although not very artful. Their “logical” gymnastics supporting, rationalizing, and furthering of Donald J. Trump’s behavior, actions, and vile utterances, That IS THE American EMBARRASSMENT. And that is shamefully, sycophantically corrupt.

The arguments the Republicans proffer is that Trump withheld Ukraine military aid and a White House meeting with the Ukrainian newly elected president because he was concerned that the new Ukrainian administration might be against Trump and/or corrupt is absurd. On one hand, they tout and contrast the fact that Trump gave Ukraine lethal military aid, including javelin anti-tank weapons, to the previous Ukrainian administration before President Volodymyr Zelensky was elected — you know, the individuals and administration that was in power when the Republicans argue the Ukrainian actors maligned candidate Trump and favored Candidate Hillary Clinton, and are supposedly responsible for hacking the 2016 election and Trump’s campaign. Yet apparently Trump knew all this, but did not withhold military aid from Ukraine at that point. The question is why? Why wasn’t corruption and alleged anti-Trumpism a concern to Trump and his cronies then? Context is everything.

Trump has demonstrated time after time that he does nothing for anyone unless it benefits his ego’s infinitely bottomless black hole, or his financial interests. He has also proven time and again that as soon as anyone or anything challenges his ego, his own counsel (as a “stable genius”), or jeopardizes his criminal or financial liability, Trump quickly distances himself, denies knowing individuals, has memory failures, and maligns, slanders and attempts to intimidate those he perceives as threats and unilaterally disloyal to his personal aims, ideas and decisions.

“I’m the most transparent president in history.” Trump, Nov 15, 2019. Really? Who said he would release his tax returns, and hasn’t? Who has continued to legally seek to block the release of his tax returns? Who has continued to legally seek to block the release of his financial records, despite his own claims he would, eventually? Was Trump being transparent when he lied about his affair with Stormy Daniels and the illegal hush money payments to her and another woman, affairs he had when he was married to another woman, Melania, and when Melania had just given birth to their son, Baron? Was he transparent with his wife, Melania?

If Trump is “the most transparent president in history,” then why aren’t the officials who Trump and his administration have blocked from testifying to Congress, allowed to testify?; unless their testimony would either force those individuals to make a choice to tell the truth (the paragon of transparency) or lie to Congress and perjure themselves, jeopardizing their personal culpability and freedom. It is absurd and destroys any logical or factual credulity to believe Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, EU Ambassador Gordon D. Sondland, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, former Energy Secretary, Rick Perry, Vice President Pence, or anyone else did any of these things on their own motivation or direction? Things we KNOW were done and said by Trump on the phone call, as published by the White House with Trump’s approval (“a perfect phone call”) as representative of what was said on the phone call (NOT an actual transcript as defined in a non-partisan dictionary).

Trump’s “ethical” mental framework (if you can call it that), evidenced by his personal and business behaviors and actions prior to becoming president, and his personal and official behavior as President (that we know about) are a contradiction of his assertion of being “…the most transparent president in history.” Trump has demonstrably lied to and about his two ex-wives, and to his present wife, Melania. He has concealed his motives and the substance of his discussions with Vladimir Putin. President Trump’s discussion and disclosures to the Russian officials in the Oval Office May 19, 2017, that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him. “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.” Mr. Trump disparaged Comey to Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, in the Oval Office, along with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak. He also disclosed classified information, obtained from Israel, to the Russians. There was no transparency about this — the meeting was publicized by Russian media, the only media present at this Oval Office meeting. These disclosures were only leaked afterwards.

I worked in law enforcement for 37 years, studying and investigating criminal behavior, activities and strategies that a wide variety of criminal minds conjure in their efforts to continue, conceal, rationalize, and justify their crimes to their families, friends, law enforcement and themselves. None of them possessed the power, influence or wealth of Trump. Mob bosses, corporations and some politicians of all stripes often wield power, influence and financial resources approaching that of a U.S. President. Some command dangerous, lethal, illegal, and extralegal abilities. I have never personally investigated mob bosses, corporations or political figures. But I have studied these types of cases when I became aware of in news media reporting and the frequent briefing papers those of us routinely receive in law enforcement concerning major crimes, intelligence items, and since 911, terrorism. Petty criminals, liars, and those of guilty conscience, even those with corrupt intent or criminal behavior within law enforcement possess recognizable, familiar, and similar behaviors, actions and rationalizations.

It continues to astound me that many people in law enforcement are unable, or unwilling, to recognize the traits of Donald Trump and his cronies which have been readily apparent before he ever became president, and have only become more brazen as Trump has felt emboldened by the people around him who have failed to competently hold him accountable, including many of those members in Congress charged with restraining a president’s worst or illegal impulses, thoughts, and actions — in fact many of them participating in covering up or rationalizing his actions, bordering, in my opinion, on a conspiracy to protect Trump’s immoral, unethical, and often illegal misdeeds and actions, a violation of their oath to the United States Constitution. An act of Treason against the United States and the American people, which Trump’s fond of loosely accusing many patriotic witnesses against his corruption.

Investigation of Potential Crimes With Findings Of Insufficient Evidence ARE NOT Equivalent to Not Guilty, Exoneration, or No Crime Was Committed

I have 36 years of experience in law enforcement, 30 of those years working as a deputy and a Supervisor in Patrol at seven different stations in Los Angeles County. As such, I’ve had a fairly extensive breadth of experience investigating criminal allegations, investigating citizen’s complaints against deputies, arresting criminal suspects, writing supporting reports and other documentation, testifying in Court, reviewing and critiquing literally thousands of criminal complaint reports, and accumulating a more than passing familiarity with local, state and relevant federal statutes, regulations, laws, case law decisions, and policies and procedures.

There is a persistent, pernicious conclusion being promoted in this country that a finding of insufficient evidence of the commission of a crime by an individual or individuals is equivalent to an absolute finding of NOT GUILTY or an exoneration of the commission of a crime or crimes. This is simply erroneous. If crimes were, in fact, committed obviously some person or persons committed them. If a particular person is not indicted and tried in a criminal court, they obviously cannot be found guilty or not guilty, nor can they necessarily be determined to be exonerated unless the person, persons, or ALL persons responsible can be confidently established.

In the case of the Russian interference and manipulation of public opinion in the 2016 elections in the United States, the fact is persons associated with the Russian government, under the direction of Vladimir Putin, conspired to influence our elections by sowing discord, damaging the public image and reputation of one specific presidential candidate, and bolster, benefit and help shape the perception of Donald Trump.

The fact is, several persons associated with, and participating in Trump’s campaign sought to communicate with Russian operatives, conceal their interactions, lied about these interactions and changed their explanations of their meetings and interactions as these contacts were exposed by the media and/or government officials. Many of these individuals were found to have committed other crimes and/or lying to investigators. But in most cases, there has been no satisfactory explanation of their lies, concealments, or refusal to answer questions by these individuals, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, or any of the others.

People lie for a reason. They conceal, refuse to speak, and change their stories about what happened, what they did or didn’t do, why they did or didn’t do them, how and why things happened, and who did them, or knew about them. People lie, conceal and protect others and themselves for a variety of reasons — usually there is some inherent benefit to themselves; money; power; or promise or expectations of one or the other. Loyalty is another reason, but usually has it limits when personal jeopardy and harm exceed personal benefits. Rarely is loyalty absolute, unless motivated by fear if the object of their loyalty has literally the power of death over them or those they care for.

I do not believe in coincidence. Especially when there are too many incidents of so-called “coincidence” which defy a rational, reasonable explanation. The juxtaposition of so many Russian interactions with Trump associates, the absence of appropriate statements, responses and actions by Donald Trump, as president, to Russian representatives and Vladimir Putin, and Trump’s inappropriate or factually contradictory statements, opinions, and conclusions about Russian actions, intentions, and particularly Vladimir Putin intentions, motivations and trustworthiness, and the dearth of any rational, reasonable, factually supported explanations for this behavior defies the probability or possibility of “coincidence.”

Donald Trump was not exonerated or found NOT GUILTY of a conspiracy with the Russian interference, or of obstructing the investigation into those crimes, likely because he and his campaign and associates effectively concealed the requisite evidence of their activities, conspiracy and their motivations and intentions.

As Robert Mueller explicitly reaffirmed today:

“And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

“The introduction to the Volume 2 of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.”

“A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you.”

“First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.”

“And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” [Impeachment]

“And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.”

Simple logic dictates:

If agents of the Department Of Justice cannot indict a sitting president because of this DOJ Opinion, then it would seem to follow that, contrary to what Attorney General Barr has said, you cannot exonerate him either under the existing circumstances as documented in the Mueller investigation and report.

It is NOT in the legal purview of DOJ or Attorney General Barr to make a determination of exoneration. That is under the purview of Congress alone.