Lies, Lies, and More Lies

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/02/not-enough-pinocchios-trumps-crowdstrike-obsession/

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.

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.