It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President’s abuse of the press is violative of his oath of office and is grounds for impeachment

page: 16
43
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Trump has only joined the game. The media can stop the game anytime they like, but if they play, Trump will play.




posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I do not believe that a President must have the qualities we think he should, there are in place rules and guide lines to cover thoughts things. I also am quite sure it is not as easy to "push the button" as we seem to be taught.
Does the President keep their word to the people, does the President try their best to do right and good by the people as a whole. It seems, even though I may not like a lot of the things this President does, that he is trying to at the least live up to his campaign promises. Just because both sides of the political spectrum seem to be against him, very little is being accomplished. He's not a politician, thank the gods, he's a business man trying to get the best deals for America over all, you never please everyone. But worry not it will return to political business as usual, as most seem to want, when his term is over. Hope you are more at peace then. a reply to: yuppa



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

Actually if you tell someone something and its not true it IS a lie by definition. If its not from you personally Its not your lie but its still a lie.
And COrrecting a error is one of the oldest tricks in the book to cover up a purposeful action. I used to do it with chat logs myself.


Actually, you are quite wrong about that.

Telling someone something they've been told (ie., what reporters do) that turns out to be false, then ignoring the facts to maintain your story after having those facts presented to them is when it becomes a lie.

Carry on with your nonsense though.
edit on 3-7-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: windword

In your definition A person who communicates a lie is termed a liar. A jornalist who communicates a false story is in effect a liar. So thank you for proving my point.


And, a lie is something conveyed that is known to be false by the originator. You can't call all persons reporting a story, that you don't happen to believe, as being liars. That's intellectual dishonesty.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: theworldisnotenough


If the President engages in this type of behavior, striking back 10 times as hard, then he violates his Oath of Office to defend and protect the Constitution which includes the right of the press to criticize and call the President every name in the book and to even call his sanity into question


no
what you posted is make believe
trumps ridicule of cnn is in no way in violation of ANY law




Where did the OP say violated any law? He said violated his Oath of Office.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: windword

In your definition A person who communicates a lie is termed a liar. A jornalist who communicates a false story is in effect a liar. So thank you for proving my point.


And, a lie is something conveyed that is known to be false by the originator. You can't call all persons reporting a story, that you don't happen to believe, as being liars. That's intellectual dishonesty.


Your definition. Im going by that information. Its not dishonest to use your own definition against you as nitpicky as it may seem. Calling it dishonest intellectually is a cop out to weasel your way out of it. The same goes to you Alphabetaone. I call yall on ya BS and then yall try to move the goalpost.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

How many trump hotels did you stay at before the election?



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Abuse? I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word. So, I am to gather? The "press" can abuse the President. But the President can't abuse the "press/news" without being impeached? You seem to have an agenda. .. Hmmm?... I wonder what it could be? It is sad we can't impeach individual people! Some kind of "law" against it. I don't know,..I learned it in Sunday school. God damn! My upbringing! There's some people I'd love to see "impeached". But my President ain't one of them.



posted on Jul, 3 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Thank God we got rid of that spineless Obama and hired Trump! LOL!
edit on 3-7-2017 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa


Words have meanings. Understanding and agreeing on those words and their meaning is important for intelligent conversation. No matter how you slice it, an error, a mistake......is not the same as a deliberate attempt to deceive, to lie. There are no "alternative facts" to that reality.
edit on 4-7-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: yuppa


Words have meanings. Understanding and agreeing on those words and their meaning is important for intelligent conversation.


Disagree. Words require context in order to make them meaningful.

Example - "You're sick" could be a compliment or an insult. The only thing that brings meaning is in the context in which those words are spoken.



edit on 4/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I would contend that they knew the report was false when it was originally published. They only seem to retract stories when they get caught. In this case breitbart caught them.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


There is no new and hep "urban" definition that changes the meaning of the verb "to lie" to a mistake or an error.
edit on 4-7-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


What's your proof. I can show you Fox News episodes where they knowingly reported that lies were true, and I'm sure that it's been done on more progressive news sites as well. But, as far as the media publishing and discussing opinions on Trump's own words and the allegations from Russian collusions to Obstructions of Justice to violations of the emolument clause are not deliberate lies on the part of the reporters.

On the other hand, those who assert that these allegations are proven lies, are the liars.





edit on 4-7-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Dfairlite


I can show you Fox News episodes where they knowingly reported that lies were true, and I'm sure that it's been done on more progressive news sites as well.


You bet your boo honkey it has been and continues to be. All media is lies, the only reason the news is even worth watching is just in case there's a story about water-skiing squirrel at the end.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: yuppa


Words have meanings. Understanding and agreeing on those words and their meaning is important for intelligent conversation.


Disagree. Words require context in order to make them meaningful.

Example - "You're sick" could be a compliment or an insult. The only thing that brings meaning is in the context in which those words are spoken.




Exactly! Which is why Comey was correct in interpreting the word "hope" as an order. Given the context, which you have now suddenly acknowledged as crucial, Trump was clearly attempting to threaten the FBI director in an attempt to obstruct justice. Game over.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

"What's your proof."

The fact that a small investigation into it proved it false.

"But, as far as the media publishing and discussing opinions..."
Sure, opinions are opinions, not lies. They may be based on lies, but they're still just opinions.

"the allegations from Russian collusions to Obstructions of Justice to violations of the emolument clause are not deliberate lies on the part of the reporters."
Actually that's false. See the van jones video talking about russia being a nothingburger then going out and towing the company line on russia. He's lying. That doesn't mean all of them are intending to lie, but some certainly know better.

"On the other hand, those who assert that these allegations are proven lies, are the liars."
I guess on technicality you're correct. They haven't been proven to be lies, but they have not been proven true either. They're simply unsubstantiated allegations, rumors, and innuendo.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Except that comey said it never happened.


Also, it doesn't necessarily matter how comey interpreted it. Since it was a single incident with no follow up it would be impossible to prove that trump was trying to obstruct the investigation. Especially when Trump encouraged him to find people in the same conversation.
edit on 4-7-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite



See the van jones video talking about russia being a nothingburger then going out and towing the company line on russia. He's lying. That doesn't mean all of them are intending to lie, but some certainly know better.


Really? You're going to cite a spliced and edited O Keefe secret video, as proof of the media, CNN, deliberately lying to the public!



www.rawstory.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


Except that comey said it never happened.


Context, context. He said that the Obama administration never tried to influence him.


Also, it doesn't necessarily matter how comey interpreted it. Since it was a single incident with no follow up it would be impossible to prove that trump was trying to obstruct the investigation. Especially when Trump encouraged him to find people in the same conversation.


But there was a follow up: Trump fired Comey exactly as he threatened to do. If Trump were smart he would resign now and the investigations would end.







 
43
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join