The Myth of The Lying President

Various Trump-haters have no qualms about calling President Trump a habitual or even a pathological liar. But they often run to examples that are not proven to be lies in order to prove their case. Are they, too, liars?

A false or misleading statement, a mistaken or misspoken belief, an errant or wrong claim, is not a lie when it is not intended to deceive. This, I thought, was common knowledge. A speaker would have to know he is speaking falsities in order for his statements to be considered lies.

A child is not lying when he states the falsity that Santa delivers gifts at Christmas. He is not intending to deceive anyone. His claim, even though it is false, is made in good faith and innocently. To assume and further accuse the child of malice is to convict him of crimes beyond the ones he is guilty of and to make an egregious and dangerous error. This is why mens rea, mental guilt, must be proven in jurisdictions with due process.

But President Trump always acts in bad faith. Isn’t that so? According to a New York Times opinion piece called “Trumps Lies”, it goes without question. But despite the myriad examples of Trump’s supposed lies in this piece, proving them to be lies is an impossible task.

Where is the evidence of the intent to deceive? Where is the mens rea? There is none. The author’s unbridled imagination does all the heavy lifting for his credulous and repetitious readers.

“We are using the word “lie” deliberately. Not every falsehood is deliberate on Trump's part. But it would be the height of naïveté to imagine he is merely making honest mistakes. He is lying.”

Observe the argument by repetition in this cheeky paragraph. Not only does he refuse to differentiate between deliberate falsehoods and unintentional falsehoods for the sake his readers (let alone the truth), but he goes on to admit that “it would be the height of naïveté” to not assume intent, even when he does not have the evidence to do so. How naive of him. After just admitting that not every falsehood is deliberate, which is the only necessary component to a lie, he simply reiterates the very same lie in an act of bad faith.

The author’s admission, though important to the veracity of the piece, might not matter to the careless reader. Often a headline is all one needs to differentiate between truth and falsities, and worse, lies.

- LesMis

To be fair, he's also called delusional so that covers the rest.

a reply to: jtma508

He's also called Mr. President. Something that only a very select few will ever have the ability to hear.

I think you are lying to defend a person who lies.

It is justifications like the OP that give Trump supporters a bad name.

Look. I voted for Trump and I have seen plenty of mis-truths come from his lips. Politicians do it no matter which side of the isle.

I would say quit trying to justify Trumps lies but I just don't see that happening for some reason.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

To assume and further accuse the child of malice is to convict him of crimes beyond the ones he is guilty of and to make an egregious and dangerous error.

What does this have to do with POTUS being a well known bullsh*tter?

In summary:

The OP is spot on. The missing element to the premise is this: The "lies" are most often not directly heard from trump, but "attributed" to him by somebody else. The press is a filter, and the filter is biased. One word change can make the difference between fact and lie (truth is something different).

It is important to note that often lies are stated to created certain effect. I am reminded always of LBJ during a texas campaign saying "put out a story my opponent screws pigs on his farm" and this staff saying, "that's not true" and he said, "I know it but let him deny it." So fact can be a lie with a purpose, or a lie can be a fact with a purpose, but without the awareness of intent who knows. Is trump saying things to creating panic among the controlling class, things that he knows are not true. Look at how ballistic the press goes over a tweet, a TWEET!!!!!!

The problem the entire population has is they read a headline, "trump says..." and figure that is exactly what trump said with is mouth. I do not follow it all that much, but from what i can tell he actually says very little in public - tweets aside. So what is "attributed" to him is often interpretation of something he may or may not have said. the NY times hates trump, so isn't easy for them to change a word here or there from something he said and create a strawman to prove he's a liar? Its even easier for them to simply make things up as there is no repercussion at all. Are fact checkers really checking facts or reported facts, facts by people reporting what they believe is correct?

The problem here is the entire planet is conditioned, since the early days of writing, to believe what is said to have been said. If we dismissed everything that was not heard directly, word for word, we'd see an entirely different reality.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Not only does he refuse to differentiate between deliberate falsehoods and unintentional falsehoods for the sake his readers (let alone the truth), but he goes on to admit that “it would be the height of naïveté” to not assume intent, even when he does not have the evidence to do so.

Yeah, I don't know mate...

Admittedly I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm pretty sure you just described the exact definition of what a "opinion piece" actually is.

originally posted by: Terminal1
I think you are lying to defend a person who lies.

Yep,
You don't even have to think about it.
I guess the OP, bless! carefully forgets Trump has had another life, and 'strangely' enough he already had a history of lying then!

Oh! I just see as I edit, another poster is drawing on Trump's past life too.

Trump in Aberdeen was a lesson for America, and a learning curve for the people of Aberdeen...the people of Aberdeen learned quickly?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

A child is not lying when he states the falsity that Santa delivers gifts at Christmas.
- LesMis

I randomly selected a “lie” that according to you isn’t a lie because “intent cannot be proven”...

We got 306 because people came out and voted like they've never seen before so that's the way it goes. I guess it was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan.” - DJT

(George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all won bigger margins in the Electoral College.) - Fact Check

So, Les, if this isn’t a “lie”...
What is it?

A misinformed statement?
Why is he so massively misinformed?

Is it someone close to him feeding him this information?
Blaming someone else would be convenient, for sure.

Maybe the “sources” where he collects data to inform himself nothing more than “very fake news”?
But he hates fake news, right? So he would never form an opinion based on the “very fake news” he has made his crusade?




The true answer is that it was a big fat lie.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Yea but you can't prove he meant to deceive anybody with that statement, ergo all's well.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Yea but you can't prove he meant to deceive anybody with that statement, ergo all's well.

Given the criteria set by Les, I’m not sure there has ever been what we humans would all a “liar” in the history of the Universe...

With the very rare exception of people who admit they intended to deceive.


Maybe you’ve seen these unicorns in the interview room a couple of times.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well, to be fair, everyone lies at some point, especially politicians.

I don't trust anything the left says so don't worry, but I'm also leery of the right too.

Are you sure you aren't bias?

This is why Trump should stay off of twitter. He knows how much people love to hear him talk (read his mighty proclamations). He is just giving the people what they want. His word. His mighty word. Believe him.

The issue I take is - he is the President and has plenty of advisors and help to call upon and is able to make informed statements. He just doesn't often do so.

It's not lying so much as vanity.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So basically your saying he is not a liar, but an idiot..



Can’t it be both???

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Oh please. This issue is completely indefensible.

He is a complete pathological liar. He averages five lies a day.
He's delusional if he's not lying. If he really believes what he says.
But his speaking habits and body language are classic. He avoids eye contact, he pulls his arms tight around his body in a protective stance and he begs us "believe me" and "trust me" because in his whole life from boyhood onward nobody has. This isn't a new habit with him. And it's not because he's new at this or doesn't know how Washington works or any other asinine excuse you can come up with. He is quite simply suffering a neurosis.
And that's only the tip of a very messed up iceburg.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Let's just take a few at random.

March 7 “122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision!” (113 of them were released by President George W. Bush.)

So the Obama administration didn't release 122 "vicious prisoners" from Gitmo who returned to the battlefield? That statement is therefore, not true.

April 12 “The New York Times said the word wiretapped in the headline of the first edition. Then they took it out of there fast when they realized.” (There were separate headlines for print and web, but neither were altered.)

The NYT didn't alter the headline. So that's not true.

June 28 “Democrats purposely misstated Medicaid under new Senate bill — actually goes up.” (Senate bill would have cut the program deeply.)

The Senate bill actually cut Medicaid and that would make Trump's statement false.

Not all of his falsehoods are big deals but some of them are clearly significant. Saying a bill increases the budget for Medicaid when it in fact cuts spending for Medicaid is on par with "you can keep your doctor" — a lie Obama is often cited for telling. Right?

Your entire argument seems to be that lying requires intent and since we can't know what he actually knows, he might just be wrong a lot. That's marginally better I suppose — that the leader of the free world is an uninformed ignoramus who spouts misinformation regularly — but by that same standard, we should be giving all politicians an equal benefit of the doubt. Shouldn't we?

Which is pretty ironic because Trump himself has absolutely no problem calling other people liars, even when they're the ones providing accurate information. He's even known for coming up with cute nicknames like "Lyin' Ted."

But it's unfair to call Trump "Lyin' Donald" because he's just a know-nothing with a big mouth?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

The average person I know would see that and say, "Oh, he's standing up there giving an opinion and rallying support by pulling numbers out of his ass".

Is it technically a lie? Sure. Does it matter? Not even a little.