Re: The 45th POTUS - Donald J. Trump
Posted: Wed February 27, 2019 5:45 pm
bune wrote:

bune wrote:

I don't understand this logic.McParadigm wrote:Party of adults


B wrote:I don't understand this logic.McParadigm wrote:Party of adults
You lied before, so we can't trust you now. Does that mean he's lying now? If so, he wasn't lying before, and you're reason for calling him a liar just fell apart.
I’m still baffled that “he’s already admitted to lying for the president” is their entire case for why you shouldn’t believe his descriptions of lying for the president.
B wrote:I don't understand this logic.McParadigm wrote:Party of adults
You lied before, so we can't trust you now. Does that mean he's lying now? If so, he wasn't lying before, and you're reason for calling him a liar just fell apart.
I was under the impression that his sentence cannot be reduced since it's already been handed down. He got caught lying the first time--one would think (the Dems should hit this point hard) that the only thing he could get from lying again is more prison time.Bi_3 wrote:B wrote:I don't understand this logic.McParadigm wrote:Party of adults
You lied before, so we can't trust you now. Does that mean he's lying now? If so, he wasn't lying before, and you're reason for calling him a liar just fell apart.
Well, he was convicted and disbarred for lying under oath... why not lie again to save some jail time? It’s not either or.
But i suspect he is telling the truth to his time. It will be interesting to see how Stone responds. (Probably by saying “I need something different”)
Yeah I saw this tweet. Trump wants Cohen to be seen as a liar. Is Junior really this stupid?McParadigm wrote:
He can’t officially get a shorter sentence for truth telling here, but it can influence other decisions. Also, he can be charged anew for any lies he tells now. And, certainly, investigators would be watching for any inconsistencies.Simple Torture wrote:I was under the impression that his sentence cannot be reduced since it's already been handed down. He got caught lying the first time--one would think (the Dems should hit this point hard) that the only thing he could get from lying again is more prison time.Bi_3 wrote:B wrote:I don't understand this logic.McParadigm wrote:Party of adults
You lied before, so we can't trust you now. Does that mean he's lying now? If so, he wasn't lying before, and you're reason for calling him a liar just fell apart.
Well, he was convicted and disbarred for lying under oath... why not lie again to save some jail time? It’s not either or.
But i suspect he is telling the truth to his time. It will be interesting to see how Stone responds. (Probably by saying “I need something different”)
Of course it is. If his testimony is that he was lying before, than he's either lying then or he's lying now.Bi_3 wrote:It’s not either or.
The online commentary to these things is always more enlightening than the proceedingsMcParadigm wrote:Has anybody actually **defended** the president yet? Did I miss that happening?
Did he say he didn't want to win or that he didn't expect to win?bune wrote:
dimejinky99 wrote:The online commentary to these things is always more enlightening than the proceedingsMcParadigm wrote:Has anybody actually **defended** the president yet? Did I miss that happening?![]()
Korean prison?Peeps wrote: