AP FACT CHECK: An angry Trump twists facts about raid, probe

[aligncare]

Now matter how many times they’ve been proven wrong or lied in the two years since news cycles have been pushing breathless headlines declaring Trump racism, wrongdoing, lying, stupidity, incompetencene, I can’t help noticing how people still come here day after day and take up media’s side.

I see things differently; I see powerful and corrupt interests in culture, media, politics and government desperately lying, brazenly making stuff up and attacking President Trump with it, and I choose to take up his side.

I’m not giving the biased, partisan media any credence or cover whatsoever in their attempts to smear, weaken and eventually take down my president. Not in the cards, nope.

[roamer_1]

BTW, how do you know he’s lying.

Because his mouth is open.

[Hoodat]

Trump used the past tense: 

"TRUMP: "So I just heard that they broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys,......"

Nobody "broke into the office".

The FBI broke into the office.  They contested the will of the lawyer by judicial action.  By definition, that constitutes a break in.

If a sheriff shows up at your door with a search warrant and proceeds to search your house, has he not broken across a barrier where you had an expectation of privacy?

Bottom line, the AP is attributing a meaning to Trump's statement that clearly is not there.  Did the FBI force its way into an area that was typically off-limits to them?  You betcha.

[XenaLee]

I find this unbelievable.   The FBI goes on a witch hunt and seizes protected attorney client records related to the President of the United States and people want to argue whether the Presidents use of 'broke in' was appropriate?  The FBI did so based on the words of a stripper and an attorney closely tied to the Clintons.

How about commenting on an FBI that is out of control?   

The parsing of words is usually a tool and technique used by the idiot left against their opponents.  To parse the term "broke in" is idiotic at best, hyper-partisan at worst.  And yeah, the anti-Trumpers will focus on and use ANYTHING they can dredge up against him.

The term broke in was probably appropriate considering how the FBI "seized" (another parsable word?  lol) attorney/client privileged documents.  It may have not been an unlawful action, technically.... but it certainly was a rare action, and some may even say an outrageous one.  I say it was the left's usual desperation.  They got nothing.  They are in a panic to come up with something.  It's just that simple.

[Concerned]

The FBI broke into the office.  They contested the will of the lawyer by judicial action.  By definition, that constitutes a break in.

If a sheriff shows up at your door with a search warrant and proceeds to search your house, has he not broken across a barrier where you had an expectation of privacy?

Bottom line, the AP is attributing a meaning to Trump's statement that clearly is not there.  Did the FBI force its way into an area that was typically off-limits to them?  You betcha.

To answer your question, no, I would not characterize me letting a sheriff into my house because he has a warrant as being a break-in.  I wouldn't characterize it that way because it's not, and because I'm not a liar.  I've seen no evidence the FBI used "force" to gain access to Cohen's office.  They had a warrant and simply executed that warrant.  With a warrant, there was no need to use force and even Cohen referred to the raid as "extremely professional, courteous and respectful".

It’s amazing to me how many otherwise good, honest people Trump can turn into absolute liars and defenders of lying.  It’s almost as if it’s a requirement to support this man.  Sad.

[Sighlass]

Perhaps Stormy "broke in" Trump's pants. Maybe we can argue "hold up"... as if a belt on your pants helps "hold em up" to keep your butt out of jams like this.

[Hoodat]

I've seen no evidence the FBI used "force" to gain access to Cohen's office.  They had a warrant and simply executed that warrant.

A warrant IS force.  Hopefully, we can agree that if the FBI showed up at some lawyer's office and asked if they could search it, but didn't have the legal force of a warrant, that said lawyer would tell the FBI to pound sand.

It’s amazing to me how many otherwise good, honest people Trump can turn into absolute liars and defenders of lying.  It’s almost as if it’s a requirement to support this man.  Sad.

As an avid Cruz supporter, I am not getting your meaning here.  I provided the dictionary definition of the term and explained how it applied to Trump's statement.  It isn't about supporting Trump.  It is about applying truth and critical thinking.  This is simply a matter of AP applying a meaning to Trump's words for the sole purpose of painting him in a bad light even though there is zero basis for them doing so.  It is petty.  It is unsupported.  And it does not deserve any support on a forum that values truth.

If you still have doubts, then look at AP's second statement.  They call out Trump's statement as dishonest, and then essentially repeat exactly what Trump said:

TRUMP: "They found no collusion whatsoever with Russia."

AP: "It's true that evidence of collusion has not emerged to date"

Both Trump and AP agree that no collusion has been found.  So how can Trump's statement be a lie while AP's is not?

[XenaLee]

To answer your question, no, I would not characterize me letting a sheriff into my house because he has a warrant as being a break-in.  I wouldn't characterize it that way because it's not, and because I'm not a liar.  I've seen no evidence the FBI used "force" to gain access to Cohen's office.  They had a warrant and simply executed that warrant.  With a warrant, there was no need to use force and even Cohen referred to the raid as "extremely professional, courteous and respectful".

It’s amazing to me how many otherwise good, honest people Trump can turn into absolute liars and defenders of lying.  It’s almost as if it’s a requirement to support this man.  Sad.

Lol!  So now you're calling anyone that has a difference of opinion (from your opinion) on this matter a liar?   Hilarious.

[Concerned]

A warrant IS force.  Hopefully, we can agree that if the FBI showed up at some lawyer's office and asked if they could search it, but didn't have the legal force of a warrant, that said lawyer would tell the FBI to pound sand.


As an avid Cruz supporter, I am not getting your meaning here.  I provided the dictionary definition of the term and explained how it applied to Trump's statement.  It isn't about supporting Trump.  It is about applying truth and critical thinking.  This is simply a matter of AP applying a meaning to Trump's words for the sole purpose of painting him in a bad light even though there is zero basis for them doing so.  It is petty.  It is unsupported.  And it does not deserve any support on a forum that values truth.

If you still have doubts, then look at AP's second statement.  They call out Trump's statement as dishonest, and then essentially repeat exactly what Trump said:

TRUMP: "They found no collusion whatsoever with Russia."

AP: "It's true that evidence of collusion has not emerged to date"

Both Trump and AP agree that no collusion has been found.  So how can Trump's statement be a lie while AP's is not?

I don’t think any reasonable, rational, honest person would characterize the execution of a legally issued search warrant as a “break-in”.   IMO, Trump did that in an intentionally dishonest attempt to incite his base.  It obviously worked at least for some of his base.  I don’t think it will work with anyone else though. You can have the last word on the great "break-in" debate.   

Trump and the AP do NOT agree that "no collusion has been found".  What the AP said is that evidence of collusion has not "emerged to date".  That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  The point I think the AP is trying to make is that Trump has definitively said "no collusion has been found".  We don't know that because "Mueller does not disclose what his probe has found except when filing charges."  Maybe evidence of collusion has been found or maybe not.  We don't know yet despite the President's definitive statement that it has not been found, but if evidence has been found, it hasn't "emerged to date".  (BTW I've said repeatedly I don't believe evidence of Trump collusion with Russia will be found.  That's just my guess). 

[Concerned]

Lol!  So now you're calling anyone that has a difference of opinion (from your opinion) on this matter a liar?   Hilarious.

No that's not what I said.

[Sanguine]

A warrant IS force.  Hopefully, we can agree that if the FBI showed up at some lawyer's office and asked if they could search it, but didn't have the legal force of a warrant, that said lawyer would tell the FBI to pound sand.


As an avid Cruz supporter, I am not getting your meaning here.  I provided the dictionary definition of the term and explained how it applied to Trump's statement.  It isn't about supporting Trump.  It is about applying truth and critical thinking.  This is simply a matter of AP applying a meaning to Trump's words for the sole purpose of painting him in a bad light even though there is zero basis for them doing so.  It is petty.  It is unsupported.  And it does not deserve any support on a forum that values truth.

If you still have doubts, then look at AP's second statement.  They call out Trump's statement as dishonest, and then essentially repeat exactly what Trump said:

TRUMP: "They found no collusion whatsoever with Russia."

AP: "It's true that evidence of collusion has not emerged to date"

Both Trump and AP agree that no collusion has been found.  So how can Trump's statement be a lie while AP's is not?

 

[XenaLee]

No that's not what I said.

Uh... yeah.  That is, essentially, exactly what you said.

It’s amazing to me how many otherwise good, honest people Trump can turn into absolute liars and defenders of lying.  It’s almost as if it’s a requirement to support this man.  Sad.

I'm not a liar.  I'm also not a fan of Trump.  I am, however, a fan of truth.  And on this matter, the truth is not black or white.  It's a matter of perception... not of dishonesty.  Just sayin....

Example:  If I'm sitting in my home enjoying a quiet night of tv and surfing the net... and all of a sudden a crew of cops start banging on my door, yelling  about a warrant to enter MY private space and interrupt MY previously peaceful evening.... hell yeah.  I might consider that "breaking in" to my home.  No, no actual breaking was involved... other than the breaking of my privacy and my peace.  But my perception might be.... they broke in on me. 

See my point?

[Concerned]

Uh... yeah.  That is, essentially, exactly what you said.

I'm not a liar.  I'm also not a fan of Trump.  I am, however, a fan of truth.  And on this matter, the truth is not black or white.  It's a matter of perception... not of dishonesty.  Just sayin....

Example:  If I'm sitting in my home enjoying a quiet night of tv and surfing the net... and all of a sudden a crew of cops start banging on my door, yelling  about a warrant to enter MY private space and interrupt MY previously peaceful evening.... hell yeah.  I might consider that "breaking in" to my home.  No, no actual breaking was involved... other than the breaking of my privacy and my peace.  But my perception might be.... they broke in on me. 

See my point?

My point was more in general than about this particular issue which is why I created a new paragraph with that thought.  The point I was making is that this President tells lies and/or makes false or misleading statements all the time and his supporters and representatives are put in a position to defend the indefensible (IMO).  I think most reasonable, rational, honest people know that many of his statements are factually untrue (or unverified) yet they defend them none-the-less. That’s the behavior I’m referring to and the behavior I’m condemning.

[Cyber Liberty]

So, we're arguing about the meaning of "broke in?"  What, the debate about how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin is settled now?

 

[Polly Ticks]

So, we're arguing about the meaning of "broke in?"  What, the debate about how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin is settled now?

 

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

[aligncare]

So, we're arguing about the meaning of "broke in?"  What, the debate about how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin is settled now?

 

Not me. I’ve joined the resistance. 

 :sword:

[Hoodat]

I don’t think any reasonable, rational, honest person would characterize the execution of a legally issued search warrant as a “break-in”.

Again, Trump didn't refer to it as a "break-in".  The noun "break-in" has a totally separate meaning from the verb "broke".  The differences in these definitions has been pointed out already in this thread.

IMO, Trump did that in an intentionally dishonest attempt to incite his base.

There was nothing at all dishonest about his statement.  And his motive for saying it (whatever that may be) is totally irrelevant to the definition of the term.

It obviously worked at least for some of his base.

Again, totally unrelated to the definition of the words spoken.

You can have the last word on the great "break-in" debate.   

I see no point in debating words that Trump never uttered.  Again, Trump never said "break-in".

Trump and the AP do NOT agree that "no collusion has been found".  What the AP said is that evidence of collusion has not "emerged to date".

If evidence has not emerged to date, then doesn't that mean it hasn't been found?  Seriously, how can it have been found if it hasn't emerged?

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Trump did not say that it didn't exist.  He said it hasn't been found.  Let's try sticking to what Trump actually said instead of attributing words to him that he never uttered.

The point I think the AP is trying to make is that Trump has definitively said "no collusion has been found".

AP said the same thing.  They made no attempt whatsoever to name any evidentiary finding that would disprove Trump's statement.

Maybe evidence of collusion has been found or maybe not.

Ah, so you admit you do not know.  Allow me to explain how this works.  The burden of proof is on AP - not Trump.  It is not Trump's job to prove a negative.  It is AP's job to prove the positive (i.e. that said evidence exists).  Demands that a negative be proved is precisely the type of non-rational persuasion that I detest.

We don't know yet despite the President's definitive statement that it has not been found  .  .  .

And AP's statement as well.

AP: "It's true that evidence of collusion has not emerged to date"

but if evidence has been found, it hasn't "emerged to date".

If?  If it has been found?  What if it hasn't?  Who is the liar then?

[Hoodat]

I can't stand the fact that I am having to defend Trump here.  But principles are more important.  AP is dead wrong on this one.  And so are all those here backing AP.

[XenaLee]

My point was more in general than about this particular issue which is why I created a new paragraph with that thought.  The point I was making is that this President tells lies and/or makes false or misleading statements all the time and his supporters and representatives are put in a position to defend the indefensible (IMO).  I think most reasonable, rational, honest people know that many of his statements are factually untrue (or unverified) yet they defend them none-the-less. That’s the behavior I’m referring to and the behavior I’m condemning.

Ok.  But... which is it?   Is it that Trump 'tells lies' (all the time)... or is it that Trump 'makes false or misleading statements all the time'?   Because.... there is a difference, you know.

I posit that yes, Trump not only makes false and/or misleading statements.... but he exaggerates one helluva lot.   That probably directly relates to his negotiating "style".  But.... I don't think that he intentionally LIES about stuff relating to the nation and the welfare of America.  And again, I reiterate.... I'm not a Trump fan, but I don't think he is deliberately lying about some of this stuff that's being kicked around ad nauseam here as ""lies"".   I think he is, in many cases misinformed (perhaps intentionally so) by his underlings...and repeats what he has been told.  I think he is the king of hyperbole & exaggeration.  But I'm not convinced that he intentionally lies about non-personal stuff.  About the personal stuff......who knows... and who cares.  I certainly don't.

[Cyber Liberty]

You can have the last word on the great "break-in" debate.   

Great news.  Now we can get back to that Earth-shaking argument about the Angels dancing on the head of a pin.

[Sanguine]

I can't stand the fact that I am having to defend Trump here.  But principles are more important.  AP is dead wrong on this one.  And so are all those here backing AP.

Yes, and we have to face that myopia on our own side. If there are any such things as universal truths, we have to be able to look at facts objectively and hold them up against those truths.  If we don't do that, we are only nominally better than the side creating these lies.

[XenaLee]

I can't stand the fact that I am having to defend Trump here. But principles are more important.  AP is dead wrong on this one.  And so are all those here backing AP.

Boy howdy..... can I relate to that!   I hate it when that happens!!!   

And it happens a lot... here lately.

[Cyber Liberty]

Boy howdy..... can I relate to that!   I hate it when that happens!!!   

And it happens a lot... here lately.

A common occurrence I've been predicting for every Republican President since, well like ever.  We always end up in the position of having to defend people we don't like from ridiculous arguments.

[XenaLee]

A common occurrence I've been predicting for every Republican President since, well like ever.  We always end up in the position of having to defend people we don't like from ridiculous arguments.

Yeah.... I really regret (now) all the times I had to defend GWB.  It is what it is, I guess.  We should be used to it by now, eh?  And it's only going to get worse from here.

[GrouchoTex]

Yes, and we have to face that myopia on our own side. If there are any such things as universal truths, we have to be able to look at facts objectively and hold them up against those truths.  If we don't do that, we are only nominally better than the side creating these lies.