Are we going to start discussing "Alternative Truths" now? Because really, I can only take so much seriously.
This discussion taking place is exactly what their goal is. The lengths to which well-meaning people will go to deny what is perfectly obvious about this crew is frightening. It's almost as if there is a need to give them the benefit of the doubt because the reality is too disturbing. That they can't be THAT bad, that brazen. News flash: they are, and it will get exponentially worse.
@Grond0 I vehemently disagree. Going to your bank robbery example. The cops want to know which robber fired the shot. The witnesses thinking they know, but all pointing to a different suspect, is not an example of "subjective truth" (theres an oxymoron for the ages), but in fact, all the witnesses who point to the wrong suspect, are wrong. Thinking you are right does not equal truth. Mistakes are a thing.
@ThacoBell I don't think things are anything like as clear-cut as you suggest. Perhaps I chose a bad example in that it would have been possible to prove in that situation what the truth was. However, that's not the case in most issues in law, politics, economics etc. I think part of the reason for the bad relationship between the main parties in the US is the failure to appreciate that the other side has any 'truth' in their point of view.
@jjstraka34 I've been as critical as anyone over the course of many months about the disregard Trump has for the truth - so please don't take what I'm saying as somehow excusing him or those like-minded individuals he's attracted to serve him. The fact that Trump abuses his position so badly, however, does not mean that it's appropriate or helpful to disregard alternative points of view in general.
The problem with "truth" is that many things we think of as "true" are based on our recollection or memories of things--psychologists have proven that memories can be false and that we can sometimes fill in details which are not actually true, especially if we are asked leading questions such as "how tall was the suspect?" versus "how short was the suspect?". Time plays another significant factor here--where were you and what were you doing on 21 August 1998, exactly 20 years ago today? I know I was working for TxDOT at the time and I can tell you where I lived but I don't recall the exact street address and I certainly can't tell you what project I might have been working on at the time. Actually, now that I think about it, I may not know what my address was on that date--I moved while I had that job.
I wouldn't say that "alternative truth" exists because, clearly, either something is true or it is not. As I noted, things which are independently verifiable--such as scientific facts--are objectively true while everything else--religious beliefs, political beliefs, etc--is subjectively true, which is another way of saying "opinion". Anytime someone mentions "alternative truth" they are really saying "this is just my wild speculation".
Obviously, when things are written down, photographed, or videoed, then "truth" becomes much more objective--what we wrote down is what we wrote down and the pictures/videos won't change without third party interference. Be aware, though, that anything outside that writing, photo, or video, is subject to interpretation and may not be objectively true. If you are shown a picture of an adult male in a park watching a young girl playing on a swing that picture could be a predator seeking another victim, a father watching his daughter at play, or some actors hired for a photo shoot.
If the person who shows you that picture tells you which one it is, though, how do you know that what they are telling you is true? It all depends upon whether you trust the source.
There is only one truth when it comes to events, which is what Giuliani's comments were about. Take out mathematics, take out politics, it isn't/wasn't being discussed at the time.
There is only one set of events that happened. That is the truth. Anything that veers from that set of events is not the truth.
Where things get muddled is people perceiving those events in different ways. A person can still be acting honest as they describe the accounts of the event as they perceived it, however, that doesn't make the perception true.
Perjury, what Giuliani is afraid of Trump doing if he was to be interviewed by Mueller, is the act of intentionally lying under oath. Not only does Mueller have to prove that Trump was lying, he has to prove that Trump knew he was lying when he made the statements under oath.
Giuliani gave the Comey he said/he said as an example of "Truth isn't Truth," except Mueller would look beyond the he said/he said argument and look at other evidence such as Trump going on National TV and saying he fired Comey because he wouldn't end the Russia investigation as evidence Trump committed obstruction of justice.
However, I think Comey was just an excuse in an attempt to discredit both Comey and Mueller. What Giuliani is more afraid of is Trump perjuring himself when it comes to Trump tower meeting. There, Mueller is going to have different testimonies from different people involved of who knew what and when. Unless there is a paper trail (an email, a recorded phone call, Trump going on T.V. stating he has dirt on Hillary coming real soon), is it back to Trump's version of events (Trump's Truth) vs whatever Mueller has (Perceived Truth). And Muller taking the perceived truth's side is just him holding a grudge about green fees at a Trump golf course years ago.
Giuliani's fear is that Mueller will trip Trump up allowing him to perjurer himself and that will be the only charge against him. I get that fear. I also think Mueller has more on Trump than just obstruction of justice and perjury and testimony from Trump will solidify those charges.
The longer Giuliani and Trump stall (and make no mistake, they're the ones stalling not Mueller's team has Giuliani stated) the more time they have to disparage the investigation, Mueller and anyone they interview related to the case.
I agree with Grond0's sentiment. It seems perfectly obvious to me that in politics we often deal in a limited set of known, objective facts and a lot of interpretation. Sometimes we have two competing sets of facts, both true, and we have to prioritize what issues matter more based on our values. Politics is where fact and philosophy meet and a reductionist view will only get you a limited understanding, imho.
I understand what people are trying to say here, but let's not sit around and pretend that Trump and Giuliani and attempting to have a legitimate discussion about the nature of euclidean geometry or trying to start some Rashomon-esque dialogue about the nature of truth. They are trying to obliterate the very notion of truth itself.
Many people thought that Trump and his Press Secretary lying about his inauguration size was a side-story that wasn't worthy of coverage. I totally disagree. It revealed everything we need to know about them merely hours into the Administration. It proved they were willing to lie about something that was a.) inconsequential and b.) that was disproven by aerial photographs. The old tactic that "the bigger the lie, the more they believe" is perhaps the one thing the Nazi propaganda machine was totally, 100% right about.
I can handle an occasional lie from politicians, because I understand that not only do politicians lie, but EVERYONE lies, whether we like to admit it or not. They may be white lies we tell to protect someone (in our minds). They may be lies we tell ourselves. Sometimes they just may be outright falsehoods. Point is, I don't hold human beings to the standard that they can never tell a lie. That is totally unrealistic in my experience.
What I can't handle is people who not only seem to lie about nearly EVERYTHING, but lie as a specific tactic. This Administration lies even when the truth would serve them perfectly fine (such as in regards to certain economic news). If Trump's mouth is open, or if his hands are on his Twitter feed, you can be 95% sure that some blatant falsehood is contained within. Lying is, whether we like it or not, a part of everyone's human nature on occasion. Lying constantly, about everything, on purpose, is not. Comparing the difference between the two is like examining the health problems that could result from eating 1 or 2 bowls of ice cream a week versus eating an entire carton of double-fudge peanut butter caramel every single day.
Michael Cohen has now apparently plead guilty to charges of tax fraud, band fraud AND (this is the kicker) campaign finance violations. Which will almost certainly end up being multiple hush money payments made for his client, Donald Trump. So, for anyone keeping score, the President's personal lawyer, National Security Adviser, Deputy Campaign Chairman and foreign policy adviser on the campaign have all plead guilty to crimes that they committed while working either directly for Trump, for his campaign, or in his Administration. But, you know, blah blah blah blah something something witch hunt......
Just to spitball here, how many people in the President of the United State's innermost circle have to plead guilty to federal crimes or get indicted before it adds up to a serious problem?? A dozen?? Two dozen??
There is only one truth when it comes to events, which is what Giuliani's comments were about. Take out mathematics, take out politics, it isn't/wasn't being discussed at the time.
There is only one set of events that happened. That is the truth. Anything that veers from that set of events is not the truth.
Where things get muddled is people perceiving those events in different ways. A person can still be acting honest as they describe the accounts of the event as they perceived it, however, that doesn't make the perception true.
Perjury, what Giuliani is afraid of Trump doing if he was to be interviewed by Mueller, is the act of intentionally lying under oath. Not only does Mueller have to prove that Trump was lying, he has to prove that Trump knew he was lying when he made the statements under oath.
Giuliani gave the Comey he said/he said as an example of "Truth isn't Truth," except Mueller would look beyond the he said/he said argument and look at other evidence such as Trump going on National TV and saying he fired Comey because he wouldn't end the Russia investigation as evidence Trump committed obstruction of justice.
However, I think Comey was just an excuse in an attempt to discredit both Comey and Mueller. What Giuliani is more afraid of is Trump perjuring himself when it comes to Trump tower meeting. There, Mueller is going to have different testimonies from different people involved of who knew what and when. Unless there is a paper trail (an email, a recorded phone call, Trump going on T.V. stating he has dirt on Hillary coming real soon), is it back to Trump's version of events (Trump's Truth) vs whatever Mueller has (Perceived Truth). And Muller taking the perceived truth's side is just him holding a grudge about green fees at a Trump golf course years ago.
Giuliani's fear is that Mueller will trip Trump up allowing him to perjurer himself and that will be the only charge against him. I get that fear. I also think Mueller has more on Trump than just obstruction of justice and perjury and testimony from Trump will solidify those charges.
The longer Giuliani and Trump stall (and make no mistake, they're the ones stalling not Mueller's team has Giuliani stated) the more time they have to disparage the investigation, Mueller and anyone they interview related to the case.
The discussion is about two different things. My comments were made in general, but with particular relevance to competing political philosophies. Most others seem to have been commenting specifically on Giuliani's statement. For what it's worth I agree that he's not to be trusted and the reason why he's worried that Trump would perjure himself if interviewed by Mueller is that ... Trump would perjure himself. Trump has lied consistently and intentionally about big things and small throughout his career, so his behavior as President is no surprise and I find it impossible to imagine he would confine himself to the truth in future.
Many people thought that Trump and his Press Secretary lying about his inauguration size was a side-story that wasn't worthy of coverage. I totally disagree. It revealed everything we need to know about them merely hours into the Administration. It proved they were willing to lie about something that was a.) inconsequential and b.) that was disproven by aerial photographs. The old tactic that "the bigger the lie, the more they believe" is perhaps the one thing the Nazi propaganda machine was totally, 100% right about.
I can handle an occasional lie from politicians, because I understand that not only do politicians lie, but EVERYONE lies, whether we like to admit it or not. They may be white lies we tell to protect someone (in our minds). They may be lies we tell ourselves. Sometimes they just may be outright falsehoods. Point is, I don't hold human beings to the standard that they can never tell a lie. That is totally unrealistic in my experience.
What I can't handle is people who not only seem to lie about nearly EVERYTHING, but lie as a specific tactic. This Administration lies even when the truth would serve them perfectly fine (such as in regards to certain economic news). If Trump's mouth is open, or if his hands are on his Twitter feed, you can be 95% sure that some blatant falsehood is contained within. Lying is, whether we like it or not, a part of everyone's human nature on occasion. Lying constantly, about everything, on purpose, is not.
I agree with this analysis and view. A lie or a mistake can be fairly innocent in certain contexts. I guess you have to weigh the damage of the lie. For example lying that you have a iPhone when you don't isn't great and probably will end up biting you in the ass later but most likely isn't the end of the world. Lying that Iraq has WMDs led to people losing their lives. Bottom line: Lies are usually bad but can be relatively harmless. When you have a pattern or lifetime of lying constantly about things large and small however that is a different story. When you lie to hurt others that is different.
Trump is a whole different animal when it comes to lying. He speaks and crafts an alternative reality where he's wildly popular, extremely rich, unbearably attractive, never wrong, and always knows best. It's ridiculous, disgusting and insulting.
Nothing he says is without some measure of spin to portray himself as the hero or someone else (or a group of others) as the villains. Apparently it is effective with some 38% of people who are convinced this conman is on their side. He's not he's only on his own side and he's lying to you. He thinks you are dumb and will believe the lies he knows he is telling. It seems for 38% of Americans he is right. SAD!
or trying to start some Rashomon-esque dialogue about the nature of truth
Incidentally, any of you who have not read Rashomon need to go out and get a copy as soon as possible. If you can find "In a Grove" then get that, as well.
I agree with Grond0's sentiment. It seems perfectly obvious to me that in politics we often deal in a limited set of known, objective facts and a lot of interpretation. Sometimes we have two competing sets of facts, both true, and we have to prioritize what issues matter more based on our values. Politics is where fact and philosophy meet and a reductionist view will only get you a limited understanding, imho.
There is no truth in politics. There is only opinion and perspective. Both of those can change, the truth cannot.
Manafort guilty on 8 felony counts, mistrial on the other 10 counts. A legal expert would know what that means I believe it means they can retry him for those 10 in a new trial. At any rate he's already facing charges in Virginia with like 3 times the evidence.
And
Michael Cohen has admitted he violated campaign finance laws in relation to the Stormy Daniels payment at the direction of Trump. He pled guilty to eight total counts (same number as Manfort well oddly).
Trump's first campaign manager and his longtime personal lawyer both guilty on the same day (around the same time even).
Manafort guilty on 8 counts, mistrial on the other 10 counts. A legal expert would know what that means I believe it means they can retry him for those 10 in a new trial. At any rate he's already facing charges in Virginia with like 3 times the evidence.
And
Michael Cohen has admitted he violated campaign finance laws in relation to the Stormy Daniels payment at the direction of Trump.
Trump's first campaign manager and his longtime personal lawyer both guilty on the same day (around the same time even).
Now the talk of pardons will begin anew. Trump can't pardon State crimes, only Federal ones.
Since Cohen is now saying he committed campaign finance violations at Trump's behest, and Manafort (again, THE top man on his campaign through the convention) is now guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (while no doubt having the best legal team money can buy) I'd say it's safe to say the shit hath starteth to hit the faneth. I don't know how we can look at Donald Trump's 2016 campaign at this point as anything other than a criminal enterprise in and of itself. If Trump wasn't President at this moment, he likely would have been indicted as well. At BEST, he is now what is known as an unindicted co-conspirator.
The Manafort convictions are exactly why the Mueller probe is so important. Manafort is only the latest in a string of multiple-time felons who were only exposed because of this investigation. If it weren't for this investigation, these men would still be walking free and committing crimes--in Manafort's case, tens of millions of dollars in bank fraud.
Instead, they were tried by a jury of their peers, given their full legal rights to defend themselves, and they were found guilty and sentenced in a court of law. This is how we're supposed to handle these things--investigate, then follow standard legal procedure. The Mueller probe is no different from any other criminal investigation; it's there to find things.
As always, the alternative to investigating alleged crimes is to not investigate alleged crimes, and I think most Americans can agree that government officials and political figures in particular deserve and require legal scrutiny. We can't have longtime criminals like Paul Manafort running the campaigns of presidential candidates like Trump.
Many people treat this as a Trump issue, but he's just one figure out of many (I have my own opinions about the investigation's future impact on Trump, but that's less important to me). The important thing is bringing criminals to justice, and we continue to see the Mueller investigation doing just that. I think we can agree that criminals like Paul Manafort should be brought to justice, and there's only way to do that.
A lot of felonies would have gone unpunished without the Mueller probe. That's the most important thing here--not the partisan angle.
The Manafort convictions are exactly why the Mueller probe is so important. Manafort is only the latest in a string of multiple-time felons who were only exposed because of this investigation. If it weren't for this investigation, these men would still be walking free and committing crimes--in Manafort's case, tens of millions of dollars in bank fraud.
-- and that's only in this trial. He's on trial again for his work as a foreign lobbyist in September, and from what I've read, he was pretty involved in getting some really awful people into power, and profited from it immensely. Above and beyond his attachment to Trump, I'm just glad this guy is reaping all that he has sowed.
White collar criminals have had it too easy for too long. I'm glad a couple of them are going to face justice. There's plenty more where that came from.
A California rep and his wife have also been charged in a separate matter for spending campaign money inappropriately. Another criminal who's been flaunting the law might face justice.
Looking beyond politics though there are surely many many business criminals out there who have been getting away with murder (figuratively) for years. Guys like the businessman Donald Trump used to be (and still kinda is) for one example. They should not be above the law.
People should have gone to jail during the financial crisis of 2008 as well.
How many times have I said to imagine Trump as a mob boss?? Now tell me how what he is saying here is any different than what a mob boss would say. In Trump's mind, Manafort's worth is measured by his ability and willingness to (essentially) uphold "omerta". In addition, he has said what Michael Cohen plead guilty to yesterday is "not really a crime". There is a criminal syndicate running the country.
By the way, Trump also said this morning that the Obama campaign had campaign finance violations. While TECHNICALLY true, it removes all context on purpose, and context is the only thing that matters in this situation. What the Obama campaign did basically amounts to having paperwork come in late. There was no attempt to cover anything up, they admitted the error was on their part, and willingly paid the fines associated with the situation. When that is the case, no actual crime is considered to have been committed. What Cohen and Trump did IS considered a crime precisely because the intent was to cover up the violations.
It's not much different than comparing someone who makes an error on their tax filings vs. someone who is setting up a shell companies to purposefully deceive the IRS. Intent in many of these cases is the determining factor in whether a crime has been committed, and in Cohen's case (at the direct behest of Trump) the intent was to deceive, not only in regards to campaign laws, but to the entire American public.
But as long as we're talking about Obama, does ANYONE, even the most ardent, right-wing conservative imaginable, actually believe that if Barack Obama had been found to have directed his personal lawyer to pay out hush money funds to multiple women (including a porn star) in direct and willful violation of campaign finance laws, that impeachment proceeding is the GOP House wouldn't have began almost immediately?? Doesn't everyone from every corner of the political spectrum know and understand that what I just said would have been a 100% certainty?? Can anyone deny that would have taken place with a straight face??
Regardless of whether Obama intentionally commited campaign finance violations or not, it seems to be the case that Trump did, so make him pay the fine associated with the offense. But I still see his affair with Stormy Daniels as trivial at best.
He should have just had the RNC rig the primaries and debates, then nobody would care. Far more influence over elections, zero accountability.
Regardless of whether Obama intentionally commited campaign finance violations or not, it seems to be the case that Trump did, so make him pay the fine associated with the offense.
Or serve jail time after he leaves office or is impeached, if the standard penalty for the violation in question isn't a fine.
Comments
But, for the record:
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/aug/20/rudy-giuliani/giuliani-gets-facts-wrong-about-trump-tower-meetin/
@jjstraka34 I've been as critical as anyone over the course of many months about the disregard Trump has for the truth - so please don't take what I'm saying as somehow excusing him or those like-minded individuals he's attracted to serve him. The fact that Trump abuses his position so badly, however, does not mean that it's appropriate or helpful to disregard alternative points of view in general.
I wouldn't say that "alternative truth" exists because, clearly, either something is true or it is not. As I noted, things which are independently verifiable--such as scientific facts--are objectively true while everything else--religious beliefs, political beliefs, etc--is subjectively true, which is another way of saying "opinion". Anytime someone mentions "alternative truth" they are really saying "this is just my wild speculation".
Obviously, when things are written down, photographed, or videoed, then "truth" becomes much more objective--what we wrote down is what we wrote down and the pictures/videos won't change without third party interference. Be aware, though, that anything outside that writing, photo, or video, is subject to interpretation and may not be objectively true. If you are shown a picture of an adult male in a park watching a young girl playing on a swing that picture could be a predator seeking another victim, a father watching his daughter at play, or some actors hired for a photo shoot.
If the person who shows you that picture tells you which one it is, though, how do you know that what they are telling you is true? It all depends upon whether you trust the source.
I think you are confusing truth with perception.
There is only one truth when it comes to events, which is what Giuliani's comments were about. Take out mathematics, take out politics, it isn't/wasn't being discussed at the time.
There is only one set of events that happened. That is the truth. Anything that veers from that set of events is not the truth.
Where things get muddled is people perceiving those events in different ways. A person can still be acting honest as they describe the accounts of the event as they perceived it, however, that doesn't make the perception true.
Perjury, what Giuliani is afraid of Trump doing if he was to be interviewed by Mueller, is the act of intentionally lying under oath. Not only does Mueller have to prove that Trump was lying, he has to prove that Trump knew he was lying when he made the statements under oath.
Giuliani gave the Comey he said/he said as an example of "Truth isn't Truth," except Mueller would look beyond the he said/he said argument and look at other evidence such as Trump going on National TV and saying he fired Comey because he wouldn't end the Russia investigation as evidence Trump committed obstruction of justice.
However, I think Comey was just an excuse in an attempt to discredit both Comey and Mueller. What Giuliani is more afraid of is Trump perjuring himself when it comes to Trump tower meeting. There, Mueller is going to have different testimonies from different people involved of who knew what and when. Unless there is a paper trail (an email, a recorded phone call, Trump going on T.V. stating he has dirt on Hillary coming real soon), is it back to Trump's version of events (Trump's Truth) vs whatever Mueller has (Perceived Truth). And Muller taking the perceived truth's side is just him holding a grudge about green fees at a Trump golf course years ago.
Giuliani's fear is that Mueller will trip Trump up allowing him to perjurer himself and that will be the only charge against him. I get that fear. I also think Mueller has more on Trump than just obstruction of justice and perjury and testimony from Trump will solidify those charges.
The longer Giuliani and Trump stall (and make no mistake, they're the ones stalling not Mueller's team has Giuliani stated) the more time they have to disparage the investigation, Mueller and anyone they interview related to the case.
Sure, I get what all of you are saying - as I said I do not think it is particular profound. It boils down to a few easy observations:
- There is a difference between fact and opinion
- There is a difference between being mistaken and lying
- If your definition is not clear or precise (whether vegetarian diet is more healthy is an example) enough, there is room for subjectivity
None of this is particularly deep or does help us see the statement by Giulani in a more meaningful light.Many people thought that Trump and his Press Secretary lying about his inauguration size was a side-story that wasn't worthy of coverage. I totally disagree. It revealed everything we need to know about them merely hours into the Administration. It proved they were willing to lie about something that was a.) inconsequential and b.) that was disproven by aerial photographs. The old tactic that "the bigger the lie, the more they believe" is perhaps the one thing the Nazi propaganda machine was totally, 100% right about.
I can handle an occasional lie from politicians, because I understand that not only do politicians lie, but EVERYONE lies, whether we like to admit it or not. They may be white lies we tell to protect someone (in our minds). They may be lies we tell ourselves. Sometimes they just may be outright falsehoods. Point is, I don't hold human beings to the standard that they can never tell a lie. That is totally unrealistic in my experience.
What I can't handle is people who not only seem to lie about nearly EVERYTHING, but lie as a specific tactic. This Administration lies even when the truth would serve them perfectly fine (such as in regards to certain economic news). If Trump's mouth is open, or if his hands are on his Twitter feed, you can be 95% sure that some blatant falsehood is contained within. Lying is, whether we like it or not, a part of everyone's human nature on occasion. Lying constantly, about everything, on purpose, is not. Comparing the difference between the two is like examining the health problems that could result from eating 1 or 2 bowls of ice cream a week versus eating an entire carton of double-fudge peanut butter caramel every single day.
Just to spitball here, how many people in the President of the United State's innermost circle have to plead guilty to federal crimes or get indicted before it adds up to a serious problem?? A dozen?? Two dozen??
Trump is a whole different animal when it comes to lying. He speaks and crafts an alternative reality where he's wildly popular, extremely rich, unbearably attractive, never wrong, and always knows best. It's ridiculous, disgusting and insulting.
Nothing he says is without some measure of spin to portray himself as the hero or someone else (or a group of others) as the villains. Apparently it is effective with some 38% of people who are convinced this conman is on their side. He's not he's only on his own side and he's lying to you. He thinks you are dumb and will believe the lies he knows he is telling. It seems for 38% of Americans he is right. SAD!
And
Michael Cohen has admitted he violated campaign finance laws in relation to the Stormy Daniels payment at the direction of Trump. He pled guilty to eight total counts (same number as Manfort well oddly).
Trump's first campaign manager and his longtime personal lawyer both guilty on the same day (around the same time even).
Instead, they were tried by a jury of their peers, given their full legal rights to defend themselves, and they were found guilty and sentenced in a court of law. This is how we're supposed to handle these things--investigate, then follow standard legal procedure. The Mueller probe is no different from any other criminal investigation; it's there to find things.
As always, the alternative to investigating alleged crimes is to not investigate alleged crimes, and I think most Americans can agree that government officials and political figures in particular deserve and require legal scrutiny. We can't have longtime criminals like Paul Manafort running the campaigns of presidential candidates like Trump.
Many people treat this as a Trump issue, but he's just one figure out of many (I have my own opinions about the investigation's future impact on Trump, but that's less important to me). The important thing is bringing criminals to justice, and we continue to see the Mueller investigation doing just that. I think we can agree that criminals like Paul Manafort should be brought to justice, and there's only way to do that.
A lot of felonies would have gone unpunished without the Mueller probe. That's the most important thing here--not the partisan angle.
A California rep and his wife have also been charged in a separate matter for spending campaign money inappropriately. Another criminal who's been flaunting the law might face justice.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/duncan-hunter-campaign-charges/index.html
Looking beyond politics though there are surely many many business criminals out there who have been getting away with murder (figuratively) for years. Guys like the businessman Donald Trump used to be (and still kinda is) for one example.
They should not be above the law.
People should have gone to jail during the financial crisis of 2008 as well.
How many times have I said to imagine Trump as a mob boss?? Now tell me how what he is saying here is any different than what a mob boss would say. In Trump's mind, Manafort's worth is measured by his ability and willingness to (essentially) uphold "omerta". In addition, he has said what Michael Cohen plead guilty to yesterday is "not really a crime". There is a criminal syndicate running the country.
He also knows he’s next for the “12 year old tax case” now that Cohen is cooperating.
It's not much different than comparing someone who makes an error on their tax filings vs. someone who is setting up a shell companies to purposefully deceive the IRS. Intent in many of these cases is the determining factor in whether a crime has been committed, and in Cohen's case (at the direct behest of Trump) the intent was to deceive, not only in regards to campaign laws, but to the entire American public.
But as long as we're talking about Obama, does ANYONE, even the most ardent, right-wing conservative imaginable, actually believe that if Barack Obama had been found to have directed his personal lawyer to pay out hush money funds to multiple women (including a porn star) in direct and willful violation of campaign finance laws, that impeachment proceeding is the GOP House wouldn't have began almost immediately?? Doesn't everyone from every corner of the political spectrum know and understand that what I just said would have been a 100% certainty?? Can anyone deny that would have taken place with a straight face??
He should have just had the RNC rig the primaries and debates, then nobody would care. Far more influence over elections, zero accountability.