Mr. Smith goes to Washington

[rightwinger]

Both DoJ and Twitter are willing to work with and for Biden, while doing anything they could 'get away with' to obstruct Trump.

Why would the Trump DoJ work with Biden?

You are looking desperate

 

[Stryder50]

Some talking at cross purposes here it would seem.
Let's consider the definition of "lie/lying";
...
L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there are at least four necessary conditions for lying. First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement condition). Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful (untruthfulness condition). Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to another person (addressee condition). Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to deceive the addressee condition).

These four necessary conditions need to be explained before objections to L1 can be entertained and alternative definitions can be considered.
...

The Definition of Lying and Deception (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

~~~~~~~~
Then there is this contradictory application;
...
1
a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer
....

Definition of LIE

to be or to stay at rest in a horizontal position : be prostrate : rest, recline; to assume a horizontal position —often used with down; to reside temporarily : stay for the night : lodge… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

^ In the case of "a" one would need to prove intent.
In the case of "b" there would need to be an objective condition/interpretation agreed to by both sides.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So far no one has proven the intent to deceive versus a different perspective of belief.
Nor have both sides come to acceptance of an agreed objective interpretation of what is "Truth" or "Nontruth".

One final note;
Until the Democrat Regime's recent ascent back into power, lying used to be only a punishable "crime" when done under oath in a court of law or a formal, legal hearing; AND when proven to have been done with intent to deceive. Now it's become a political offense at the whim of the Party in power.

Welcome to "1984" Komrades.

 

[Stryder50]

Why would the Trump DoJ work with Biden?

You are looking desperate

The majority of DoJ are career guv'mint employees whose main focus is to retain employment and attain Federal funded retirement. They are an element of the so-called Deep State whom after first priority of CYA, "work with" any presiding POTUS as much as their personal political bias encourages, or as little as needed to survive until the next Administration (hopefully of the opposite Party).

It isn't so much as "work with Biden" as work with the Left/Democrats and work against Trump.

Hence the years and million$ of taxpayer$ Dollar$ wasted on the false report(lies) and phony charges(lies) of "Trump colluded with 'The Russians' to steal the election from Hillary Clinton".

You are looking either ignorant or a liar (most likely both).

 

[westwall]

Read the indictment

It is much more severe than lying

Nowhere near as bad as Joey xidens treason.

 

[rightwinger]

The majority of DoJ are career guv'mint employees whose main focus is to retain employment and attain Federal funded retirement. They are an element of the so-called Deep State whom after first priority of CYA, "work with" any presiding POTUS as much as their personal political bias encourages, or as little as needed to survive until the next Administration (hopefully of the opposite Party).

It isn't so much as "work with Biden" as work with the Left/Democrats and work against Trump.

Hence the years and million$ of taxpayer$ Dollar$ wasted on the false report(lies) and phony charges(lies) of "Trump colluded with 'The Russians' to steal the election from Hillary Clinton".

You are looking either ignorant or a liar (most likely both).k

DEEP STATE!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I though the idea was sending politicians that lie to us to jail? If so, I support that.

Fuck the first amendment he says!

 

[rightwinger]

Nowhere near as bad as Joey xidens treason.

Tell it to the court

 

[westwall]

Tell it to the court

We will.

Count on it!

 

[rightwinger]

We will.

Count on it!

OK

Lets see how Trump does with court compared to Biden

 

[Stryder50]

DEEP STATE!

IGNORANT and LYING "Left"WINGER!

 

[Stryder50]

That would be good with me.

First Amendment doesn't apply to those whom don't share your prejudice.
Got it.
(typical of Leftist-Marxists)

 

[westwall]

OK

Lets see how Trump does with court compared to Biden

Trump is going to beat every one of the bullshit charges. He will no doubt lose his first case, but it will be overturned on Appeal because the cases are ALL bullshit.

You know it, and more importantly WE know it.

 

[BluesLegend]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/02/politics/trump-indictment-lies/index.html

With special Counsel Jack Smith indicting Trump for lying, does this open the door to indict all future politicians, i.e. those who are not democrats? Cuz we all know democrats good, GOP bad.

After all, an argument could be made that lying to voters is obstructing the democratic process as people are voting for a lie.

If you indict politicians for lying there were be no Democrats in congress.

 

[pknopp]

For the DOJ to go to Twitter and tell them to censor stories about the Hunter Scandal telling them it was Russian disinformation, and doing it right before the election, was obstructing democracy.

After the election, about 20% of voters said, had they known, they would never have voted for Biden.

That was the DNC version of January 6th, but they get free pass.

Biden is an illegitimate President, in more than one way.

Next time, reply to my post and rant in your own.

 

[pknopp]

Fuck the first amendment he says!

I wasn't asked for specifics. Make any statement made by the President under oath.

 

[pknopp]

First Amendment doesn't apply to those whom don't share your prejudice.
Got it.
(typical of Leftist-Marxists)

See above.

P.S. I wasn't the one who initially forwarded the idea.

 

[Stryder50]

See above.

P.S. I wasn't the one who initially forwarded the idea.

But you were agreeing with prosecuting for what is not a crime.
And agreeing with the concept of prosecuting for free speech since often one person's "lie" is another person's "truth".
That's how it came across to me and seemed confirmed in your later post.

 

[pknopp]

But you were agreeing with prosecuting for what is not a crime.

Perjury is a crime. (depending on who you are)

And agreeing with the concept of prosecuting for free speech since often one person's "lie" is another person's "truth".
That's how it came across to me and seemed confirmed in your later post.

I said what I would do. We would make any statement made by a president be made under oath.

 

[Curried Goats]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/02/politics/trump-indictment-lies/index.html

With special Counsel Jack Smith indicting Trump for lying, does this open the door to indict all future politicians, i.e. those who are not democrats? Cuz we all know democrats good, GOP bad.

After all, an argument could be made that lying to voters is obstructing the democratic process as people are voting for a lie.

Trump wasn't indicted for lying, Soy Boy. If you stupid fucks (Trump included) can't find your way back to reality how is Trump going to manage an effective defense?

 

[Stryder50]

Perjury is a crime. (depending on who you are)




I said what I would do. We would make any statement made by a president be made under oath.

However, most of Trump's time as POTUS was not under oath before a court, nor was his life prior or since being POTUS.
EXCERPT:
Abstract

Sections 1621 and 1623 of title 18, variously amended, of the U.S. Code define perjury before a Federal tribunal. The elements of perjury are (1) that the declarant took an oath to testify truthfully, (2) that he willfully made a false statement contrary to that oath (3) that the declarant believed the statement to be untrue, and (4) that the statement related to a material fact. It is easy to prove that a declarant took an oath. To prove that the witness gave a willfully false statement, however, the question asked must have been unambiguous. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a perjury conviction cannot be based on merely unresponsive or evasive testimony calculated to mislead but containing the literal truth. Testimony is material if it can impede the proceeding or influence the decision of tribunal or investigating body and may pertain to the main issue, collateral issues, or even the credibility of witnesses. Section 1621 is violated once a declarant makes a false statement. However, Section 1623 establishes his right to recant previous false testimony. The recantation must be made in the same continuous court, the false statement must not have substantially affected the proceeding, and the falsity must not otherwise have been detected. The Declarant may then use his recantation to show an absence of intent to mislead. ...
...

Perjury | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We" would make any statement by any human be made under oath.
Reality is that such is near impossible and impracticable.
I'm sure you would flunk within five minutes. As would most all here. (You just did in the post of your's I'm quoting, IMO)