It’s well known that Trump is a serial liar. His latest (Ivanka has created millions of jobs) got me wondering…
A witness in court has to, under oath and at risk of legal retaliation, tell the truth. If an ordinary citizen under certain conditions be required to be honest, shouldn’t the president?
Define lies.
Yeah, a lot of this crap that Trump spews qualifies as lies.
On the other hand, sometimes you can’t tell the truth in the interest of national security.
“Mr. President - we’ve heard rumors that you’re about to drop a mega-bomb on <place> for <reason> - is that true?” It may well be true and a legitimate action, but must it be acknowledged before the fact? OK, maybe not a great example, but I hope I made the point.
There are lies, then there are lies… I guess which are which depends on what side you’re on.
Define accountable.
We (theoretically) have 3 co-equal branches of the federal government, and the impeachment process. It takes the political will of the other 2 branches to pursue and accountability. What have we seen so far?
Unless under oath, or the lies are somehow characterized as impeachable offenses, he is held accountable (or not) at the next election.
As others noted, so much of politics concerns the presentation of information/arguments in a manner that folk who disagree might characterize as lies.
Ninjad
Held accountable by whom? The press/news media? The citizens/voters? I’d say yes to both. And plenty of them have been trying. Unfortunately, there are too many others who don’t seem to care whether what the president says has any correlation with reality.
One could argue that he more talks in superlatives to make a point; that they aren’t lies so much as speech techniques. And while he may be a great example, our current POTUS isn’t unique in that. Under oath he has to tell the truth within the limits of national security but outside of that he’s just another politician.
You should ask Bill Clinton if a President testifying under oath should be held accountable if he lies.
If you are suggesting that a President should be under penalty of perjury every time he speaks, then any President of any party would be impeached within six weeks of inauguration. Some within ten minutes.
Or we could go on as we do now - if you think the President lies too much, you don’t vote for his re-election, or you try to convince a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate to impeach and remove him or her from office.
Regards,
Shodan
If under oath, yes. If not, no.
I am not excusing the Cheeto-In-Chief, but he is a politician. As such, we expect a certain amount of dishonesty. As CIC, he HAS to tell us some lies sometimes. Not the level of bullshit we get NOW, but still…
He was, remember?
For the time he knowingly gave false testimony under oath, yes. If the standard is going to be that a President is under oath every time he speaks, Clinton is another who would not have made it ten minutes into his first term.
Regards,
Shodan
What President would?
Thank you for that wonderful trip back in time more than 20 years ago. Now, can you think of a much more recent example of a President who has a strenuous relationship with the truth?
OTOH, Richard Nixon wasn’t. In fact, he received a Presidential pardon.
You mean, like George W. Bush and “weapons of mass destruction?”
I could go back 3 years, but few people here want to talk about it.
Or admit it.
Or believe it.
Or give a flying fuck about it.
Well, he didn’t get to finish his term and Dr. Seuss wrote an admonishing book about him. So he was accounted a bit.
So, you don’t give a flying fuck about a lying president. Why are you posting in this thread?
Not what I said at all, but I’ll bite: What terrible, horrible thing did President Obama lie about that we are all afraid to mention?
The normal process for holding Presidents, even Donald Trump, accountable should be through elections.
Bad a President as Trump is, we shouldn’t be enacting laws to restrict him. Because those laws will then be used to restrict the actions of future competent Presidents.