Lying is legal, telling the truth is a crime.

Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House, tears up President Trump's speech text

Editorial by Gregory R. McGee

Editor, Stankenrose Gazette

UPDATE, after the Impeachment and “trial” of President D.J. Trump.

Originally written on March 20, 2017

Lying is legal, telling the truth is a crime.

When Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, tore up President Trump’s speech immediately after he read it off the teleprompter, that was, in the mind of the President, “a crime.” The pack of lies he had just told for the last hour and a half was NOT a crime, because, it had just been proven for the entire future of our Republic that, if the President does it, then by definition, it is not a crime.

Its official! When his lips are moving, he’s lying!

We went through this with Nixon a few years ago, and the idea was rejected, even by his own party. He was run out of town, and would probably have been tarred and feathered in an earlier time.

How can Trump get away with his incessant lying in present time?  It’s a mystery, how he went from being “a kook” in the words of Senator Lindsay Graham, to being a totalitarian dictator in the making, supported without question by all but ONE sitting Republican Senator and ALL sitting members of the House.

In a Senate Intelligence Hearing in 2017, James Comey, Director of the FBI, clearly stated this:

When someone leaves a classified briefing of any kind, if they leak anything they heard in the briefing it is a crime.  In fact, it could be TREASON, with the death penalty being the worst punishment one is liable for.

However, if a person comes out of an intelligence briefing and LIES about what went on in the briefing, it is not a crime.  The person has not revealed any classified information.

Furthermore, the FBI will not comment on whether what such a person says is true or false because that would essentially be revealing the truth.  Nor will they validate or invalidate “anonymous” sources of information that purportedly have inside information about classified activities.

Regarding people who are claiming to be a valid source, but aren’t, this is also perfectly OK with the FBI.  And the FBI won’t comment on the validity of these sources.

Trying to get my head around this oxymoron of the first order, I think the conclusions below are valid:

  1. Anything you read in the papers or see on TV regarding classified activities is false.
  2. Anything you hear from unqualified or anonymous sources could be either true OR false, depending on the political allegiances of the source, which can be either revealed, hidden, or lied about.
  3. When someone starts talking about things that are classified, the only way to find out whether they are lying or not is whether they are later investigated and brought up on charges. In the present time, they could be spinning huge webs of lies and no one who actually has real knowledge about the activities can contradict them for fear of being brought up on charges for treason.

Where do we go from here?

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/20/hearing-on-russia-investigation-comey-wiretapping-trump.cnn/video/playlists/fbi-director-james-comey/

Please follow and like us:

Related posts

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)