“One Hundred Percent” Fake News
“One Hundred Percent” Fake News
No, uh-uh, false, wrong.
Trump: I’m ‘100 percent’ willing to testify under oath — The Hill-2 hours ago
Trump: I’m willing to testify under oath about Comey claims — CNN-3 hours ago
Trump willing to testify to counter Comey under oath — Talk Media News-35 minutes ago
Trump Says He’d Testify Under Oath About Comey — Featured-The Atlantic-2 hours ago
Donald Trump did not say he was one hundred percent willing to testify under oath. He replied to a question about testifying with a word salad of obfuscation that contained the phrases “one hundred percent” and “under oath” but did not connect the two in any coherent way. Read the eff’in’ transcript:
Trump’s “one-hundred percent” is free floating. His two uses of the phrase “under oath” indicate that a misinterpretation or pretended misinterpretation of the question as being whether he asked Comey to pledge his loyalty under oath. So his “one hundred percent” is simply a one hundred percent denial that he demanded that Comey pledge allegiance to him under oath. There is no commitment in the exchange to testify under oath.
Of course, even if Trump had committed one hundred percent to testifying under oath, there would be no way to compel him to honor his commitment and he almost certainly would not do so.
Trump will not testify under oath and he will not release his tax returns.
What is the difference between “100% willing to testify under oath” and “willing to testify under oath”?
Wrong question. The question should be what is the difference between “100% willing to testify under oath” and “One-hundred percent”? The latter says nothing about testifying under oath. Trump’s answer said nothing about testifying under oath — that reference was attributed to his answer as what reporters thought it implied. This is standard Trump operating procedure of uttering a superlative whose apparent meaning evaporates on close examination.
The media is aiding and abetting Trump’s obfuscation and evasion by reporting as if he answered a question he did not answer.
In Trump’s case, they’d both be lies.
Of course you are correct in terms of trump and his testimony. And that is if he didn’t have lawyers.
Not a chance he testifies under oath unless he is forced into doing it.
“The media is aiding and abetting Trump’s obfuscation and evasion…..”
Riiiiiiight. It is obvious to anyone that the media is in the tank for Trump. So much pro-Trump coverage…….
I won’t apologize for your misunderstanding of what I said since it is clear that you are concocting your straw man out of whole cloth. The media is objectively aiding and abetting Trump by imputing coherent statements to him when there is no basis for it. This is playing the game called “balance.” “Both sides do it.” “On the one hand and on the other hand.” A.K.A. normalizing behavior that is unacceptable. They don’t do this because they are “in the tank for Trump.” They do it because they are in the tank for advertisers’ dollars and spinning out the drama of the confrontation buys them eyes. Strictly a commercial enterprise.
Any more red herrings from you, sammy, go straight into the trash. I do not tolerate CRAP.
OK Sandwichman, now I get your point. You should have made it more prominent in your main post, because it’s an interesting idea that I have not seen elsewhere
My thought when I read what the news was reporting he said was: Yes, he is 100% willing. Did not say he would though.
Key word “willing”.
How would you know if he were telling the truth when he took the oath? Would he be under oath if he said he never took an oath? Would his loyalists watch him take the oath then say that he was nor really trying to say he’d tell the truth when he took it? Would FOX news redact the word “swear” from the playbacks?