Even As More Lies Spew Out The Doubt Keeps Rushing Back In
A beneficial doubt embedded in the power granted to a president and nothing good is yet to come of it
Donald Trump and his lies, in its total capacity, and disdain for the truth is primordially seen as irrelevant, inconsequential, or non-binding at face value and is seen as especially applicable to the official duties of the president. The lies also seem to be a transmittable form of defense and deflection— seemingly encouraged by plausible deniability for the perceived greater good of the tribe. This president’s lies — in particular — and the support for them is a buffer that protects the ideologue and his ideological following — one and the same — from losing sociopolitical and institutional power at any and all costs.
To substantiate the President and his lies, a copious assortment in benefit of the doubt is necessary to distract, distort and confound opponents. More importantly, it is essential to instill powerlessness and hopelessness to every and any opponent of the ideologue. The rewards of such distinguished and authoritative deception is clear; the tax cut and protection of an aberrant status quo.
The reason upheld for the lies is twofold — to feed a narcissistic tendency and to legitimate longstanding propaganda in framing certain narratives for the social hierarchy.
While we acknowledge that the precise motivation for President Trump’s actions remains unclear and must be the subject of further fact-finding, there is already evidence that his acts may have been done with an improper intent to prevent the investigation from uncovering damaging information about Trump, his campaign, his family, or his top aides.¹ — Brookings Institute
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is said to be in jeopardy of being prematurely concluded. The majority party in the Senate seems uninterested in putting forth a bill that protects him from being fired by the President. The Senate Majority Leader has made it clear that he is not interested in bringing it to the floor for a vote.
“I’m the one who decides what we take to the floor. That’s my responsibility, as the Majority Leader and we will not be having this on the floor of the Senate,” McConnell told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto Tuesday. He reiterated his previous claims that such legislation is not necessary and that there is “no indication” that President Trump would fire Mueller. — Senator Mitch McConnell
“I don’t think the President is going to do that. And just as a practical matter, even if we passed it, why would he sign it?” McConnell said.
Mixed into that last statement is the truth. We can’t expect the president to do the right thing. McConnell, a very adroit politician started off with a lie and ended it with a truth, a lasting expression that is worth noting.
Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence that Trump has contemplated or even has threatened to fire Mueller on numerous occasion, which would amount to nothing more than overwhelming guilt and contempt to date for all his efforts and attempts at obstruction of justice. The political stream of consciousness seems conflicted here majoritively for the passage of a bill that would protect the constitutionality of the investigation.
President Trump’s misuse of the phrase “Witch Hunt” is persistent enough to great affect on his supporters since critical thinking there is in short supply. It is generally understood that back in 17th-century Massachusetts, the trials and execution brought on by mass paranoia led to innocent deaths. The colony of Salem admitted as much when they compensated those families for their mistake.
Presumably, Mr. Trump is seeking a similar apology and demanding we forgo the trial. Again the reason for his manufactured belief here is unknown — exactly, but the guilty pleas thus far from members of Trump’s campaign team cannot simplistically be seen as political by any plausible rationale. And I assure you the odds of a congressional caucus calling for the execution, let alone the arrest of a sitting, or former president of the United States is quite infinitesimal.
But angrily trying to delegitimize the investigation in such boisterous and booorish fashion leads me again to believe that upholding these untruths feeds a narcissistic tendency and a means to elicit longstanding but latent propaganda in the social hierarchy. With Trump’s prolific wielding of obstruction of justice, there can be no doubt.
Mr. President, the discovery of facts in the investigation should be welcomed if it diminishes any suspicion of improprieties and exonerates any lapse or lack thereof of judgement on your part. Trying to stop it suggests otherwise.
Attempts to stop an investigation represent a common form of obstruction. Demanding the loyalty of an individual involved in an investigation, requesting that individual’s help to end the investigation, and then ultimately firing that person to accomplish that goal are the type of acts that have frequently resulted in obstruction convictions, as we detail. In addition, to the extent conduct could be characterized as threatening, intimidating, or corruptly persuading witnesses, that too may provide additional grounds for obstruction charges.¹(pg iii)
It is safe to say that none of the so-called accused witches of Salem attempted to obstruct.
However, John Dowd, whose illustrious legal career includes representing clients like convicted drug ring kingpin Robert Reckmeyer, and retired Airforce officer Robert C. Dutton, a key witness in the Iran-Contra Affair who helped run the private supply network for the Nicaraguan rebels with American arms shipment to Iran in 1986, has indicated a different view of justice in his representation of former boss Trump. The then lead advisor to Trump in the special counsel investigation into Russian election interference from June 2017 — March 2018 has declared that the President is somehow legally and supremely immune to charges of obstruction.
In interviews with Axios and NBC News, Trump’s personal lawyer John Dowd claimed “the president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law-enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case.” — retrieved from NYMag, Dec 5, 2017
Some professions require a bit of self-delusion in order to perform the requisite duties effectively. For Mr. Dowd presumably, that self-delusion can also be wrapped up in ideology, as reported, when he forwarded an email with the subject line “The Information that Validates President Trump on Charlottesville” to more than 2 dozen people including journalists from the Washington Times, and Fox news. The contents of which as reported by CBS News and the NYTimes explains a lot.
“Lee is no different than [George] Washington,” the email says. “Both owned slaves. Both rebelled against the ruling government. Both men’s battle tactics are still taught at West Point. Both saved America. Both were great men, great Americans and great commanders…You cannot be against General Lee and be for General Washington, there literally is no difference between the two men.” — CBSnews.com
This email was written by Jerome Almon, a conspiracy theorist who runs multiple websites promoting such material. The president subsequently professed the sentiments of such during a conference at Trump Tower in August of 2017.
Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down — excuse me — are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him. Good,” he said. “Are we going to take down the statue? Cause he was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue?” — Donald Trump
These lies, including the character defenses against accusations of infidelity, matter-of-factly, are there to support propaganda. Propaganda, which for State Department use outside of the U.S. wasn’t legal within our borders until the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 made it legal for dissemination domestically — apparently this amendment authorizes the government to use Information Operations which is on par with military operations (propaganda) as a legal weapon for use on or against the American people.
Disinformation is thus fair game.
And Leonard Saxe, Ph.D., a polygraph expert and professor of psychology at Brandeis University says its pretty much a societal norm anyway.
Saxe believes that anyone under enough pressure, or given enough incentive, will lie. But in a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, DePaulo and Deborah A. Kashy, Ph.D., of Texas A&M University, report that frequent liars tend to be manipulative and Machiavellian, not to mention overly concerned with the impression they make on others. — (Allison Kornet, The Truth About Lying, Psychology Today)
It is not difficult to see the connection here. This propaganda continues to manipulate as well as inflict casualties on democracy presupposing it as a lost cause. The lies that fly from Trump’s mouth like bullets are mounting losses on both sides of the argument. What is being ignored is the truth — whether appropriate, or inconvenient — for an alleged and undeclared greater good. Whatever this greater good is, I am at odds with the approach taken to achieve it.
While reading an October 2017 report titled Presidential Obstruction Of Justice: The Case Of Donald J. Trump published by the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit organization devoted to independent research, I have taken the liberty of highlighting some more key points.
The fact that the president has lawful authority to take a particular course of action does not immunize him if he takes that action with the unlawful intent of obstructing a proceeding for an improper purpose.The fact that the president has lawful authority to take a particular course of action does not immunize him if he takes that action with the unlawful intent of obstructing a proceeding for an improper purpose.¹
While the matter is not free from doubt, it is our view that neither the Constitution nor any other federal law grants the president immunity from prosecution.
Seeking rewards or a greater good for Trump’s Lies
How could conservatives not be worried about the impact of legislated tax cuts when at the same time there is an impending trade war happening with China. This is beyond rationale and diplomatic reasoning, however an inconvenient truth prevents them from taking appropriate measure.
How could liberals not be overly concerned by the display of anti-immigration sentiments and the senseless acts of symbolic violence stemming from the propaganda that plagues our society — from our schools to the corner coffee shops. Oh, it’s because of the same inconvenient truth sitting in the oval office, and in the way of taking appropriate measure to restore democratic principle.
And to what end?
And greater good for who?