By Jennifer Rubin. Mrs. Rubin is an American neoconservative journalist who writes the "Right Turn" blog for The Washington Post. Previously she worked at Commentary, PJ Media, Human Events, and The Weekly Standard. Her work has been published in media outlets including Politico, New York Post, New York Daily News, National Review, and The Jerusalem Post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When listening to President Trump and fellow Republicans throw around accusations against Democrats and the media or advance defenses for Trump’s impeachable conduct, there is a better than even chance they are misleading if not downright lying. In some cases, we discover the lies because other individuals are caught lying.

Roger Stone was convicted, among other things, of lying to Congress about his conversations with WikiLeaks’s Julian Assange. He falsely claimed: He had no emails, documents or texts relating to WikiLeaks; he never sought damaging information (i.e., emails) about Hillary Clinton; never contacted WikiLeaks through intermediaries; and never contacted the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks. The last lie — denying contacts with the Trump campaign — raises the question as to whether President Trump lied in responses to Robert S. Mueller II.

At the trial we learned about Stone’s numerous contacts with the campaign: Rick Gates, who served as Trump’s deputy campaign chairman, testified Tuesday that Stone began discussing Clinton leaks with the campaign in April 2016 and that from May onward Gates understood Stone to be the campaign’s intermediary with WikiLeaks. By July 2016, Gates testified, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort said he was updating Trump and others regularly and directed Gates to keep following up with Stone. After Trump ended one phone call from Stone at the end of that month, Gates testified, the future president said to Gates that “more information would be coming.”

In his written answers, however, Trump claimed he had “no recollection” of conversations with Stone about WikiLeaks nor did he recall knowing Stone had discussed WikiLeaks’s email drops with the campaign. Perhaps Trump’s memory is addled; if not, it appears he lied to Mueller.

Likewise, in the Ukraine matter multiple witnesses gave testimony that suggests that Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland has been telling falsehoods under oath. Some he has remedied, such as his initial statement that he had not communicated to the Ukrainians that military aid was dependent upon their opening an investigation into the Bidens. However, we now know from at least one other witness that Sondland’s denial that he spoke to the president or to the State Department was false. (He spoke to both.) One wonders if he’ll share a similar fate as Stone, the former Trump confidant who this week was found guilty on charges of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

The Trump lies relating to Ukraine are numerous and serious, although not delivered under oath. CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale has documented 45 Trump lies concerning Ukraine including:

Trump did not ask [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky for anything on the call. (Trump asked Zelensky to look into former Vice President Joe Biden, look into a debunked conspiracy theory about Democratic computer servers, and speak with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr.)

Zelensky criticized former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch “out of the blue” on the call. (Trump brought up Yovanovitch first.) . . . .

The whistleblower was “sooo wrong.” (The rough transcript and witness testimony have proven the whistleblower to have been highly accurate.) . . .

Schiff might have been the whistleblower’s source. (This is nonsense. The whistleblower said in the complaint that information about the call came from “multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call.”)

Other Trump lies include his denial that United States military aid was held up, his bizarre accusations that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) was the whistleblower’s source and his unfounded allegations that former vice president Joe Biden “stole” millions of dollars from foreign countries and pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor when Hunter Biden was still under investigation.

House Republicans continually traffic in lies — e.g., Ukraine interfered with our election, Joe Biden’s conduct pressuring removal of a delinquent prosecutor was illegal or corrupt, Trump was concerned about Ukraine’s corruption in general.

On procedure, they’ve lied about the depositions (routinely used in investigations), claiming they violate “due process” or amount to a “Soviet-style” star chamber. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) lied in claiming she was prevented from asking questions. (In fact, she was permitted time during the five-minute questions by members but the ranking Republican, Rep. Devin Nunes of California, was not permitted under rules of which she was familiar to yield some of his time in the 45-minute opening round.) Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) falsely claimed not producing the whistleblower violates Trump’s Sixth Amendment rights.

At times, Republicans deliberately ignore evidence in front of their eyes. They seem to have settled on the theory that Trump never communicated to Zelensky that aid was tied to investigations of Biden, Burisma and Trump’s crackpot Ukraine interference conspiracy. Trump, however, raised these items in the phone call (“I would like you to do us a favor though"), as we know from the rough transcription. (In transcripts of depositions we learn from multiple officials they were alarmed about injecting Trump’s political agenda into U.S. foreign policy.)

Trump also spoke to Sondland about the investigations, according to testimony, and in one instance was overheard by multiple State Department staffers. (Other officials testify that Sondland repeatedly claimed he was acting on Trump’s behalf and directly conditioned aid on the Biden investigation.)

Republicans’ lies are so numerous and obvious that one requires only a minimal amount of fact-checking to see that they lie because they have no truthful factual defenses nor valid constitutional argument. The facts are the facts: Trump conditioned aid to an ally in a war for its sovereignty on production of dirt to smear a political rival. He has refused to allow key witnesses to produce documents or to testify, thereby obstructing Congress. He has sought to intimidate and threaten witnesses including the whistleblower and Marie Yovanovitch, sending out the message you will be targeted and smeared if you provide evidence against him.

As for the Constitution, we know that “bribery,” enumerated as one of the grounds for impeachment in the parlance of the Framers, includes asking for or giving personal favors in exchange for political acts. That is precisely what occurred here. Obstruction and witness intimidation are obviously "high crimes."

House Republicans have become so invested in crackpot theories, bogus procedural complaints and constitutional illiteracy that they will never recognize the president’s wrongdoing. They are as incapable of upholding their oath, which requires impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors or bribery, as he is. Both Trump and his House enablers are unfit to serve since personal and political considerations obliterate their ability to detect the truth and thereby to uphold their public obligations. It would be refreshing if House Republicans simply admitted Trump violated his oath but that they are unwilling to abide by theirs and remove him. The candor would be preferable to the non-stop lying.

It remains an open question as to whether Senate Republicans are willing to ignore and distort reality so as to avoid voting to convict a president of their own party. Unfortunately, we find it highly unlikely that more than a few (if that many) would concede that Trump and the right-wing echo chamber that protects him have been spinning a web of lies for nearly three years.

By Jennifer Rubin. Mrs. Rubin is an American neoconservative journalist who writes the "Right Turn" blog for The Washington Post. Previously she worked at Commentary, PJ Media, Human Events, and The Weekly Standard. Her work has been published in media outlets including Politico, New York Post, New York Daily News, National Review, and The Jerusalem Post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When listening to President Trump and fellow Republicans throw around accusations against Democrats and the media or advance defenses for Trump’s impeachable conduct, there is a better than even chance they are misleading if not downright lying. In some cases, we discover the lies because other individuals are caught lying.

Roger Stone was convicted, among other things, of lying to Congress about his conversations with WikiLeaks’s Julian Assange. He falsely claimed: He had no emails, documents or texts relating to WikiLeaks; he never sought damaging information (i.e., emails) about Hillary Clinton; never contacted WikiLeaks through intermediaries; and never contacted the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks. The last lie — denying contacts with the Trump campaign — raises the question as to whether President Trump lied in responses to Robert S. Mueller II.

At the trial we learned about Stone’s numerous contacts with the campaign: Rick Gates, who served as Trump’s deputy campaign chairman, testified Tuesday that Stone began discussing Clinton leaks with the campaign in April 2016 and that from May onward Gates understood Stone to be the campaign’s intermediary with WikiLeaks. By July 2016, Gates testified, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort said he was updating Trump and others regularly and directed Gates to keep following up with Stone. After Trump ended one phone call from Stone at the end of that month, Gates testified, the future president said to Gates that “more information would be coming.”

In his written answers, however, Trump claimed he had “no recollection” of conversations with Stone about WikiLeaks nor did he recall knowing Stone had discussed WikiLeaks’s email drops with the campaign. Perhaps Trump’s memory is addled; if not, it appears he lied to Mueller.

Likewise, in the Ukraine matter multiple witnesses gave testimony that suggests that Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland has been telling falsehoods under oath. Some he has remedied, such as his initial statement that he had not communicated to the Ukrainians that military aid was dependent upon their opening an investigation into the Bidens. However, we now know from at least one other witness that Sondland’s denial that he spoke to the president or to the State Department was false. (He spoke to both.) One wonders if he’ll share a similar fate as Stone, the former Trump confidant who this week was found guilty on charges of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

The Trump lies relating to Ukraine are numerous and serious, although not delivered under oath. CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale has documented 45 Trump lies concerning Ukraine including:

Trump did not ask [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky for anything on the call. (Trump asked Zelensky to look into former Vice President Joe Biden, look into a debunked conspiracy theory about Democratic computer servers, and speak with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr.)

Zelensky criticized former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch “out of the blue” on the call. (Trump brought up Yovanovitch first.) . . . .

The whistleblower was “sooo wrong.” (The rough transcript and witness testimony have proven the whistleblower to have been highly accurate.) . . .

Schiff might have been the whistleblower’s source. (This is nonsense. The whistleblower said in the complaint that information about the call came from “multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call.”)

Other Trump lies include his denial that United States military aid was held up, his bizarre accusations that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) was the whistleblower’s source and his unfounded allegations that former vice president Joe Biden “stole” millions of dollars from foreign countries and pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor when Hunter Biden was still under investigation.

House Republicans continually traffic in lies — e.g., Ukraine interfered with our election, Joe Biden’s conduct pressuring removal of a delinquent prosecutor was illegal or corrupt, Trump was concerned about Ukraine’s corruption in general.

On procedure, they’ve lied about the depositions (routinely used in investigations), claiming they violate “due process” or amount to a “Soviet-style” star chamber. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) lied in claiming she was prevented from asking questions. (In fact, she was permitted time during the five-minute questions by members but the ranking Republican, Rep. Devin Nunes of California, was not permitted under rules of which she was familiar to yield some of his time in the 45-minute opening round.) Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) falsely claimed not producing the whistleblower violates Trump’s Sixth Amendment rights.

At times, Republicans deliberately ignore evidence in front of their eyes. They seem to have settled on the theory that Trump never communicated to Zelensky that aid was tied to investigations of Biden, Burisma and Trump’s crackpot Ukraine interference conspiracy. Trump, however, raised these items in the phone call (“I would like you to do us a favor though"), as we know from the rough transcription. (In transcripts of depositions we learn from multiple officials they were alarmed about injecting Trump’s political agenda into U.S. foreign policy.)

Trump also spoke to Sondland about the investigations, according to testimony, and in one instance was overheard by multiple State Department staffers. (Other officials testify that Sondland repeatedly claimed he was acting on Trump’s behalf and directly conditioned aid on the Biden investigation.)

Republicans’ lies are so numerous and obvious that one requires only a minimal amount of fact-checking to see that they lie because they have no truthful factual defenses nor valid constitutional argument. The facts are the facts: Trump conditioned aid to an ally in a war for its sovereignty on production of dirt to smear a political rival. He has refused to allow key witnesses to produce documents or to testify, thereby obstructing Congress. He has sought to intimidate and threaten witnesses including the whistleblower and Marie Yovanovitch, sending out the message you will be targeted and smeared if you provide evidence against him.

As for the Constitution, we know that “bribery,” enumerated as one of the grounds for impeachment in the parlance of the Framers, includes asking for or giving personal favors in exchange for political acts. That is precisely what occurred here. Obstruction and witness intimidation are obviously "high crimes."

House Republicans have become so invested in crackpot theories, bogus procedural complaints and constitutional illiteracy that they will never recognize the president’s wrongdoing. They are as incapable of upholding their oath, which requires impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors or bribery, as he is. Both Trump and his House enablers are unfit to serve since personal and political considerations obliterate their ability to detect the truth and thereby to uphold their public obligations. It would be refreshing if House Republicans simply admitted Trump violated his oath but that they are unwilling to abide by theirs and remove him. The candor would be preferable to the non-stop lying.

It remains an open question as to whether Senate Republicans are willing to ignore and distort reality so as to avoid voting to convict a president of their own party. Unfortunately, we find it highly unlikely that more than a few (if that many) would concede that Trump and the right-wing echo chamber that protects him have been spinning a web of lies for nearly three years.

Nope! I've heard the same bullshit from the usual suspects for 30 years...and I never listen to Alex Jones, very seldom see anything from Breitbart.

Talk and yammer and pretend like they're doing something and spend money galore and fkup everything they touch getting rich in the process!

Biden was peddling influence long before 2016 and he wasn't the only one to launder bribes through his family.

These people have nothing to lose by attempting to frame Trump with what THEY have been doing. They are psychos who profit from war and send young folks off to die from their manufactured conflicts. We'd already be at war in Syria if that murderous woman had won.

"We came, we saw, he died! Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk!"

If the familiar lie is less threatening to you than facing what the liars no longer control...US...I feel bad for you.

We cannot, cannot, cannot allow the group that has been in power since Reagan to retain any power and never, never again allow (former ) SPOOKS to become politicians in the federal arena.

These people have been selling their offices at will for too long and them getting Trump before he gets them is the only thing they care about. I've said this before and one day you will have cause to remember them. The hag HAD to win and more details will become public knowledge as the election approaches.

Honestly...can you tolerate this mealy-mouthed bunch of incumbent snakes a moment longer? As a Republican I can tell you I despise a big bloc of the Republican incumbency and every time one of them is ousted, gets busted for corruption, resigns or declines to run in an attempt to keep from getting busted for corruption it brings me great joy and satisfaction

Schiff lied like a rug during the whole Mewler investigation telling you poor, intentionally-gullible folks how he had the God's honest good on Trump...over and over...and the dipshit media assured you that was IT.

Your media dudes and dudettes don't even talk about Mewler anymore...just like they don't talk about all the other utter doo doo before it because they're so invested in it they can't back out.

Neither can the Dems. Pelosi would like to draw this out until after the election but Trump has forced the issue. As information is declassified until the election everyone in Washington with years of stuff to hide is shitting their pants wondering what might come out.

Most of what you would call the right is so sick of this crap I'm surprised they haven't organized and adopted ANTIFA tactics or moved to Argentina or something.

But I'm patient and I understand the psychology behind letting it play out this way.

Americans are a pretty trusting bunch when it comes to media and authority; it's easy to put irritating and attention consuming details (like doing aggressive personal oversight on whoever it was we voted for) when the busyness of life presses us. It's simpler to just believe we're getting the truth. Therefor...

...it will take time to make Americans, who've been on cruise control for a much longer time, to reassume control of the vehicle.

That's ok, the entire Russian witch hunt was based upon lies. Schiff said he'd seen unequivocal evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. LOL!

As for Ukraine, the one hacker was have in custody who claims to have done some of the hacking is from Romania. Fact is, the FBI, CIA and all other US intel agencies just took the word of Crowdstrike and didn't even look. We KNOW for a fact that the leaders of the FBI and CIA were in it for Hillary, trying to help her and hurt Trump.

The only thing we have that is definitely Russian are social media pages which also helped Hillary; those Russians were just disrupting and in actuality, making internet money with click bait, nothing more.

So, if you are correct, it shouldn't be a problem actually looking into it since it was never actually looked into.

I had something to ask you, but it's very off topic re: this. Lies, yeah from both side, that's a given they are politicians. That Shiff was the whistleblower's source, I think you're right, he isn't smart enough. Now we come to the problem: I've never seen you as one who takes, I'm a let the chips fall where they may type too. The Problem "As for the Constitution, we know that “bribery,” enumerated as one of the grounds for impeachment in the parlance of the Framers, includes asking for or giving personal favors in exchange for political acts. That is precisely what occurred here. Obstruction and witness intimidation are obviously "high crimes."
Like so many liberals you keep conveniently forgetting that there is already a mutual cooperation treaty in place signed by a liberal. So Trump wasn't asking Zelensky to do anything he wouldn't normally do. Zelensky ran on a get rid of corruption ticket. You might say that was a heads up, a hell of a heads up.