[Tom Bishop]

Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/us/politics/trump-stormy-daniels-hush-money.html
There ya go.
We know that he knew.  His lawyer spilled those beans.

Trump's lawyer said that Trump didn't know and that he did it on his own:

www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/politics/stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-trump.html

Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, said on Tuesday that he had paid $130,000 out of his own pocket to a pornographic-film actress who had once claimed to have had an affair with Mr. Trump.

In the most detailed explanation of the 2016 payment made to the actress, Stephanie Clifford, Mr. Cohen, who worked as a counsel to the Trump Organization for more than a decade, said he was not reimbursed by the Trump Organization or the campaign for the payment.

“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times

The article then states that people started hounding Cohen because the payment could classify as a campaign contribution:

Mr. Cohen said that he had given a similar statement to the Federal Election Commission in response to a complaint filed by the government watchdog group Common Cause, which contended that the payment, made through a limited liability company that Mr. Cohen established, was an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign.

And if we look at a timeline of events, looking for the part where Cohen flips and admits that it was not his own contribution -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal

December 12, 2018: Cohen was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, in part for having paid $130,000 hush money (characterized in the charges as an "excessive campaign contribution") to Daniels during Trump's election campaign.[120][121]

So Cohen was contending that he did it on his own as a contribution up to the end. He was even sentenced to imprisonment for an "excessive campaign contribution" while maintaining this claim!

It's not clear that it was not Cohen's own illegal contribution, and that Cohen willingly went to jail over something that was false. Sounds a bit extreme to maintain on your end. It certainly is possible that Trump was being truthful that he did not know, and it was something that Cohen primarily orchistrated and went to jail over.

[Roundy]

Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.

"Correct in an alternarive way"? Jesus lol, you can be so ridiculous it's hilarious sometimes.

[Lord Dave]

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment

[Tom Bishop]

Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.

"Correct in an alternarive way"? Jesus lol, you can be so ridiculous it's hilarious sometimes.

Yes, because you are often wrong about your interpretation of the facts.

[Lord Dave]

Any lie can be true, from a certain point of view.

Like when Anakin was killed by Darth Vader. 

[Tom Bishop]

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment

The link says: "On Wednesday night, Giuliani said Trump "didn't know the specifics of it [the payment to Daniels], but he did know the general arrangement. That was money that was paid by his lawyer, the way I would do, out of his law firm funds, or whatever funds, doesn't matter. The president reimbursed that over a period of several months."

That could just mean "Some people are making claims against you." "Okay, you're my lawyer, handle it."

Trump doesn't necessarily know about the details he was asked about.

[Roundy]

Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.

"Correct in an alternarive way"? Jesus lol, you can be so ridiculous it's hilarious sometimes.

Yes, because you are often wrong about your interpretation of the facts.

Absolutely. One thing I can give you I guess is that Trump is often wrong about his interpretation of facts. But this argument isn't about whether or not Trump is an idiot, it's about whether or not he's a liar, of which we both know there are many examples. Focus!

[AATW]

Let's see a single example where deception is involved and the matter could not be attributed to being incorrect or is correct in an alternative way.

"Correct in an alternarive way"? Jesus lol, you can be so ridiculous it's hilarious sometimes.

Heh. Yeah, I noticed that. Smacks of the "alternative facts" nonsense.
The alternative to a fact is something which isn't true!

[Roundy]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/politics/fact-check-jonathan-swan-axios-hbo-interview-trump-coronavirus/index.html

Here's a great example of a very recent lie Trump told. In his interview with Swan Trump insisted that experts say you can "test too much", referring to the coronavirus. When pressed on who says that Trump says "manuals, books" but can't be more specific than that. Because no real experts are saying you can test too much, an utterly ridiculous and self-serving statement he made because he doesn't like doing all this testing because it exposes more cases.

And that was, what, a week or two ago?

So there you go, a deception where Trump was clearly not wrong or (snicker) "correct in an alternative way". Just a pure, bald-faced, self-serving lie of the type he's told numerous times during his presidency.

I look forward to laughing at Tom's justification for this.

[Lord Dave]

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment

The link says: "On Wednesday night, Giuliani said Trump "didn't know the specifics of it [the payment to Daniels], but he did know the general arrangement. That was money that was paid by his lawyer, the way I would do, out of his law firm funds, or whatever funds, doesn't matter. The president reimbursed that over a period of several months."

That could just mean "Some people are making claims against you." "Okay, you're my lawyer, handle it."

Trump doesn't necessarily know about the details he was asked about.

So either Trump doesn't care to know the details(which is uncharacteristic of him) or Guliani is lying to protect his client. 

Also, Trump's own tweets contradict that he didn't know anything about it.

[Tom Bishop]

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607943366/giuliani-says-trump-did-know-about-stormy-daniels-payment

The link says: "On Wednesday night, Giuliani said Trump "didn't know the specifics of it [the payment to Daniels], but he did know the general arrangement. That was money that was paid by his lawyer, the way I would do, out of his law firm funds, or whatever funds, doesn't matter. The president reimbursed that over a period of several months."

That could just mean "Some people are making claims against you." "Okay, you're my lawyer, handle it."

Trump doesn't necessarily know about the details he was asked about.

So either Trump doesn't care to know the details(which is uncharacteristic of him) or Guliani is lying to protect his client. 

Also, Trump's own tweets contradict that he didn't know anything about it.

After 10 years working for Trump Cohen may have more independence and autonomous power than realized. If you are a billionaire there are probably always people trying to bring claims against you or your companies. There is probably a legal budget somewhere, like how Congress has a legal budget for claims against senators.

Cohen may have known that his firm was going to get reimbursed eventually and Trump may not have known about this particular payment at the time he was questioned. If you read into this Cohen is making some similar deals with other people. Daniels also claims that Trump didn't sign the confidentiality agreement, and so that's why she is free to speak about it without legal risk.

https://politicalwire.com/2018/03/07/trump-didnt-sign-agreement-stormy-daniels/

Why Trump Didn’t Sign Agreement with Stormy Daniels

Michael Avenatti, attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels, told the Today Show why he thinks Donald Trump didn’t sign the confidentiality agreement with his client.

Said Avenatti: “There were three parties to the agreement…two of the three signed. Mr. Trump did not sign. We believe that was so that he could later claim deniability, and therefore, from a legal perspective, we believe she’s free to talk.”

So Trump didn't even sign the agreement. This strengthens the suggestion that he didn't even know about the payment. Someone clearly dropped the ball somewhere if a payment was made, but the documents weren't fully signed. The person that didn't sign is the same person who said that he didn't know about the payment.

It's somewhat tenuous to suggest that Trump wanted the agreement, payed the money, but also wanted plausible deniability, and so left the confidentiality agreement incomplete. Pretty sure that is not legally advisable. That's just another logical loop that we need to justify to support your view.

Trump's original answer that he didn't know about the particular payment and they would need to talk to his lawyer to get more details. Why not take him at his word? I'm sure he at least knew about the allegations in general, and probably that something was being done about it like Giuliani said. I don't see why I have to assume all this stuff about Trump maliciously not signing the agreement and Cohen going to jail for "excessive campaign contributions" to fulfill this Trump = Liar fantasy going on.

[Rama Set]

Why not take Trump at his word?  Because he lies often and has a history of disrespectful and lascivious behavior with women.  He has recently also tried to push through policies the supreme court has ruled against, so why should we be surprised that he ignores his personal lawyer's advice?  In fact, from what is known about Trump's behaviour, his actions in the Stormy Daniel's settlement seem entirely likely.

[Tom Bishop]

Why not take Trump at his word?  Because he lies often and has a history of disrespectful and lascivious behavior with women.  He has recently also tried to push through policies the supreme court has ruled against, so why should we be surprised that he ignores his personal lawyer's advice?  In fact, from what is known about Trump's behaviour, his actions in the Stormy Daniel's settlement seem entirely likely.

I don't think it's entirely likely that Trump would not sign the documents for the confidentiality agreement and that Cohen would go to jail for "excessive campaign contributions" if Trump was really directly orchestrating this himself.

The problem is that you are automatically assuming that Trump is lying about everything he says, and must create this elaborate fantasy around his simple statement that he didn't know about it and that his lawyer should be consulted. It appears to be a rule that Trump = Bad.

If Trump lies so much, there must be something that clearly shows deception. It is really rather absurd to claim that someone can constantly lie all day without being able to show this deception outside of your assumptions of whether he is correct or not.

[Dr David Thork]

Why not take Trump at his word?  Because he lies often and has a history of disrespectful and lascivious behavior with women.

Trumped talked about grabbing a woman by her pussy. Biden grabbed a woman by her pussy.

Its like you have total amnesia when it is your own candidate behaving deplorably.

Even his new VP thinks he's a rapist.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/11/flashback-kamala-harris-said-she-believed-bidens-rape-accusers/

What a shit show. 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years!

[Tom Bishop]

Because no real experts are saying you can test too much

https://www.sciencealert.com/how-does-the-coronavirus-test-work

Does everyone really need to be tested?

Realistically, it isn't feasible to test everyone who is sick in the US. Therefore, most health officials believe it is important to prioritize the testing of people who need it the most: those at high risk such as health care workers who have been in contact with COVID-19 patients; symptomatic people in areas with high infection rates; and people 65 years of age and older with chronic health issues, such as heart disease, lung disease or diabetes. Does everyone really need to be tested?

Statnews - We need smart coronavirus testing, not just more testing

By Farzad Mostashari, MD and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD

To know if Covid-19 is getting better or worse, we need to know how the percentage of positive cases — not the number — changes day by day, accounting for delays in testing and reporting and how the percentages change in response to public health measures such as sheltering-in-place or suppression. This will tell us how effective these measures are in curtailing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and thus whether when social restrictions could be relaxed or additional policies might need to be implemented.

European Society of Cardiology - Diagnosing the first COVID-19 patient in Italy – Codogno, Italy

Dr. Annalisa Malara

When it came to testing, we started with the patient’s family and everyone who had been in contact with him. In the hospital, we tested patients who had been near him in the emergency room and the ward. After four days, we then tested all the doctors and nurses. Now we only test people with symptoms because the numbers are too high to check everyone. Mass testing slows down results for people who really need them, and the swab gives a lot of false negatives – possibly around 20%.

See the bolded above. You may be merely calling Trump a liar based on your own misunderstandings.

[Rama Set]

Why not take Trump at his word?  Because he lies often and has a history of disrespectful and lascivious behavior with women.

Trumped talked about grabbing a woman by her pussy. Biden grabbed a woman by her pussy.

Its like you have total amnesia when it is your own candidate behaving deplorably.

Even his new VP thinks he's a rapist.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/11/flashback-kamala-harris-said-she-believed-bidens-rape-accusers/

What a shit show. 4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years!

He isn’t my candidate so don’t make up shit. Also, Trump has had multiple allegations of sexual impropriety up to possibly raping his ex-wife and definitely talking about how hot his daughter is on live television. It’s far beyond the “Grab them by the pussy” comment.

Remember when you were criticizing people for being involved in foreign politics? Nice integrity.

[honk]

Why not take Trump at his word?  Because he lies often and has a history of disrespectful and lascivious behavior with women.

Trumped talked about grabbing a woman by her pussy. Biden grabbed a woman by her pussy.

Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by well over a dozen women. I can't imagine the level of mental contortion it takes to believe Trump and assume that every single one of these women are lying. One or two women could absolutely be lying or otherwise not credible. But this many? When has that ever happened? Trump is not the only controversial politician in the world. Lying women didn't come out of the woodwork in droves to try and take down, say, Boris Johnson. Just how likely is that all these women are lying rather than Trump most likely having raped or assaulted at least a few of them?

And because there are a few people here who don't see - or refuse to see - the distinction, I must stress once again that this is not a suggestion that we skip the trial and lock Trump up forever. It's a suggestion that you, not a cop, not a judge, just an adult with common sense who has every right to make personal moral judgments about what other people have or haven't done in the past, compare the likelihood that Trump has probably engaged in sexual misconduct in the past with the likelihood that all these women have chosen to publicly lie about it.

[Pete Svarrior]

Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by well over a dozen women.

It continues to be the case that very few of these allegations went particularly far. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how many people make unsubstantiated accusations about the bad man you don't like. They remain unsubstantiated, and the decent thing to do is to presume Trump's innocence until these totally sincere women choose to present some evidence for their claims.

[Dr David Thork]

I suspect Trump probably has behaved badly. He's a billionaire. And I'd guess many of these women put him in that position because women are greedy and they like nice gifts.

I don't have a problem with it. I honestly don't care. If you put yourself in a position where a billionaire can Th*rk you, you'll get what is coming to you. Its not like he's out in the woods doing this. These women are visiting his hotels, meeting him in Trump Tower, riding in his limos and using his concierge services. I honestly have little sympathy for them. They were social climbing.

But you can't say Biden hasn't done that too. Or that Trump is bad and its a black mark on him when his opposite number did the same thing. They cancel out in my head. Both as bad as each other. So stop throwing the accusation at Trump, pretending that Biden has been any better. He hasn't. I don't want to hear "Trump is a misogynist". So what? So is Biden. Both get a minus point, move on and focus on what separates them as candidates.

[Roundy]

Because no real experts are saying you can test too much

https://www.sciencealert.com/how-does-the-coronavirus-test-work

Does everyone really need to be tested?

Realistically, it isn't feasible to test everyone who is sick in the US. Therefore, most health officials believe it is important to prioritize the testing of people who need it the most: those at high risk such as health care workers who have been in contact with COVID-19 patients; symptomatic people in areas with high infection rates; and people 65 years of age and older with chronic health issues, such as heart disease, lung disease or diabetes. Does everyone really need to be tested?

Statnews - We need smart coronavirus testing, not just more testing

By Farzad Mostashari, MD and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD

To know if Covid-19 is getting better or worse, we need to know how the percentage of positive cases — not the number — changes day by day, accounting for delays in testing and reporting and how the percentages change in response to public health measures such as sheltering-in-place or suppression. This will tell us how effective these measures are in curtailing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and thus whether when social restrictions could be relaxed or additional policies might need to be implemented.

European Society of Cardiology - Diagnosing the first COVID-19 patient in Italy – Codogno, Italy

Dr. Annalisa Malara

When it came to testing, we started with the patient’s family and everyone who had been in contact with him. In the hospital, we tested patients who had been near him in the emergency room and the ward. After four days, we then tested all the doctors and nurses. Now we only test people with symptoms because the numbers are too high to check everyone. Mass testing slows down results for people who really need them, and the swab gives a lot of false negatives – possibly around 20%.

See the bolded above. You may be merely calling Trump a liar based on your own misunderstandings.

Saying you need to prioritize testing is perfectly reasonable and not at all the same as saying it's possible to test too much. I knew the degree you'd have to reach to try to justify this would be hysterical and you truly didn't disappoint.