Liars Gotta Lie: Trump Blasts Former “Excellent” Adviser As “Lair”

800George Papadopoulous is the ultimate man in the middle.  He is sitting above between Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump during the campaign — around the time when Trump was touting the young oil and gas adviser as one of his key foreign affairs advisers.  Now he is the man in the middle of President Trump and Robert Mueller and that is not an ideal place to be when the stakes could be the White House itself.  Papadopoulous got a taste of his new life with a tweet from President Trump calling him a liar.  It was a curious attack since Trump had previously labeled this “liar” as an “excellent” guy.

Trump tweeted that “Few people knew the young, low level volunteer named George, who has already proven to be a liar. Check the DEMS!”

Once again, the President’s running commentary on witnesses and claims in the Russian investigation is a uniquely bad idea and this particular attack is even worse.  While the White House has sought to downplay Papadopoulos, it was the President who previously played him up.  Trump named Papadopoulos to his foreign policy advisory council in March 2016, among a short list of experts with foreign policy expertise.  During a March 21, 2016 meeting with The Washington Post editorial board, Trump called Papadopoulos an “excellent guy.”

It is the same conflicted position that was evident in the wake of the Manafort indictment when a White House source dismissed the indictment on the ground that these were “bad guys” before and they were “bad guys” when they left. Yet, like Papadopoulos, these were men that Trump place into critical positions in this campaign.

Of course, the false statements by Papadopoulos do not implicate Trump or the White House.  Yet, the early effort to label Papadopoulos as a liar conveys a degree of unease over what he may disclose to prosecutors.  In the meantime, prosecutors may want to establish when Papadopoulos went from an excellent advisor to a habitual liar.

46 thoughts on “Liars Gotta Lie: Trump Blasts Former “Excellent” Adviser As “Lair””

  1. Wasn’t Papadopoulous just indicted for lying to the FBI? Doesn’t that make him a “liar”?

  2. Trump calling ANYBODY a liar is just……Well just…….Just…….I can’t even get it out……..

    1. is just……Well just…….Just…….I can’t even get it out……..

      I know, I know, let me help you. As outrageous as Hillary calling for campaign finance reform.

      Keep up the good work!

      1. Remember Olly, one out of three Hillary haters are just as stupid as the other two.

  3. Uh, didn’t the dude confess to lying to the FBI? Trump didn’t call him a “habitual liar,” just an ADMITTED liar.

    Trump likes to call people he hires “great guys.” He might not know them very well, but until they are trouble, he assumes they are fine. Once they are trouble, he hammers them.

    Sheesh. We’ve had him in the front of the pack for long enough that we should all be able to see patterns like this by now.

  4. Positively thinking, everybody is a good guy until they do something wrong! A liar can never be trusted, especially if they are alcoholics and druggies. They have ruined our family and will ruin yours. Beware! Get to know people and their background.

  5. I must say I’m a bit surprised by Mr. Turley admitting there might be something wrong with Rump. But what really worries me is Rump’s perspective on our criminal justice system, calling it a joke and saying it is the laughing stock of the world.

    I STRONGLY suggest getting, reading and fully digesting a little book written this year called “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century,” by Timothy Snyder, a Yale history professor. To see what is going on in the Rump administration is bone-chilling and should give anyone with an IQ above room temperature pause.It’s a small book and a quick read – and should be read more than once. Its implications are massive.

    I especially suggest that Mr. Turley read the book. As s libertarian, it should scare the bejeebers out of him.

    1. As with what has been going on hasn’t been bone-chilling if you pull the sheets off of it? Glad you finally woke up, but it goes way back before Trump. Don’t be silly.

  6. How thorough does the FBI investigate these people’s SF86 questionnaire for National Security Positions for security clearance?

  7. Trump, calling ANYBODY else a liar; the height of hypocrisy. Trump is the yugest liar in Washington, New York, ANYWHERE. Trump, knifer in the back, pathological liar, incompetent, megalomaniac, more concerned about his image than the best interests of the American people, a hero to the dupes of America.

    1. “… a hero to the dupes of America.”
      The last resort of the radical mind: do as I say because I’m obviously smarter. Jokes on you, Bozo.

    2. “liar” is too often applied to people we just don’t like. First Mr Trump usually doesn’t know if what he is saying is true or not, so he often says the exact opposite just to make sure one or the other statements is true. Usually he only makes vague statements about things being the best, most powerful, worst, most evil, biggest, most beautiful, fantastic, we will see ….i.e. totally meaningless statements

      It must be difficult to pretend to lead a country knowing that the majority of voters voted against you and following the election two thirds of the public dislike you and at least half want you impeached.

  8. I think what bothers me the most about this investigation is that Comey had a litany of reasons to investigate Hilary but declined to. I think we can see how slanted this is when Meullar’s team has members who made contributions to Hilary’s campaign.

    1. Mueller is a tougher dude. Da goof would have been better off with da flakey Comey but was too much of a goof ball to see it.

    2. And more Benghazi hearings, I’ll reckon.

      This is to “Hannity told me to talk about Hillary” bobbie

      1. Marky Mark Mark – I see you are back to your ad hominem attacks. I am really disappointed in you.

  9. Trump needed Russian money to pad his tacky businesses, and Putin ultimately controlled the banks and oligarchs who could invest: hence Trump’s timidity when it came to criticizing Russia. That’s my bet anyway, rather than some sinister collusion.

    The rest of this (GP, Don Jr.) is simply amateur-hour, with Manafort being crooked unto himself. (Though “I know the best people” doesn’t help.)

    That’s some swamp Trump made for himself. Not sure if he really has the best brain.

    1. Dave137, you’re on to something. The whole lame-brained farrago might have nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election and everything to do with violating US sanctions against Russia for its annexation of the Crimea in 2014.

      After all, collusion’s just another word for doing business. Trump’s a businessman. What else was Trump supposed to do? Comply with US sanctions? That’s no way to do business.

      Of course, there is not yet any indication from Mueller’s indictments that Trump, himself, was doing business with the Russians after the US sanctions were put in place. There may, however, be some indication that Manafort and Gates conspired against the United States to violate US sanctions against Russia.

      If so, that might be beyond the scope of the mandate for the Special Counsel’s investigation. On the other hand, it would make a compelling case for a subpoena of Trump’s tax returns. Oy geveldt.

      1. “violating US sanctions against Russia for its annexation of the Crimea in 2014.”

        Why no sanctions against Israel for its annexation of Palestine?

        1. Crispy Bacon, I figured that’s what you wanted. To answer your questions, though, I strongly suspect that The Congress of the United States is adamantly opposed to US sanctions against Israel. Rumor has it that, from time to time, Israel shares vital intelligence with the United States. There may also be a few sales of US military equipment that might not take place under a sanctions regime. And then there’s the political affinity of the American people for Israel. I’m sure TSFS could cite additional reasons.

        2. Why no sanctions against Israel for its annexation of Palestine?

          1. Because there is no such place as Palestine.

          2. Because the only place that Israel annexed were the portions of Jerusalem on the other side of the 1949 armistice line – an annexation that took place 50 years ago. Civil law has applied in the Golan since 1981.

          3. Because there’s no point to putting sanctions on Israel. The Arab population and political leadership refuse to negotiate a settlement. Israel has amended it’s security perimeter so that 60% of the population of Arabs living outside the 1949 armisitice lines are under an Arab authority and Arab security patrols. If they want the other 40%, they’re going to have to make an offer. Anyone who isn’t stupid or malevolent understands this. Chris P. Bacon does not.

          1. Thanks AAWG. I knew you’d come through. FTR, I referred only to Russia’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014 in the context of US sanctions against Russia. Crispy Bacon is the one who parried in favor of US sanctions against Israel. However, since I failed to notice Crispy’s annexation accusation against Israel, my reply to Crispy was admittedly weak. So you get an apology as well as an expression of gratitude. Don’t spend it all in one place. Spread it around and around as we go.

      2. Once again, bringing the whole annexation of Crimea situation to the table with your simple analysis demonstrates how you are posting on the wrong site. The whole Ukrainian situation, that led up to seizing the Donbas is a very complicated one, and originates in the State Department and NED. If you follow the reasoning and who would profit from all that hardship, you would probably not like who the path leads to in the end.

        1. slorhrss29, I’m not analyzing the annexation of the Crimea at all. I’m simply stating the fact that the US impose sanctions on Russia after it annexed the Crimea in 2014. Manafort and Gates may very well have violated the US sanctions against Russia. Mueller may have stumbled upon those sanctions violations. The Russian interference in the 2016 election might not have been the aim of the Trump campaign. Instead, The Trump Organization may have been seeking ways to circumvent the sanctions without getting caught doing business with Russians.

      3. “collusion’s just another word for doing business”

        Love it ! Sarah whats-her-face should adopt that phrase as an all-purpose comeback, when she tries to defend the indefensible at her press briefings.

  10. Meeting with Russians to launder money into US = crime.

    Meeting with Russians to launder dirty socks = no crime.

    Meeting with Russians to obtain assistance in winning Presidential election = problem.

    Meeting with Russians to obtain assistance in supplying borscht to needy inner city children in US = no problem.

    I’m sure that all of the conversations between Manafort/ Trumpsters and Russians were about dirty socks and borscht.

    1. Don de Drain, what if Trump fully expected to lose the 2016 election? What if Trump was just as surprised as anyone else at his historic victory? What if Trump wasn’t really interested in Russian help beating Hillary? What if Trump was simply doing what businessmen are supposed to do? Find a way to get around those pesky US sanctions that Obama put in place after The Russians annexed the Crimea in 2014. What if Mueller stumbled across possible violations of US sanction while investigating Manafort? What if Mueller uses that hypothetical sanctions violation to subpoena Trump’s tax returns? What will Mueller and his crew find, if they get their hands on those tax returns? Dirty socks and borscht?

  11. I don’t think the President calling him a LAIR is going to get him off the hook. 😉 This is one of the funnier ones JT, but you really need a proof-reader.

  12. Apologies to Professor Turley who I’d previously criticized for writing about Manafort and Gates without mentioning Papadopoulos. While Turley may be correct in that his statements do not implicate “Trump or the White House.” His statements and the e-mail chain do implicate the campaign as apparently several people (one described as high ranking) were aware of and encouraged his attempts to get information from Russians.

    1. I guess the fact (found in the information) that the Trump campaign with Manafort briefly in charge refused to meet with the non-Russian speaking, Walter Mittyish, yet totally connected Professor about dirt on Clinton Campsign is irrelevant to the issue of colluding with Russians. I always collude with folks I won’t meet.

          1. Michael – I think almost all the Senators in Congress met with the Russians last year. It is expected, not a crime.

            1. Come on enigma. Don’t be so simple-minded. If they wanted to honestly pursue “lying,” they’d have to lock up 99.999999999999999999% of that cesspool known as DC. And they’d have to start with Comey.

              1. Nah, not enough time and money to lock up all the liars in DC. Those that lie to the FBI, particularly in the Mueller investigation have plenty to worry about though.
                I wouldn’t start with Comey either, I’d go with the man who lies daily, often contradicting himself in the same statement. Now it’s true he often has no idea about the subject he’s talking about so he’s got a great defense. “I’m not lying, I’m just an idiot,”

Comments are closed.