That’s an easy one. No. He even lies about taping people.
Given his relentless lying, eyebrows were raised when he recently boasted that he is “100% willing” to be questioned under oath about the issues raised by fired FBI director James Comey. This will never happen so what will be interesting is to see how he weasels out of it. He will likely try the tactic of postponing an answer, something that he does many times, the most recent example being when he said at a press conference that he would answer in two weeks whether he had taped his conversations with Comey or not, and that the media would be disappointed with his answer.
Why defer the answer to a simple question? What the hell does it even mean that they will be disappointed by it? I can only think that he is hoping the question will be forgotten with the next round of bizarre events that have become the trademark of his presidency.
What Comey wrote is that Trump said “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty” and “I want loyalty” — so, given one aspect of the apologia already employed, that those were statements rather than requests is sufficiently exonerative.
And note how he has changed the claim to asking someone to pledge allegiance under oath, though that may just have been his confusion.
—
<snicker>
OMG. Our family member diagnosed with NPD would lie even when the truth would serve better. So, that’s what I would expect: more lying. In our family member we also noticed this same utterance of grandiose bullshit that never happened. I really doubt Trump has any plan at all. His “handlers” might (although I think they have already discovered that you can not control or handle a person like this) but Trump will most likely continue to baffle, bewilder and back-stab them. I know our NPD just truly expected us to believe whatever they said, even if they’d said the exact opposite not ten minutes before. If you called them on it, they would simply say they never said any such thing. I expect to see the same sort of “strategy” out of Trump -- I think he just says whatever occurs to him on the spur of the moment, he delivers it with conviction (because in the moment HE believes it) and leaves everyone else wondering what just happened.
Isn’t it a more sensible question to ask if there’s anything he’d tell the truth about?
The whole “I give my word” thing presupposes that you haven’t worn it out, or gotten a reputation as an inveterate liar. I’ve always thought that the whole oath-sworn testimony thing is a scam set up to advantage bald-faced liars (i.e.: politicians)
[OT]
Ahem, Marcus.
“Is there anything that Trump will not lie about?”
vs.
“if there’s anything he’d tell the truth about?”
The implications are the same, since both ask whether there’s at least one thing about which Trump will be truthful.
John Morales@#4:
(headdesk)
I plead fatigue.
Also, re
Best as I can tell, by virtue of being President, he gets that presupposition legally and institutionally.
I think only the most ignorant or deluded dupes by now imagine Trump has any credibility* — well, those, and the legal system and institutions.
(He bears the Mantle of Office, to impugn him is to impugn the office)
—
* Other than his utterances and his history.
I’m willing to take him at face value that he’d like to be dating his own daughter.
Trump will be dead for three days and he’ll still lie about being alive.