Johnson and Trump

I’m watching Johnson give lengthy responses to any questions
He’s shameless and a very skilled liar

Watching parliament today it dawned on me that the governments we’ve had over the past 12 + years just consist of warring factions pursuing their own personal agenda, none of which have been in the best interest of the country and it’s people.

According to Dr Phil Hammond on twitter, the Johnson defence is

I was in charge of making the rules, and demonstrated I understood them fully by communicating them to the public in all seriousness on multiple occasions. However, I genuinely misunderstood how the rules applied to me personally.

It's dem big boys what made me do it Guvnor!

From Andrew Marr, hardly a Guardian reading, tofu eating wokerati

www.lbc.co.uk/news/andrew-marr-decodes-boris-johnson-partygate-defence/

He’ll still be able to do his lucrative speeches. Even Liz Truss is making a fortune on the speech circuit. I assume they both still get the huge PM pension that Thatcher negotiated plus police protection for life? If Johnson didn’t have that shock of blond hair that makes him look like a chubby toddler I’m sure he would never have got away with the things that he has. His physical appearance hides how ruthless he actually is although I have seen the mask slip on several occasions. I hope it slips this afternoon.

Love the way the BBC presenter suggested that Johnson would lose his livelihood if he loses his seat as a result of the decision😄😄

It could be fairly true, Wwmk2. After all, who is going to subsidise, or lend enormous sums of money to, a failed PM/MP with declining political influence?

Love the way the BBC presenter suggested that Johnson would lose his livelihood if he loses his seat as a result of the decision😄😄

He is never there! And would notice no difference. This with the fact that his income from other sources far exceeds his parliamentary income.

Don’t be surprised to discover that Johnson does better than you expected at todays hearing.

First he’s got - at tax payers expense of course- the best lawyers money can buy

Secondly - Johnson has had all his life practicing at getting out of being found out that he is lying etc. He performs at his best when his back is against the wall.

That does not mean that it is not true that he mis-lead/lied to parliament - but that he will put up a good fight.

It simply means that the privileges committee must be very focused.

And this is a man who was our Prime Minister! It is utterly beyond me that anyone with half a brain could support him. He is completely unprincipled with a moral compass which always points to whatever is advantageous to Boris regardless of what is "right". He should resign from his seat and disappear under a stone!

If this was a court of law it would be rendered invalid as HH has repeatedly on record stated that in her opinion BJ has lied, so not impartial as the Chairperson should be.

The issue for the privileges committee isn’t whether, in anyone’s opinion, Johnson lied or not. It is clear to the nation that he HAS lied on many, many occasions across many years. Surely that issue is not in question. The privileges committee has to decide if he ‘knowingly’ lied in the House of Commons. The problem with Johnson is that, I think, he believes his own lies so the committee has a difficult brief.

What worries me is that if it goes to a vote in parliament I’m pretty sure that my MP would support Johnson no matter how damning the evidence against him is. She was one of the ones in tears when he left Downing Street.

Johnson as a liar I can understand; it is what he is and always has been. What I can't understand is those who defend and support him. There is an interesting clip on twitter of Connor Burns excusing and defending Johnson; one of the other guests on the show (Sky news I think) told Burns to stop demeaning himself by supporting Johnson who certainly would not reciprocate. He throws friends and allies under the bus without a backward glance. The same panellist described Johnson as a liar, saying he had no fear of slander or defamation charges as it was accepted that Johnson was a liar.

MaizieD

pascal30

Can someone tell me why he isn't paying his own legal fees when he apparently earned £5 million last year...

Have you ever known Johnson pay for anything?

It amazes me how often we hear about people who helped to fix a large loan for him. He's incapable of living within his considerable means, it seems. He has a number of maintenance payments to make and Carrie has expensive tastes.

pascal30

Can someone tell me why he isn't paying his own legal fees when he apparently earned £5 million last year...

Have you ever known Johnson pay for anything?

Can someone tell me why he isn't paying his own legal fees when he apparently earned £5 million last year...

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2 I wasn’t defending BJ.

I just think that it has become so blatantly obvious that he has been economical with the truth no matter who was on the privileges committee it would be nigh on impossible to put together an impartial panel.

So you think he should be let off because everyone knows he's a congenital liar?

No I have repeatedly posted on GN that BJ should be held to account.

I was just pointing out the blatantly obvious that it is probably impossible to get an unbiased panel

Well it’s difficult because everyone heard him lie. Those of us watching him on tv heard him lie. When Tugendhat was asked during the leadership election if Johnson was a liar he said ‘yes’. The only person on the the committee that could possible be unbiased would be someone who had been shipwrecked on a desert island for the last few years. It seems to me that his only excuse is that he can’t help lying: it’s what he does.

Trump and Johnson both use similar tactics to avoid blame, not hesitating to undermine constitutional proprieties, megaphone bluster and denigrating others. In my opinion they are both worthless and would be a danger to the public good if returned to office in any capacity, possibly excluding dogcatcher (no intention to offend that profession).

The Queen seemed to have known the rules and yet the PM didn’t?

Not sure why the UK public are having to pay his lawyers fees? I think I’ve read over £200,000.

And like Trump, BJ will ignore any outcome unfavourable to himself. And the result prob not known till mid May, we hear, in case it influences the local elections. Pitiful.

It’s going to be televised, should be an interesting watch.

Dr Amir Khan GP Retweeted

Caroline Lucas

Just a reminder as this dossier emerges - taxpayers are forking out for a £220K+ contract for Boris Johnson’s personal legal fees, as he attacks & undermines a cross-party Parliament Committee Inquiry carrying out the democratic will of a House of Commons he is not fit to be in.

Johnson was lying his way out of trouble since he was at Eton. I imagine he was doing it at his prep school in fact. I also imagine that he learned early on that lying helped him to evade a thrashing from his (<cough> allegedly abusive) father. It seems to me that while he enjoys winging it through life he really is afraid of being caught in the consequences and given a metaphorical parental walloping. It's not just his corpulent form that is reminiscent of Billy Bunter. YAROO! I say old chaps! YOWW!

It also interests me that both Johnson (<cough> allegedly) and Trump had abusive fathers.

Johnson’s supporters are largely members of the ERG, the very ones now making life more difficult for Sunak - to Johnson’s glee.

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2 I wasn’t defending BJ.

I just think that it has become so blatantly obvious that he has been economical with the truth no matter who was on the privileges committee it would be nigh on impossible to put together an impartial panel.

So you think he should be let off because everyone knows he's a congenital liar?

No I have repeatedly posted on GN that BJ should be held to account.

I was just pointing out the blatantly obvious that it is probably impossible to get an unbiased panel

How is he going to be held to account if doubts are cast on the probity of the Parliamentary committee set up to do it? (Which has at least 2 KCs on it). And he can't be tried through the courts because, AFAIK, misleading parliament isn't a criminal offence. Nor one that could be a civil offence because they need to prove some sort of concrete harm.

Not blaming you, GG13, because this is being promulgated by Johnson supporters, but it really is very silly.