Skip to main content

View Diary: Hey, Reince, that's not how presidential elections work (140 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay, I'll bite. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, JVolvo, DMentalist, Ahianne

    Yes, He lied. Under oath.

    And the majority of Americans, upon hearing the questions being asked, said, "Well, I probably would have, too."

    And that, lying to keep his wife from finding out he'd dangled his wangle with an air-headed young intern, was worth two years of America's time?

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:42:13 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not to mention the fact... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crashing Vor, Ahianne

          that he "lied under oath" in a deposition for a case that was ultimately DISMISSED as being completely without merit.  So if he lied, he lied to protect his family and himself from intrusive and humiliating questions about a subject that was nobody else's business, and the Court eventually AGREED that it was nobody else's business, that those questions never should have been asked, and that asking them was a waste of the Court's time, and the country's.  

            But technically, he didn't actually lie.  He gave a misleading answer.  He read the question carefully, and based on the way he interpreted terms which had been very precisely defined for him IN WRITING, he gave an answer which was literally true, even though it was evasive.

            Here's an example of the difference:

            When Karl Rove said "I didn't give her name", that was a misleading answer, NOT a lie.  It was literally true that he didn't give her name.  He didn't say "Valerie Plame is a CIA agent."  He said, "Joe Wilson's WIFE is a CIA agent."  So he DID commit treason, but technically, he didn't LIE.  See the difference?

           On the other hand, when George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," THAT was a LIE.  And since he said it in a State of the Union Address before Congress, he was in fact LYING TO CONGRESS, which is indeed an IMPEACHABLE offense.  Fortunately for Bush, the lie was only 16 words.    There must be a clause somewhere which states that prosecuting a President for lying to Congress requires a 20-word minimum.  

      •  some crimes are not as bad (0+ / 0-)

        When the criminal is the Democrat.  Got it.

        •  I do try to be respectful to everyone, but... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryduck

              Honestly, this about the DUMBEST comment I have ever read.  

               Sorry for being so blunt.

                Some crimes ARE not as bad as others, and it has nothing to do with being a Democrat or a Republican.  

               For example, when Vice President Aaron Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton, that was WORSE than when Dick Cheney accidentally shot Harry Whittington in the face.  Is it worse because Aaron Burr was a Democratic-Republican, instead of a Republican? NO, only an IDIOT would say that.  It was worse because what Cheney did was a stupid accident, and Harry Whittington wasn't killed, whereas Burr INTENTIONALLY shot Hamilton, and Hamilton WAS killed.  

               If Mark Fuhrman was accused of perjury for his testimony in the OJ Simpson trial, that was WORSE than if Bill Clinton was accused of  perjury in a civil deposition.  Is that because Bill Clinton is a Democrat?  NO, only an IDIOT would say that.  It was worse because Bill Clinton was deposed in a frivolous civil suit, and the only consequence of his lie was that it temporarily spared himself and his family from embarrassment, whereas Mark Fuhrman testified under oath in a CRIMINAL MURDER TRIAL, and his possible perjury may have allowed a MURDERER to go free.  (And by the way, Fuhrman was NOT fired from his job, and he only paid a $200.00 fine for his alleged perjury...so why should a President be impeached for a much LESS serious case of perjury in a much LESS important civil suit that was dismissed as without merit?)

               If Karl Rove disclosed the identity of a covert CIA operative, destroying her career, compromising our national security, and endangering that operative and all of her contacts, that is WORSE than lying about a sexual affair because you don't want to be publicly embarrassed for your bad personal behavior.  

               If George Bush lied to Congress about evidence that led America into a war that has cost thousands upon thousands of lives, both of Americans and Iraqis, that is WORSE than lying about a sexual affair because you don't want your wife to find out about it.  

               Here's a few more examples, in case you still just don't get it:

               If the speed limit is 55 miles per hour, and you drive 56 miles per hour, that is NOT AS BAD as driving 600 miles per hour.

               If you take a penny from the tray on the convenience store counter because you need a penny, that is NOT AS BAD as going into a bank with a machine gun and stealing 12 million dollars.  

               If you have an occasional glass of wine with dinner, that is NOT AS BAD as shooting heroin into your veins 3 times a day.  

               If you tickle somebody's feet, that is NOT AS BAD as stabbing somebody in the chest with a knife.  

               Yes, it is true.  Some things are NOT AS BAD as other things.  Some things are WORSE than others things.  Most people figure that out pretty early in life.  Astonishing that it seems like you still need someone to explain the concept to you.  

               I just noticed that for some reason your comment has a signature link that links to a law firm.  Don't know if that means you are a lawyer, or work in a law office, or if you're just being paid to spam the link, but whether you're a lawyer or have merely been exposed to lawyers, that just makes it all the more astounding that you could say something so utterly STUPID.  In general I find lawyers and those who associate with them to be well-educated, articulate and worthy of my respect, even when I disagree with their viewpoints, but I guess there's an exception to every rule.  

               I know that Kos has a "Top Comments" diary, but you make me think that we need place for "Bottom Comments"...

               I truly am sorry to sound so disrespectful, but really.

              DUMBEST. COMMENT. EVER.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site