And as pointed out, the public turned strongly against the GOP after that - getting Gingrich to resign (something good did come out of it ).
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Mitt caught in a direct lie?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View PostAnd as pointed out, the public turned strongly against the GOP after that - getting Gingrich to resign (something good did come out of it ).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostYou don't think it could have something to do with the fact that the lies were under oath?
EDIT: I should specify "no harm the American public need concern itself with." Hillary, Monica and the tabloid industry no doubt were greatly shaken by the whole thing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostThat was the official justification for the whole idiotic farce, yes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kentonio View PostMy memories pretty rubbish, but wasn't that as much because of the government shutdown and ethics charges?
It was due to the fact that in the 1998 election, an non Presidential election year, when the opposition party ALWAYS picks up seats, the Republicans didn't gain at all - mostly due to the public outrage over the impeachment of the President.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View PostNo.
It was due to the fact that in the 1998 election, an non Presidential election year, when the opposition party ALWAYS picks up seats, the Republicans didn't gain at all - mostly due to the public outrage over the impeachment of the President.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kentonio View PostDespite the obvious political game playing, there is an important element to it. It's really not ok for elected officials to lie under oath. I don't care if it's about blowjobs, corporate interests or anything else, as soon as you allow that kind of dishonesty to go unpunished you're starting an incredibly dangerous precedent.
Originally posted by Kenneth StarrMama's got a squeeze box
She wears on her chest
And when Daddy comes home
He never gets no rest
'Cause she's playing all night
And the music's all right
Mama's got a squeeze box
Daddy never sleeps at night
Well the kids don't eat
And the dog can't sleep
There's no escape from the music
In the whole damn street
....
She goes, squeeze me, come on and squeeze me
Come on and tease me like you do
I'm so in love with you
Mama's got a squeeze box
Daddy never sleeps at night
She goes in and out and in and out and in and out and in and out
'Cause she's playing all night
And the music's all right
Mama's got a squeeze box
Daddy never sleeps at night
Comment
-
Also, if they didn't go after him for the "no-sexual-relations" fib, I would not take away the message that perjury is now risk-free. I would read it as, "they won't waste time going after lies that don't have anything whatever to do with your faithful public service."
Comment
-
Originally posted by kentonio View PostDespite the obvious political game playing, there is an important element to it. It's really not ok for elected officials to lie under oath. I don't care if it's about blowjobs, corporate interests or anything else, as soon as you allow that kind of dishonesty to go unpunished you're starting an incredibly dangerous precedent.
So it's good that he didn't.
The Obama campaign, on the other hand, is desperately reaching for all the **** it can pack in an industrial fan.No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ElokSlippery slope arguments are commonly considered fallacious, and for good reason. Enforcing the penalty sends the far worse message that devoting months of the Legislative Branch's time to hearing about the state of a hefty intern's hoo-ha for the sake of a transparent partisan witch-hunt (deep breath) is totally okay.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Mad Monk View PostYou are absolutely right.
So it's good that he didn't.
The Obama campaign, on the other hand, is desperately reaching for all the **** it can pack in an industrial fan.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kentonio View PostI'm not usually a fan of slippery slope arguments, but when it comes to lying under oath it's a different matter. If a Presidents oath means nothing to him, then why exactly should you trust him on more important matters?
Comment
-
Originally posted by kentonio View PostIf he didn't then it's nothing to worry about, but when we have testimony he gave that says one thing, and SEC filings that say something different, that makes the question a perfectly reasonable one.No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.
Comment
-
As one of the repugs here, even I thought the bj issue was a witch hunt. Yeah, he shouldn't have lied under oath but as far as I'm concerned he should never have been asked that question under oath.It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostWe don't know, in this case, that his oath "means nothing to him." We only know that he will not cleave to it when it comes to certain private matters we have no need to know about, and which we ask for no reason than to hunt for scandals.
Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post...and we have what factcheck.org (that profoundly convervative site!) and just about everyone else here is saying. It is not a lie on the face of it. When I opened the thread, I was actually diappointed to find this.
Comment
Comment