Status
Not open for further replies.
Zig, I changed back to Belz... months ago, before my hiatus. That's two times.

Which is infinity times more than I've changed mine. ;)

I know that. It wasn't an attempt at deception. But that wasn't the crux of the reason why conservative media wanted him thrown out. As I said "Lying to the American people" was the charge they leveled at him. Now with Trump, doing the same doesn't matter.

I don't really care what media on either side want, nor do I know why anyone else should. The actual articles of impeachment have nothing to do with lying to the American people.
 
Which is infinity times more than I've changed mine. ;)

You're not supposed to divide them, Zig!!!

I don't really care what media on either side want, nor do I know why anyone else should.

Because they influence people and elections? Hypocrisy might be a universal thing but that doesn't mean it should be wholly tolerated.

The actual articles of impeachment have nothing to do with lying to the American people.

No, it has to do with being unfit for the presidency. Congress decides what that means.
 
You're not supposed to divide them, Zig!!!

hqdefault.jpg


Because they influence people and elections?

Which is why what they do is relevant. Still couldn't give a crap about what they want.

No, it has to do with being unfit for the presidency. Congress decides what that means.

Congress has the constitutional power to impeach and convict a president for anything they want to. But it's a bad idea to use that power for merely being "unfit". Voters are supposed to decide who is fit and who is not fit to be president. Republicans didn't come out ahead from Clinton's impeachment, and that was a proven crime. Impeaching Trump for non-criminal lying will go down even more poorly.
 
Good point well made dudalb. I seem to recall that Mordor was in the East.
 
protip: bit of a difference between lying and perjury, but I am certain that virtually everyone posting here already knew that....

Yeah, it's perfectly acceptable for a president to lie when he's not under oath. LOL
 
Yeah, it's perfectly acceptable for a president to lie when he's not under oath. LOL

was that an attempt to defend the person who committed perjury?

do you not understand the difference between lying under oath and lying?

I'd be happy to "walk" you through it.
 
was that an attempt to defend the person who committed perjury?

do you not understand the difference between lying under oath and lying?

I'd be happy to "walk" you through it.

You mean like Don Jr. And Jared Kushner?
 
[qimg]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/z0-KZS1dDyw/hqdefault.jpg[/qimg]

Which is why what they do is relevant. Still couldn't give a crap about what they want.

Congress has the constitutional power to impeach and convict a president for anything they want to. But it's a bad idea to use that power for merely being "unfit". Voters are supposed to decide who is fit and who is not fit to be president. Republicans didn't come out ahead from Clinton's impeachment, and that was a proven crime. Impeaching Trump for non-criminal lying will go down even more poorly.

Trump doesn't have to be impeached for non-criminal lying. Hell no, he's clearly guilty of obstruction of justice, suborning perjury, violating his oath to uphold the constitution by rampant violations of the emoluments clause and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Out of curiosity, Do you know how many subpoenas Trey Gowdy issued in his investigations into Ben Ghazzi and Hillary's emails? Over 50. Do you know how many he has issued into Russian interference into the 2016 election?

I'll let you guess.
 
was that an attempt to defend the person who committed perjury?

do you not understand the difference between lying under oath and lying?

I'd be happy to "walk" you through it.
lying, is what trump does 7 to 10 times a day - how was that run down

clownstick has no clue, can you tweet him the needed information before he tweets more lies - bet you can't walk clownstick through it

How many times has clownstick lied today, and/or repeated fake news?

How many guilty clownstick buddies? "best people"
 
lying, is what trump does 7 to 10 times a day - how was that run down

clownstick has no clue, can you tweet him the needed information before he tweets more lies - bet you can't walk clownstick through it

How many times has clownstick lied today, and/or repeated fake news?

How many guilty clownstick buddies? "best people"

Oh dear. Beachnut: perjury is lying under oath and is considered a “crime.”

Tweeting lies is not perjury, and I bet you a buffalo head nickel that he did repeat any “fake news.”

Happy to walk you through this in more detail anytime. Plus grammar lessons: On the house as they say. :thumbsup:
 
was that an attempt to defend the person who committed perjury?

No

do you not understand the difference between lying under oath and lying?

I recognize both involve lying. Lying in a president (under oath or not) should be condemned, but it's cute watching you try to defend it anyway.

I'd be happy to "walk" you through it.

Knock yourself out, chief. Your hypocrisy amuses me.
 
Oh dear. Beachnut: perjury is lying under oath and is considered a “crime.”

Tweeting lies is not perjury, and I bet you a buffalo head nickel that he did repeat any “fake news.”
Happy to walk you through this in more detail anytime. Plus grammar lessons: On the house as they say. :thumbsup:

Oh, this'll be rich. The person who wrote the first hilited part (which is incomprehensible) is offering the second hilited part.

But to return to your well-wrought argument.... I gather what you're saying, masquerading as a nitpick, is that lying is okay as long as it's not under oath.

See, it happens that Clinton's lie was under oath and thus perjury. The discussion was about lying, though. Unless, of course, you're claiming that none of you (the frothing right wing) cared that Clinton lied, in which case you just need to link us to contemporary right-wingers saying, "Oh, I think that there's nothing wrong with lying, but technically he lied under oath and that's perjury so we're forced to go after him for something which we don't think is wrong as a general behavior."

Further, just for the record, may it please the court. Bill Clinton was found innocent of perjury. The final trial is in the Senate (I'd be happy to walk you through this in more detail any time, plus civic lessons (on the Senate as they say) :thumbsup:).
 
Oh, this'll be rich. The person who wrote the first hilited part (which is incomprehensible) is offering the second hilited part.

But to return to your well-wrought argument.... I gather what you're saying, masquerading as a nitpick, is that lying is okay as long as it's not under oath.

See, it happens that Clinton's lie was under oath and thus perjury. The discussion was about lying, though. Unless, of course, you're claiming that none of you (the frothing right wing) cared that Clinton lied, in which case you just need to link us to contemporary right-wingers saying, "Oh, I think that there's nothing wrong with lying, but technically he lied under oath and that's perjury so we're forced to go after him for something which we don't think is wrong as a general behavior."

Further, just for the record, may it please the court. Bill Clinton was found innocent of perjury. The final trial is in the Senate (I'd be happy to walk you through this in more detail any time, plus civic lessons (on the Senate as they say) :thumbsup:).

Clinton lies in a deposition about having a consensual petting session. Definitely wrong. Still it had little to do with anything.

But since lying under oath is what bothers the Big Dog, he should then take into account that Trump has lied under oath more than 20 times in court and various depositions over the years.

I wonder how he rationalizes that?
 
Last edited:
Hi! Y'all said it was their "problem," without actually bothering to explain why their analysis was a "problem" at all.

It seems you are walking that back, which... ok.
Walking back what? A source was unreliable. I'm clutching my pearls as hard as I can.


The article says it is a problem for Mueller but never says why.
 
Clinton lies in a deposition about having a consensual petting session. Definitely wrong. Still it had little to do with anything.

But since lying under oath is what bothers the Big Dog, he should then take into account that Trump has lied under oath more than 20 times in court and various depositions over the years.

I wonder how he rationalizes that?


I expect it'll be something along the lines of, "Well, he wasn't President then.".

Just because he did it repeatedly before he was elected, that doesn't mean he'd do it now. All past sins are forgiven once you get past the post. (As long as you're a Republican, of course.

And, as we were told so many times during the campaign, once he was elected he'll act more presidential.

(We can see how well that's worked out. :rolleyes:)

As has been pointed out, he hasn't testified under oath yet.

There's a reason for that. And it isn't because his lawyers expect he'd act presidential. It has a lot more to do with his apparently congenital inability to tell the truth even when it's to his own advantage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom