Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Shelby
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Well, YEAH. Even some trump lolyers know there are consequences for uttering intentional falsehoods in the course of a judicial proceeding.
|
Conversely, some Slick Willy loyalists don't know they are consequences for uttering falsehoods during the course of a judicial proceeding since they almost put him back in the white house in 2016. The east wing where he would have undoubtably had more time on his hands. (and more than time on whatever young intern(s) would have ended up there with him). |
1. Tu quoque fallacy here.
2. Clinton lied about a BJ in a civil trial, Team Trump here is lying about issues of national security. The difference in severity is clear, so it's bad even as a tu quoque fallacy.
3. Isn't it a both a bit regressive and contrary to the public image of Mrs. Clinton to think she'd cede any power to the former president had she become President?
Most Democrats I know have soured on Bill for both his personal and political weaknesses and wouldn't mind not having him in the spotlight. Why haven't the Republicans done the same for Trump? |
Re: number three. Yes it is. But her whole image is.