3 ms·
That’s weaseling out. She isn’t doing that here even though she could. She just doesn’t want to do that because I imagine she is principled. That’s honorable.
by ak39 7y ago
That’s weaseling out. She isn’t doing that here even though she could. She just doesn’t want to do that because I imagine she is principled. That’s honorable.
- scotty79 7y agoI don't argue with that. But that's one silly law that judge can compel you to talk but you can easily weasel your way out of it by saying things that might be true and give no information. I think such law shouldn't exist as it can only harm only truthful, principled people but can do nothing to any wrongdoer.
- trickstra 7y agoIn principle, wrongdoers always have more options available than moral people. Because being moral prevents you from using some ways that would be considered immoral, while the wrongdoers don't have those restrictions, therefore can and will weasel out. In the movies the good side wins even despite this limitation, then heroes are celebrated for their morality and bravery, but in the real life... well...
- nullc 7y ago> That’s weaseling out. It would in many ways be the only honest answer. The facts in question are almost a decade ago now. Chelsea is now in many senses a different person. The fine details of her comments could result in the execution of another person. Anyone who is confident of the fine details from events ten years ago before experiencing a multitude of bad experiences is probably significantly overconfident in their recollection.