4 ms·

Why not Millard Filmore or Zachary Taylor? King George III, perhaps? Regardless, I wasn't around for either but I can do a quick search and find Carter was the

Why not Millard Filmore or Zachary Taylor? King George III, perhaps? Regardless, I wasn't around for either but I can do a quick search and find Carter was the first sitting president questioned under oath[1], after a 7 month investigation. He was cleared but that does qualify as a scandal. Eisenhower is going to be too easy, even as a war hero, but if you insist I will. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/nyregion/07curran.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/nyregion/07curran.html

pjc50 7y ago
I suppose we should distinguish between "corruption scandal that found something", "corruption 'scandal' that cleared the President", and "corruption scandal where the President fired or tried to fire the investigators".
- brigandish 7y ago
  We could, but that would usually be called moving the goalposts, which is a sign an argument is floundering. It's also not what I claimed but you do seem intent on making Trump out to be the exception and not the rule. Maybe you should try finding someone who makes the claim you want so you can construct the convenient argument you need?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - pjc50 7y ago
    But he is though. No other president has had quite so many people in his campaign staff jailed. https://www.axios.com/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-investigations-206295a1-5abc-4573-be25-4da19d9adcc9.html https://www.axios.com/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-inv...
    - brigandish 7y ago
      I'm glad you've found a metric that suits. Is this better or worse than the Afghanistan/Iraq war? Personally, I find the war(s) with its dodgy dossiers and myriad war crimes and everything that came out of it much worse but maybe I care more about people being bombed than people committing crimes like selling bank account numbers. How strange. > He has no known connection to Trump. Why is he listed then? I thought the headline read "All the Trump associates convicted or sentenced in the Mueller investigation" but maybe I'm wrong about that too. Am I wrong?

pjc50 7y ago

I suppose we should distinguish between "corruption scandal that found something", "corruption 'scandal' that cleared the President", and "corruption scandal where the President fired or tried to fire the investigators".

brigandish 7y ago
We could, but that would usually be called moving the goalposts, which is a sign an argument is floundering. It's also not what I claimed but you do seem intent on making Trump out to be the exception and not the rule. Maybe you should try finding someone who makes the claim you want so you can construct the convenient argument you need?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pjc50 7y ago
  But he is though. No other president has had quite so many people in his campaign staff jailed. https://www.axios.com/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-investigations-206295a1-5abc-4573-be25-4da19d9adcc9.html https://www.axios.com/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-inv...
  - brigandish 7y ago
    I'm glad you've found a metric that suits. Is this better or worse than the Afghanistan/Iraq war? Personally, I find the war(s) with its dodgy dossiers and myriad war crimes and everything that came out of it much worse but maybe I care more about people being bombed than people committing crimes like selling bank account numbers. How strange. > He has no known connection to Trump. Why is he listed then? I thought the headline read "All the Trump associates convicted or sentenced in the Mueller investigation" but maybe I'm wrong about that too. Am I wrong?