4 ms·

Certainly, Bush and Cheney invaded a country under false pretenses after lying to the public. They also set up a surveillance state with the help of major corpo

Certainly, Bush and Cheney invaded a country under false pretenses after lying to the public. They also set up a surveillance state with the help of major corporations. And, maybe not so much of a crime, they set us on the path of thinking that deficits don't matter in this country: so for their increases in spending they steadfastly lowered taxes. And the bank bailouts.... The unfortunate matter though is the damage they did to this country was fairly bipartisan, which I believe plays a large part in Bush's rehabilitation in the public image after leaving office. At least he didn't make mean jokes like some people.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
Let's not forget Clapper who literally perjured himself in front of congress. Also most of the creatures in the state department during the Bush years, including of course Bolton, and also others, Frum in particular. And of course, let's not forget Hillary, who is silent as a rock right about now. Since you know, breaking the law is now en vogue to prosecute.
- simoncion 4y ago
  Clapper did not literally perjure himself in front of Congress. He _absolutely_ did not. It was impossible for him to do so because he was never testifying under oath. See: <https://www.c-span.org/video/?311436-1/senate-intelligence-cmte-hearing-worldwide-threats-us https://www.c-span.org/video/?311436-1/senate-intelligence-c...> for a recording of what I believe is the Senate hearing to which you are referring. Also consider the following quote from the Congressional Research Service about how the Senate chooses to place folks under oath: > By statute, any Senator is authorized to administer the oath to a witness (2 U.S.C. 191). Committee rules commonly allow testimony under oath at the discretion of a committee’s leaders. (In practice, most committees rarely require witnesses to testify under oath at legislative hearings. Sworn testimony is more common at investigative hearings and confirmation hearings.) (via: <https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-392 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-392>) Now, the NSA's lawyers absolutely _did_ lie under oath to the Supreme Court. What happened because of that? Absolutely fuckall. So, even if Clapper was testifying under oath, I'd expect absolutely nothing would have happened. (Don't forget that this is mostly the same Congress that gave every telecom company that (very, _very_ much illegally) permitted NSA warrantless access to their phone and data networks _retroactive_ immunity from prosecution.)
  - simoncion 4y ago
    > It was impossible for him to do so because he was never testifying under oath. To make my position on this clear, it absolutely _should_ be standard practice for folks testifying on matters in front of Congress to be sworn in and give testimony under oath. The fact that it's actually very uncommon ("It's not done because our Honored Guests might think that we're impugning their honor and integrity!" is more or less the excuse I've heard for not doing it.) says (to me) quite enough about how disinterested Congress is in justice and integrity.
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      I think receiving testimony from people not under oath has its place too. When they are testifying under oath, they must be much more careful about what they say. Even to the point of saying almost nothing at all if they're not totally certain which is often the case. This even applies to those who aren't actually trying to lie in any way (many recommend to never talk to police and especially not the FBI without a lawyer present under any circumstances after all). Consider if the members of Congress and the Senate were forced to take an oath before they stood up to debate. Would there be any debate at all? That said I do agree that _more_ testimony should be made under oath and that we should in general consider testimony not under oath is much more suspect. But I don't think there is a generally correct approach here.
      - frumper 4y ago
        Congress is going to make laws and policies based on what people say. People should be much more careful when saying things to congress.
calvinmorrison 4y ago
George Bush killed 1 million Iraqi's and we're here arguing about hush money for hookers. Gotta love it.

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago

Let's not forget Clapper who literally perjured himself in front of congress. Also most of the creatures in the state department during the Bush years, including of course Bolton, and also others, Frum in particular. And of course, let's not forget Hillary, who is silent as a rock right about now. Since you know, breaking the law is now en vogue to prosecute.

simoncion 4y ago
Clapper did not literally perjure himself in front of Congress. He _absolutely_ did not. It was impossible for him to do so because he was never testifying under oath. See: <https://www.c-span.org/video/?311436-1/senate-intelligence-cmte-hearing-worldwide-threats-us https://www.c-span.org/video/?311436-1/senate-intelligence-c...> for a recording of what I believe is the Senate hearing to which you are referring. Also consider the following quote from the Congressional Research Service about how the Senate chooses to place folks under oath: > By statute, any Senator is authorized to administer the oath to a witness (2 U.S.C. 191). Committee rules commonly allow testimony under oath at the discretion of a committee’s leaders. (In practice, most committees rarely require witnesses to testify under oath at legislative hearings. Sworn testimony is more common at investigative hearings and confirmation hearings.) (via: <https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-392 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-392>) Now, the NSA's lawyers absolutely _did_ lie under oath to the Supreme Court. What happened because of that? Absolutely fuckall. So, even if Clapper was testifying under oath, I'd expect absolutely nothing would have happened. (Don't forget that this is mostly the same Congress that gave every telecom company that (very, _very_ much illegally) permitted NSA warrantless access to their phone and data networks _retroactive_ immunity from prosecution.)
- simoncion 4y ago
  > It was impossible for him to do so because he was never testifying under oath. To make my position on this clear, it absolutely _should_ be standard practice for folks testifying on matters in front of Congress to be sworn in and give testimony under oath. The fact that it's actually very uncommon ("It's not done because our Honored Guests might think that we're impugning their honor and integrity!" is more or less the excuse I've heard for not doing it.) says (to me) quite enough about how disinterested Congress is in justice and integrity.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    I think receiving testimony from people not under oath has its place too. When they are testifying under oath, they must be much more careful about what they say. Even to the point of saying almost nothing at all if they're not totally certain which is often the case. This even applies to those who aren't actually trying to lie in any way (many recommend to never talk to police and especially not the FBI without a lawyer present under any circumstances after all). Consider if the members of Congress and the Senate were forced to take an oath before they stood up to debate. Would there be any debate at all? That said I do agree that _more_ testimony should be made under oath and that we should in general consider testimony not under oath is much more suspect. But I don't think there is a generally correct approach here.
    - frumper 4y ago
      Congress is going to make laws and policies based on what people say. People should be much more careful when saying things to congress.

calvinmorrison 4y ago

George Bush killed 1 million Iraqi's and we're here arguing about hush money for hookers. Gotta love it.