I never said that. I only agreed with another poster who suggested that lying in a constitutionally required report to Congress is a lot more serious than lying in a matter unrelated to the constitution.
But there’s a law about lying under oath and no law forbidding a lie to Congress in the context of a SotU address.
So the state of the law does not agree with your assessment about which is more serious.
Charming, but irrelevant to what I actually said. I said “more serious,” not “illegal.”
But the state of the law has little to do with impeachment.
Why? Do you honestly think that anyone takes the contents of the SotU speech in the same way one would take the contents of a deposition? I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen anyone stand up and clap after the witness makes a comment in a deposition. Yes, the constitution requires the prez to update the Congress “from time to time” on the state of the union. But that doesn’t mean that a SotU speech isn’t mostly theatrical.
You’d be amazed at what sometimes happens in courtrooms!
My uncle once stunned an entire courtroom into utter silence with an unguarded answer to a question. I think laughter was about to break out, but the judge cleared his throat meaningfully, and the other attendees got the message.
I’ve noticed a great tendency for people to describe things they don’t like as “illegal.” Just because you disagree does not make it an act of criminality.
Dex, it wasn’t frivolous. Clinton committed a felony while in office. It doesn’t matter what the context was; he perjured himself and was very correctly impeached for doing so. And very incorrectly not removed from office because the Senate played politics instead of looking at the facts.
Right-wingers on this Board continually complain that they’re not treated with respect. But we often witness opinions like the preceding.
Do they sincerely believe that Clinton should have been removed from office for his lie about infidelity, and that Bush-43(*) did not deserve removal despite that he lied to start the Trillion-Dollar Blunder in Iraq? Can you understand why this seems like astoundingly poor sense of perspective to some of us?
Is it just that Bush wasn’t under oath when he appeared before Congress? Is that why the Iraq lies were acceptable?
(* - Or, change this to the impeachment of Cheney and Rove if you prefer to argue that Bush was just an incompetent puppet.)
I opposed the war in Iraq from the very beginning, and I just don’t believe that the unjustified and stupid invasion of Iraq is a high crime or misdemeanor. It is bad policy that deserved to be rectified through an election, and we all know how 2004 turned out.