Discussion in 'Politicants' started by Tenacious D, Jan 23, 2020.

  1. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    And if he's dishonest? An honest account would necessarily not be able to mention his decision was the right one because it was lawful, without pointing out this means other decisions made must be unlawful OR this decision was not in fact lawful. You can't have it both ways. Either lying to the FBI is or is not a crime. Can't be sometimes a crime.
  2. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    I'm not a lawyer, but this certainly wouldn't be the first time something illegal was dismissed because it was prompted by improper action from the authorities. You can look up the transcript and read his explanation for yourself and decide if you agree or not.

    You can't read it and then tell me that his only explanation for his decision was that it was a political move.
  3. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    Well apparently I can. So there.

    But I get your point. I haven't made a very coherent one, sorry for that. If they apologized, I guess they own it as wrong.
  4. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Their critique of him was untrue and uncalled for. Whether or not he made the right decision in regards to Flynn is as relevant as whether or not Arbery committed robbery.
  5. Indy

    Indy Does not get lucky

    Wow, we can’t even agree on this Chuck Todd situation? This one is about as straight forward as they come.
  6. cpninja

    cpninja Member


    i chuckled

    oops meant to post this in Facebook thread lol
    Last edited: May 19, 2020
  7. Butthole

    Butthole Chieftain

  8. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

Share This Page