[quote]vroom wrote:
What a pile of horse puckey.
It’s just more argument that says it isn’t important anyway, so who cares. Either the law was broken or people were lying while questioned (or not).[/quote]
No. Seems the situation is that the laws relating to national security WEREN’T broken, that the prosecutor never even planned to allege that they were broken, and now one person stands accused of lying under oath – something which, by itself, is serious, but has nothing to do with national security issues. And recall, this is “accused” of lying under oath, not convicted of perjuring himself.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Whether or not there was in any damage due to alleged activities is not the issue at hand… and should have no bearing. [/quote]
Actually, it is the issue, given the claims made at the beginning that this whole investigation was a big deal because of national security concerns, and how people who had the temerity to claim that it didn’t look like there were any national security issues were somehow partisan hacks apologizing for the administration and denying reality. Recall any of that? Where, oh where, are even the allegations of important national security issues?
[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s sort of like pointing a gun and firing, but missing your target. Attempting to kill someone is illegal, the fact you missed and no damage was done doesn’t make it excusable.[/quote]
No, it’s kind of like someone on the side saying he thought he saw someone pointing a gun in the shadows around the corner, then someone else arguing it wasn’t likely based on the facts, and that second person being called a partisan hack while the supposed argument was that “it might well have happened.” And then, when no one is even accused of pointing a gun, the accuser still refusing to admit that there was never anyone pointing a gun to begin with.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I am amazed that people would use that style of argument in this day and age…[/quote]
So am I, but I’m assuming for different reasons…