stockingfull wrote:Richard S. wrote:stockingfull wrote:It's not about "lying," it's about reckless disregard for the facts.
The fact is we have video that shows a person speaking that shows many of the signs of intoxication. With nothing more than a denial and without an explanation for the behavior the conclusion is easy to draw.
Here's the difference, Richard. We have proof that Mark Foley is a pedophile and a liar. And I take it that it's provable that Foley has it in for Max Baucus for playing a part in running his sorry ass out of town.
However, we don't have any proof that Max Baucus had been drinking in the first vid above. He neither misspoke nor used deficient grammar. Moreover, what he said was 100% accurate in substance.
And, as I pointed out way above, even if he had a drink or two -- or thirty, he still had enough left to make the Senate Republicans look as cynical and venal as they in fact are.
So there's the difference between "proof" and speculation. You can't even get your drivers license taken away for the kind of "proof" you think you have.
Can you cite the relevant case against Mr. Foley? I'd like to read the evidence against him and the jury's verdict.
Because I know you wouldn't argue against someone else OPINION based on YOUR opinion.