mrs reb77
09-04-2008, 05:50 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/uselections2008.joebiden
This isn't the only story about this but was the handiest.
In it there are two different, distinct statements by Biden that seem to be ... opposed to each other:
"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued – not out of vengeance, not out of retribution, out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law."
...
"What is true is the United States Congress is trying to preserve records on questions that relate to whether or not the law has been violated by anyone," Biden said, adding: "But, you know, there's been an awful lot of unsavoury stuff that's gone on. And the mere fact … that it occurred in a previous administration doesn't mean [a subsequent] Justice Department, if, in fact, there's evidence, shouldn't pursue them. "But I have no evidence of any of that. No one's talking about pursuing President Bush criminally."
So, first he answers this:
When asked during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, whether he would "pursue the violations that have been made against our Constitution by the present administration", Biden answered in the affirmative.
But then says:
"But I have no evidence of any of that. No one's talking about pursuing President Bush criminally."
I obviously get confused easily....:o
This isn't the only story about this but was the handiest.
In it there are two different, distinct statements by Biden that seem to be ... opposed to each other:
"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued – not out of vengeance, not out of retribution, out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law."
...
"What is true is the United States Congress is trying to preserve records on questions that relate to whether or not the law has been violated by anyone," Biden said, adding: "But, you know, there's been an awful lot of unsavoury stuff that's gone on. And the mere fact … that it occurred in a previous administration doesn't mean [a subsequent] Justice Department, if, in fact, there's evidence, shouldn't pursue them. "But I have no evidence of any of that. No one's talking about pursuing President Bush criminally."
So, first he answers this:
When asked during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, whether he would "pursue the violations that have been made against our Constitution by the present administration", Biden answered in the affirmative.
But then says:
"But I have no evidence of any of that. No one's talking about pursuing President Bush criminally."
I obviously get confused easily....:o