Netanyahu’s Speech To Congress Becoming Even More Of A Partisan Football

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu's speech to Congress is becoming even more partisan, much to the apparent chagrin of the Israelis.

U.S. Israeli Flags

Israel appears to be trying to pin blame on Congressional Republicans for the diplomatic mess that has been created by the invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a Joint Session of Congress on the eve of Israel’s Parliamentary elections notwithstanding objections from the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats:

A senior Israeli official suggested on Friday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been misled into thinking an invitation to address the U.S. Congress on Iran next month was fully supported by the Democrats.

Netanyahu was invited by the Republican speaker of the house, John Boehner, to address Congress on March 3, an invitation Boehner originally described as bipartisan.

The move angered the White House, which is upset about the event coming two weeks before Israeli elections and that Netanyahu, who has a testy relationship with Democratic President Barack Obama, is expected to be critical of U.S. policy on Iran.

“It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides,” Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi told 102 FM Tel Aviv Radio on Friday.

The interviewer asked if that meant Netanyahu had been “misled” into believing Boehner’s invitation was bipartisan, a characterization Hanegbi did not contest.

Asked whether the prime minister should cancel or postpone the speech, Hanegbi said: “What would the outcome be then? The outcome would be that we forsake an arena in which there is a going to be a very dramatic decision (on Iran).”

The invitation has led to criticism of Boehner by Democrats and repeated statements by Boehner and other Republicans explaining their position.

Top Democratic lawmaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday the event was “politicized” and she hoped it would not take place – piling pressure on Netanyahu after the White House said it would not meet him during the visit.

Daniel Larison isn’t buying it:

I don’t think anyone will buy the story that Netanyahu was so unaware of the Speaker’s intention to rebuke the president on Iran that he really could have believed it was a bipartisan invitation. Even a minimally-informed follower of American politics would be able to see through the pretense that this was a bipartisan offer. This story is an odd sort of spin, since it actually manages to make Netanyahu look worse in some respects than he did before.

The spin seems implausible to me as well. Whatever else you might say about him, Netanyahu is obviously an intelligent man and, more importantly, he’s someone whose experiences have given him insights on how politics works in the United States that many foreign leaders likely don’t have. It’s simply not plausible that neither he nor his advisers would be aware enough of the political situation in Congress to realize that accepting this invitation to address Congress regarding sanctions legislation that the White House has already publicly stated that it opposes due to the fact that it interferes with the ongoing international negotiations with Iran would set off the very partisan battle that we are seeing right now. Indeed, given the fact that Israeli leaders have historically been very careful about not wanting the issue of U.S, support for Israel to become a partisan issue, one would think that Netanyahu and his advisers would have been even more acutely aware of the consequences of allowing the Prime Minister to be pulled into a partisan dispute on Capitol Hill.

Now that they are in the middle of a dispute they probably would have preferred to avoid, though, the Israelis find themselves in a quandry. Go forward with the speech and risk poisoning the well of U.S.-Israeli relations or cancel the speech and admit that it was wrong to accept the invitation to begin with. The fact that Vice-President Biden has announced that he will not be attending the speech due to “overseas travel,” a move that is likely to lead many other Democrats to feel free to skip the speech or at least announce that they are doing so. If nothing else, this indicates that keeping the speech as scheduled will just guarantee that it becomes more and more partisan. Given that, I suspect that we’ll be seeing an announcement in the near future that the speech has been “postponed” or rescheduled.

Please follow and like us:
FILED UNDER: Congress, Middle East, US Politics, ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Netanyahu’s Speech To Congress Becoming Even More Of A Partisan Football

    Hacker: Dorothy, you’ve got to help me. This is a real hot potato. If I don’t do anything, it could turn into a banana skin.
    Bernard: Prime Minister, a hot potato can’t become a banana skin.
    Hacker: What?
    Bernard: Well if you don’t do anything, a hot potato just becomes a cold potato.

  2. michael reynolds says:

    Now Bibi’s throwing Republicans under the bus? It’s like some kind of weird lost Seinfeld episode. This is excellent. The only downside is that the Iranians must also be laughing.

    Ambassador Dermer: update your resumé.

  3. C. Clavin says:

    It was partisan political stunt from the Republicans in Congress from the beginning.
    So how does it become more partisan?
    Democrats refusing to participate in partisan theater makes the partisan theater more partisan?
    Huh?

  4. anjin-san says:

    A partisan football? No. A looming political debacle for Republicans? Yes.

    Look for increased “ISIS is going to kill us all” chatter, along with circling back to Benghazi and more impeachment whispers. The GOP badly needs to change the subject.

  5. HarvardLaw92 says:

    he’s first and foremost a politician – one facing a close reelection battle in which he just damaged himself – and he’ll react like one.

    Remembering when I said this just a few days ago …

  6. munchbox says:

    Figures three out of the four comments on this waste of a post is by the resident lap dogs. It is a partisan issue because zero is a partisan hack plain and simple. You guys remind me of the penguins finding Nemo. How about that zero’s prayer breakfast speech? That’s twice now he inadvertently called himself a muslim.

  7. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Anybody else suddenly hearing an annoying buzzing sound, like the one a gnat makes?

  8. munchbox says:

    Ha! So witty. At least you have the moral high ground and are never wrong. Mine, mine, mine,minemineminemine. Bzzzz

  9. HarvardLaw92 says:

    There it is again!

  10. humanoid.panda says:

    @munchbox: Yawn.

  11. @munchbox:

    You guys remind me of the penguins finding Nemo.

    You remind me of how seagulls look nothing like penguins.

  12. munchbox says:

    Right! my bad…see you are always right

  13. Greg says:

    @munchbox:

    How about that zero’s prayer breakfast speech? That’s twice now he inadvertently called himself a muslim.

    Which part of the historic facts did you not agree with? Or do you as many others care to re-write it?
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sorry-fox-obama-was-right-about-christianitys-terrible-deeds

  14. michael reynolds says:

    @Greg:

    Look, let me explain: history began in 2008. There was no prior administration which contrived to lose two wars and crash the economy. There were certainly no crusades, Inquisition, witch trials, anti-semitic pogroms or Holocaust. There was happy happy, joy joy under the philosopher king Ronald Reagan. . . and then a Muslim negro communist.

    That’s just historical fact.

  15. munchbox says:

    Rewrite what exactly? Him saying he was a muslim again?“

    We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends,”

    Funny article you got there Greg… So zero equated Isis to the crusades…and you post something for the thirty years war? Centuries removed from each other …makes total sense…

  16. Greg says:

    Comparisons escape you, I guess.
    If you can point me to a sound byte where he says ‘I am a Muslim’, please do.

  17. anjin-san says:

    I see Jenos’ stupider alter ego has arrived…

  18. Greg says:
  19. michael reynolds says:

    @munchbox:
    No, you’re right: he is a Muslim. Who doesn’t pray toward Mecca and east pork. Absolutely a Muslim.

    Pretty sure this is a new low for you. Is it like some kind of contest between you and bill and Jenos?

  20. munchbox says:

    That’s easy Greg…

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/11/obama-my-muslim-faith/?page=all

    Well there was that one time he had that Freudian slip .. ” my muslim faith”…..

    And the time he said ” I will stand with the Muslims”

    And don’t forget “the future doesn’t belong to those who slander the prophet”

    Then there was that time he traded five terrorists for a deserter and had the bearded guy praise Allah from the Whitehouse…

    Oh and this gem from his home state…http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/716/Hawaii-ldquoIslam-Dayrdquo-secretly-marks-September-11.aspx

  21. munchbox says:

    Oh I almost forgot ” the most beautiful sound is the muslim call to prayer”

  22. Grumpy Realist says:

    DNFTFT.

  23. munchbox says:

    GR Yeah and I am a hungry troll….

  24. michael reynolds says:

    @munchbox:

    If only your teeny, tiny brain was hungry.

  25. munchbox says:

    At turd mouth I know right?! it’s just so filled up with “hands up don’t shoot” and “bengazhi” ( don’t forget the exclamation point)! Oh and the flagrant dead baby fetus waving…There no room for anything else.

  26. Grumpy Realist says:

    Netanyahu probably thought he could come to the US, get President Obama to attend because the President wouldn’t want to be “impolite”, say all sorts of embarrassing things, and standard AIPAC lapdogs would fawn on him and keep Obama from doing anything. And now it isn’t working out, he’s got his private parts caught in the wringer, and he’s desperately looking for a way out.

    I just hope that at some point the US stops indulging the spoiled brat tendencies of Israel.

  27. ElizaJane says:

    The person calling themself munchbox needs to be shut down. They are only degrading discussion here, not adding to it.

  28. munchbox says:

    I think you mean Netanyahu probably thought he could come to the US warn congress of the impending diaster that is the zero’s administration….

    Desperation on the part of the United States has led to a situation in which Iran feels that it has the upper hand and can act brazenly in talks, according to Saeed Ghasseminejad, an Iranian dissident and associate fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/reports-top-iranian-negotiator-frequently-shouts-at-kerry-western-officials/

  29. CB says:

    @ElizaJane:

    It’s gotta be some high level parody. I mean look at that last post. I refuse to believe breathing people are capable of that.

  30. munchbox says:

    Jane that’s happened before. Comments deleted ..the spam filter. Can’t use that name… etc.

    And ha! Typical leftist troupe. Don’t like what have to say ?…. Call me a racist and forego free speech …nice. so typical..

  31. HarvardLaw92 says:

    If you feed strays, they’ll never leave …

  32. wr says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Apparently little Jenos is feeling neglected again, and so munchbox magically appears. Maybe if everyone ignores him, too, they’ll all go away…

  33. Greg says:

    Trolls will troll, what to do!
    Nice to see all links point to the crazy!

  34. Gustopher says:

    Netanyahu’s only smart move here is to come down with dysentery, or have some emergency that he cannot leave Israel for.

    “I would have loved to speak before congress, but I was on the crapper and consulting with my security forces on credible threats to X.”

    How else does he avoid damaging his relations with one or the other US party? He was stupid to ever agree to come.

    Maybe, maybe, he could get away with backing out, citing the administration’s concerns, and hope that the Democrats see this is being nice to them, and the Republicans go after Obama. But that’s going to make him look weak at home right before the election.

    Anyway, good job, Republicans. You put your man in Israel in a near impossible spot, and risked damaging US-Israeli relations, all to be petty and mean to Obama. Brilliant. And, whatever happens next, I don’t see Democrats deferring to Israeli interests before considering US interests as much for the next few years — once that automatic cycle is broken, it’s going to stay broken.

  35. An Interested Party says:

    If the best response to this clusterf@ck by Netanyahu and Boehner is to try to push some foolishness about the President being a Muslim…well, those in favor of the clusterf@ck have already lost…meanwhile, I am surprised there hasn’t been a post about the President’s comments at the Prayer Breakfast…that’s certainly a juicy target for all the usual suspects…

  36. Modulo Myself says:

    @CB:

    There’s a rich man named Ahmad Chalabi who begs to differ…

  37. Slugger says:

    Like all human beings, Obama has some virtues and some shortcomings. Even if you think that Obama falls far short of the ideal, I think that you must admit that Boehner seems to be trying to make Obama look like a genius. Boehner’s handling of this issue, the ACA, the authorizations for the various military adventures, and economic issues must be part of a plot to get Obama a spot on Mt. Rushmore.

  38. michael reynolds says:

    @Slugger:

    Boehner’s never had to actually consider, you know, governing. He has no experience.

  39. dmhlt says:

    Bibi Netanyahu back in 1966 on politicizing elections when then PM Peres visited the US:

    “I can’t find an example of any previous Israeli government whose prime minister, on the eve of elections, made a cynical attempt to use relations between Israel and the United States as a party advertisement”

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4618781,00.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/obama-netanyahu_n_6524824.html

  40. michael reynolds says:

    I’m afraid Israelis are deeply deluded. They’ve forgotten the essential fact that we are the big dog and they are the tail.

    American support for Israel is a mile wide but an inch deep and Netanyahu has already done serious damage to the one relationship that keeps Israel alive. Once it becomes clear to the largely distracted American public that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Boehner are essentially conspiring to push us into yet another war, support for Israel could drop like a rock. AIPAC can’t stop that. Damage is being done and it is serious and could be long-lasting.

    I don’t know who the bigger idiot is, Bibi or Boehner, but they’re both children playing with matches.

  41. Another Mike says:

    @Gustopher: @Gustopher:

    You put your man in Israel in a near impossible spot, and risked damaging US-Israeli relations, all to be petty and mean to Obama.

    Or, maybe Boehner just thought that Congress ought to hear Israel’s views on the issue, the assumption being that Congress is still a deliberative body.

  42. anjin-san says:
  43. anjin-san says:

    Then there was the remarkable moment last December when Lindsay Graham publicly stated (while on foreign soil) that Congress would cede US foreign policy making decision making to a foreign leader.

    I’m here to tell you, Mr. Prime Minister, that the Congress will follow your lead. In January of next year

    http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2014/12/27/senator-lindsey-graham-meeting-in-israel-with-pm-netanyahu-click-for-transcript/

  44. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @wr: Apparently little Jenos is feeling neglected again, and so munchbox magically appears. Maybe if everyone ignores him, too, they’ll all go away…

    You just can’t quit me, can you? Even on threads I choose to ignore at first… and I guess you will NEVER get tired of being so stupidly wrong when you say that.

    But since you’re so curious about my opinion, I’ll offer it.

    It’s now come out that the Obama administration was aware of the invitation to Netanyahu before he accepted it. So at that point, Obama had the option of short-circuiting the whole controversy and joining the invitation. Boom, whole mess averted.

    Instead, they chose to get in a snit about it and pull this whole passive-aggressive crap. And now they have to keep ratcheting it up because they’ve stuck themselves out on that limb. They pulled Joe Biden into it (after carefully explaining to him, several times, with pictures and small words), and finally just sent him out of the country. Now it’s up to the Democrats in Congress to back up Obama’s temper tantrum.

    They had two choices: co-opt the matter and welcome Netanyahu, or make a stink about how the mean old GOP was breaking the unwritten rules.

    Another interesting development was the leak that the US and Israel had cooperated in assassinating Hezbollah leader Imad Mughniyah. This was leaked just a few days ago, and one interesting speculation is that it was leaked by the Obama administration. Why? What would they gain?

    Well, it was done by the Bush administration, so it distances the Obama adminstration from the event. It also serves to remind Israel that we know a lot of their dirt, and we could release it if it suits our purposes. And it gives Israel’s enemies a fresh reason to vent their eternal outrage.

    All speculation, of course, but plausible…

  45. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Oh, wow. anjin selectively quoting someone to remove all context and smear the speaker? Why, that’s only happened… well, every time anjin does that.

    The full quote makes it abundantly clear that Graham was talking specifically and only about dealing with Iran’s nuclear program.

    So here’s what you can expect in January when the new Congress reconvenes: Mr. Prime Minister, of all the leaders in the entire world, you’ve had the most consistent message regarding Iran: Beware of the Iranians – they lie, they cheat. To those who believe the Iranians have not been trying to develop a nuclear weapon, if you come to America, you should not be allowed to drive on our highways. Clearly, this regime for years has been deceiving the international community, has been trying to pursuit, in my view, a nuclear weapon.

    I would love nothing better than a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear ambitions. I support the Administration’s effort to try to bring this to a peaceful conclusion. But you, above all others, have said that sanctions are what got Iran to the table, and it will be the only thing that brings them to a deal that we can all live with.

    I’m here to tell you, Mr. Prime Minister, that the Congress will follow your lead. In January of next year, there will be a vote on the Kirk-Menendez bill, bipartisan sanction legislation that says, if Iran walks away from the table, sanctions will be re-imposed; if Iran cheats regarding any deal that we enter to the Iranians, sanctions will be re-imposed. It is important to let the Iranians know that from an American point of view, sanctions are alive and well.

    So we will be following your counsel and advice. Congress will pursue sanctions for the bigger.

  46. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Graham was talking specifically and only about dealing with Iran’s nuclear program.

    I don’t really give a crap what he was talking about, those words should never have left his mouth. At any rate, it seems that you and Graham are ok with the Republicans on the hill taking their marching orders from a foreigner, placing his direction above that of the President of the United States.

    I am going to have to go look up the definition of “treason” again.

  47. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: I am going to have to go look up the definition of “treason” again.

    Here, let me save you the effort. After all, you seem to have trouble with definitions — I recall you going into Epic Fail mode over “unmarked,” “murder,” and “suborn.”

    Here’s the United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    So, Israel is an Enemy of the United States? Interesting opinion you have there.

    Or, at least, an interesting opinion you’re inferring there. After all, you only hinted that, you didn’t actually say it. I wouldn’t want to give you yet another chance to play the “ha ha, you thought I said something and I didn’t” game.

  48. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    “murder,” and “suborn.”

    When did I have this discussion with you? Please be specific.

  49. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: I never said you misused the words yourself, anjin. Just that you had problems with their definition — in this case, not noticing or caring when others misused them. Don’t go putting words in my mouth.

    But thanks for admitting (by omission) that you misused “unmarked.” A little honesty, now and then, is good for the soul. You should try it more often.

  50. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    So, Israel is an Enemy of the United States? Interesting opinion you have there.

    Once again, you are inventing a position for me that I do not actually hold. You seem to do that a lot. I refer you to my above comment:

    I am going to have to go look up the definition of “treason”

    So then, treason does not quite fit. What then do you call it when an American political leader defers policy making to a foreign leader? When he actively works with a foreign leader to undermine the policies of the President, who was elected by the American people to conduct foreign policy? And what do you call it when people such as yourself act as enablers? Perhaps “disloyal” is a better word.

  51. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: What then do you call it when an American political leader defers policy making to a foreign leader?

    You mean like when Obama chose to defer control over his Libyan campaign to NATO? Or when he told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that “after my election I have more flexibility” to deal with issues like missile defense? Or how Obama has essentially deferred his immigration and southern border security to Mexico?

    In this particular case, it looks to me like a US Senator told a foreign leader that said leader had demonstrated his knowledge and trustworthiness and friendship sufficiently that the Senator would put his faith in that leader on a certain particular issue where that leader has had extensive experience, and on a matter where that leader has a great deal more at stake than the US does.

    But I’m not defending the Senator in question, who was in full “campaign mode” (something Obama is pretty much all the time) and, I hope, spoke with a bit of hyperbole.

    But it’s too bad that, in this case, Obama decided it would be more advantageous to him to use Netanyahu’s visit as a club to beat both the GOP and Netanyahu. This was not a fight he had to have; it’s his “war of choice.”

  52. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    This was not a fight he had to have

    It’s not a “fight” at all, it’s a wipeout, with Netanyahu running for cover, and throwing Baehner under the bus in the process.

    US Senator told a foreign leader that said leader had demonstrated his knowledge and trustworthiness and friendship sufficiently that the Senator would put his faith in that leader on a certain particular issue where that leader has had extensive experience, and on a matter where that leader has a great deal more at stake than the US does You are not an American, you were not elected by Americans, you hold no position in the US government, and despite that, we are letting you call the shots.

    FTFY

  53. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    But thanks for admitting (by omission) that you misused “unmarked.”

    Actually, no. I addressed this specific issue at some length the other day. I do understand though, why you would want to pretend otherwise.

  54. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: You did? I’m sorry I missed it. I’m sure it was full of heartfelt grief that you lied when you said it, and apologies to Darren Wilson and the audience here, and thanks to me for pointing out your false statements, and pledges to be far, far more cautious in the future.

  55. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    You don’t want to let go of this? Fine. Let’s look at the photos again.

    Wilson testified under oath that the 6’4″, 300 pound Brown punched him in the face twice with such force that another such blow might kill him.

    Now, look at the pictures, and explain how a man who had suffered blows to the face of such titanic force looks like he does, and not like he was hit by a runaway train. Keep in mind that Wilson, at 6 foot plus and 220 pounds, said he felt like “a five year old” when he experienced Brown’s tremendous strength.

    Or, you can bitch out and try to turn this into an argument about semantics, call me a liar, and proclaim yet another vast victory for yourself.

    Personally, I think you will go with what’s behind door #2.

  56. anjin-san says:

    Well, I think that little Jenos has has all – hmmm, let me amend that – far more attention then he merits. Time to head over to the People’s Republic of Berkeley for dinner and a movie.

  57. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: annie, you said “unmarked,” and you link to photos of the mark. And you repeatedly mischaracterized Wilson’s statements, and you’re doing it again here.

    So you’re whining that I’m finally playing your own game, and beating you at it. No wonder you’re running away.

  58. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Don’t go putting words in my mouth.

    Ah, I see. A stand up guy like you does not believe in that sort of thing.

    I’m sure it was full of heartfelt grief that you lied when you said it, and apologies to Darren Wilson and the audience here, and thanks to me for pointing out your false statements, and pledges to be far, far more cautious in the future.

    I have to admit, you are good for laughs sometimes Jenos. Sadly for you, it’s not the kind of laughter one wants to have directed at them.

    Gotta go, Salvadorian food awaits…

  59. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I’m finally playing your own game, and beating you at it.

    Never saw this coming. Oh wait, I did:

    proclaim yet another vast victory for yourself.

    🙂

  60. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Don’t you have dinner and a movie awaiting you?

    But back on topic… Obama chose to turn this into a confrontation. He could have been graceful and ignored a chance to score domestic political points, to be a statesman and not the relentless partisan campaigner, to be the bigger man… and he chose not to.

    Oh, well…

  61. Moosebreath says:

    If Bibi has lost Abe Foxman , he needs to fold up his tent on this. Not only is Foxman about as established a leader of the American Jewish community as there is, but he leans strongly towards the support Israel no matter what camp. So, if he is saying:

    ““One needs to restart, and it needs a mature adult statement that this was not what we intended,” Foxman told the Forward. He said that going ahead as planned with the speech would be counter-productive, with all attention given to the political controversy rather than to the issue at stake. “It has been hijacked by politics,” Foxman said. “Now is a time to recalibrate, restart and find a new platform and new timing to take away the distractions.””

    you know it’s time to fold on this.

  62. jukeboxgrad says:

    Another Mike:

    maybe Boehner just thought that Congress ought to hear Israel’s views on the issue

    How sad that Netanyahu cannot communicate his views to Congress without standing in a room where they are all present. Eventually technology will advance and this problem will be solved, after humans invent such things as written words and telephones.

    It’s almost as if this is pure political theatre and has nothing to do with “hear … views.”

  63. wr says:

    @anjin-san: Where do you go for Salvadoran food in Berkeley?

  64. anjin-san says:

    @ wr

    Plantano on University. Nothing fancy, but good food at a reasonable price, which is what I always look for after years of working at trendy restaurants.

  65. Grewgills says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I recall you going into Epic Fail mode over “unmarked,” “murder,” and “suborn.”

    I remember the discussion about suborning perjury and it was you, Jenos, that came out looking the fool. You tried to score a narrow semantic point with a generic definition of suborn. When the legal definition showed you completely wrong and multiple lawyers showed you wrong, you bailed. Then, as is your pattern, you come back in another thread and claim victory.
    Regarding the “unmarked” comment, that was a bit of an exaggeration by Anjin, so you do have a narrow semantic victory there. However, the actual mark that he linked to was a bit of redness and a small bruise that does not match the story Officer Wilson gave and you favorably commented on. On the greater point there you were wrong.
    I have no idea what you were on about re: murder.

  66. Grewgills says:

    Sigh, apologies for falling into the SIWOTI trap and contributing to the derail.