Should Politicians face criminal charges for lies?

If you like the [health care] plan you have, you can keep it

–President Barack Obama, June 6, 2009

We found the weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq]. We found biological laboratories

President George W. Bush, May 29, 2003

We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves

–President Lyndon Johnson, October 1964


Right/Left round the world politician lie.

And as listed above those lies have been used to trick nations into big errors and blunders.


So should politician be held accountable for those lies?

Should what they say be held countable like in a court of law?


For me if a politician is caught lieng or making a promise they had clearly no intention or ability to keep charges ranging form perjury and treason should be on the table for them.

originally posted by: crazyewok

If you like the [health care] plan you have, you can keep it

–President Barack Obama, June 6, 2009

We found the weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq]. We found biological laboratories

President George W. Bush, May 29, 2003

We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves

–President Lyndon Johnson, October 1964


Right/Left round the world politician lie.

And as listed above those lies have been used to trick nations into big errors and blunders.


So should politician be held accountable for those lies?

Should what they say be held countable like in a court of law?


For me if a politician is caught lieng or making a promise they had clearly no intention or ability to keep charges ranging form perjury and treason should be on the table for them.

Politicians put away for lying = no politicians left.

Abso - ____ing-lutely! Jail the entire first batch we have right now. And not club fed, but the walls unit, general pop, in Huntsville, TX. Then the next round might have a little more incentive to tell the truth or do their damnedest to fulfill their promises.

a reply to: crazyewok

That would be great but it would quickly result in the destruction of society as we currently understand it. No joke.

The entire artifice is built on the premise that everyone lives within the same rule set and they play the same "games".

Elites have rigged a completely different game with very different rules . The whole thing rides on the masses not being able to figure that out.

The US justice system and elections are illegitimate. The evidence of the lies, deceit and inverted incentives is staggering. It's best if the masses not wake up to that reality.

Yes, yes they should. If we (citizens) lie to police we go to jail. Same if we lie to a judge, IRS, and most any other government and/or alphabet agency. Why shouldn't they.

All political speeches being made from checkpoints. Kinda like a "hot stand" where once you stand in this location to address the people, you are standing in a lie free zone. When you knowingly cross the barrier, you should be made to make a statement that you will not LIE, then deliver your speech. If you are found in violation, your seat should then be revoked based on lie category.

originally posted by: DarkGameGod
Yes, yes they should. If we (citizens) lie to police we go to jail. Same if we lie to a judge, IRS, and most any other government and/or alphabet agency. Why shouldn't they.

My logic exactly.

You don't lie in a court of law.

So why should you be allowed to lie in Congress or parliament where laws are made?

a reply to: crazyewok

I think that a different collective can replace the politicians we have today.

Soon enough before they burn down the USA, something will change. And then start all over again.

History repeats itself.. It's a planetary conundrum

originally posted by: crazyewok
So should politician be held accountable for those lies?

The voters who elected them (or at least contributed to the election charade) should be held responsible.

a reply to: crazyewok

I think that they should have some kind of "fine" for it.
Maybe not get fired. But when politicians lie , 3 times in a row and people vote for the person again and again.
The People are taking part in letting politicians make every one look like iditos

Who gets to decide what is a lie or just a stupid politician that has no clue what they are talking about?

How can you tell if a human is lying,

Their lips are moving.

We humans have a different name we prefer
for 'nice lies' - "social skills".

But yes....politicians....robber barons...and
religious leaders are the very best of the
best of us in terms of lying skill.

We reward the very best liars with riches,
high office and impressive titles.

I have never agreed with this practice,
but its the bedrock of human culture.

I agree it should not be - most heartily.

Kev

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Who gets to decide what is a lie or just a stupid politician that has no clue what they are talking about?

A jury.

Or the one charged can opt for a trial by a judge

Just like a normal criminal trial.

Pretty simple.

If its good enough for us plebs its good enough for them.

a reply to: smurfy

Perfect result then..imprison the lying, self serving gits and reduce their numbers at the same time.

Win win.

If it can be proven then yes, definitely...

But plausible deniability would always rear its ugly head.


However, I think that Watergate, despite being more than just lying, set precedent for the Rulership...

Can't see it ever happening in my life time...

In fact, I don't think in my 27 years I've ever seen a case of Perjury for a person with a position of power.


I was wrong;
R v Knight, 6 Cr App R (S) 31, [1984] Crim LR 304, CA
R v Healey (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 297
R v Dunlop [2001] 2 Cr App R (S) 27
R v Archer [2002] EWCA Crim 1996, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 86
R v Adams [2004] 2 Cr App R (S) 15
R v Cunningham [2007] 2 Cr App R (S) 61



Archer is the one I had a feeling was Perjury, but I couldn't be sure.



I think Andy Coulson is still up for Perjury charges as well.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Who gets to decide what is a lie or just a stupid politician that has no clue what they are talking about?

A jury.

Or the one charged can opt for a trial by a judge

Just like a normal criminal trial.

Pretty simple.

Do you have any idea how much time and money that would cost? A jury could decide guilt but somebody has to decide if the so called crime is even able to be proven.
Like your example of Obama's keep your insurance.
Did he lie or did he actually have no idea what was in the aca bill? My gut tells me he was clueless.
He also promised to close gitmo, it's still open. Is that a lie or just a complete lack of understanding what it would take to close the base?
Good luck getting a jury to agree to prosecute.

I don't think that would be a good use of taxpayer dollars.

Just don't re-elect the liars.

If a politician, publicly states something will be done if he gets elected they must also add a time frame for it to happen...? If it doesn't happen? Criminal offence. Moral here, don't bull# for personal gain.

If a politician, publicly states something will be done if he gets elected they must also add a time frame for it to happen...? If it doesn't happen? Criminal offence. Moral here, don't bull# for personal gain.

I think that politicians should definitely be subject to prosecution for knowingly lying to the public.

The world knowingly is important here.

The standard would have to be that the politician knew at the time they made the statement that it was false, or would eventually turn out to be not true in the long run.

If they make a statement thinking it was true, the evidence at the time they said it made them think it was true, then it should NOT be prosecutable.

The standard would have to be:

The politician made the statement:

1. knowing it was false and there is evidence to show they knew it was false

2. knowing it was likely to be not true in the future and the politician had evidence that it was likely not to be true


Just a statement that later on turns out not to be true
and the evidence the politician had at the time
would make a reasonable person think it was true,
should not be prosecutable.


So my answer is there has to be proof the politician knew
it was a lie or very likely to be a lie.


This is the only fair standard. Sometimes even politicians, think something will turn out one way from the evidence they have at hand, but then later turns out to turn out differently than they (in all honesty) thought it would.