Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
This does not look good. Basically, he/his earlier campaign lied about what happened. Disappointing, but certainly not enough for me to not vote for Harris. Does anyone think this will be a problem for the ticket?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So let me get this straight something that happened almost thirty years ago, was lied about 20 years ago.
And I should care now?
Did he pay his fines, and restitution, and settle all court requirements? Yes? Ok then, next issue please.
I believe that the charges were reduced, though I don't know why.
Understand.As far as I know, he did make full restitution. I just don't know what the 'optics' of this will be once it is more widely known. Fox 'news' and others will obsess over this. It is a speed bump only, *hopefully*.
Yes, but we all lie about that. I know very few people that are honest about the details of their DUIs. **** I was arrested for one last year. There is a reason I don't run for politics, they will tear apart anything just to make you look bad.His dishonesty on this is, though, disappointing.
Understand.
Yes, but we all lie about that. I know very few people that are honest about the details of their DUIs. **** I was arrested for one last year. There is a reason I don't run for politics, they will tear apart anything just to make you look bad.
That often happens with first time offenders. A DUI is a very heavy charge and judges are often willing to work with those that show remorse and are first time offenders. And not just the powerful and influential. A female friend of mine had that happen to her. She had to get a driver interlock device and take various other steps, but her charges were greatly reduced as well. There often is the threat of reintroducing the original charges if one fails on the program designed to keep a person from drinking and driving again. Oh, and she has not repeated. Once was enough for her too.I believe that the charges were reduced, though I don't know why.
Oh well, I wouldn't know.That often happens with first time offenders. A DUI is a very heavy charge and judges are often willing to work with those that show remorse and are first time offenders. And not just the powerful and influential. A female friend of mine had that happen to her. She had to get a driver interlock device and take various other steps, but her charges were greatly reduced as well. There often is the threat of reintroducing the original charges if one fails on the program designed to keep a person from drinking and driving again. Oh, and she has not repeated. Once was enough for her too.
Hardly. You should have read the whole article. He came clean at least six years ago and perhaps before then:Yeah, I think the charges were dropped. The issue of his dishonesty, though, is a bit of a nail in a tire of the Harris honeymoon bus, I fear.
Expect MAGA to suddenly have concerns about criminal behavior. But only when it’s democrats. Even if it was 30 years ago and irrelevant today.
Hardly. You should have read the whole article.
From my own personal experience I would not know either. But I know enough people that have done wrongs over the years. Judges are almost always willing to lower charges for introductory crimes (rape and murder not so much). If the first time that a person drove drunk was the last our traffic fatalities would drop dramatically. That is why they focus more on treatment and solving the problem rather than revenge. We have learned over the years that just locking people up does not solve the problems that caused the behavior. I have no problem with harsh punishment for repeat offenders. Some people cannot learn and have to be prevented from harming others. But I will give everyone at least one Mulligan if they have not harmed others.Oh well, I wouldn't know.
Yes, he was And he came clean about it at least 6 years ago according to the article that the OP linked. It is not even 'news" at this point.His campaign was lying about it well into the 2000s though. I mean, according to the link I posted.
“According to Walz’s campaign staff, Walz denies being drunk the night of the incident. Walz was hard of hearing, a result of his years as an artillery soldier in the Army National Guard, and had trouble hearing the trooper, according to Meredith Salsbery, communications director for the Walz campaign,” read the report in the New Ulm Journal, a local newspaper.
“He couldn’t understand what the trooper was telling him during the field sobriety test, and the trooper refused to speak up,” Salsbery said at the time.
In 2018, when running for governor, Walz offered a markedly different version of events.
According to Walz, the arrest was a life-changing moment, motivating him to change his behavior. He said he has since given up alcohol and his go-to drink is now Diet Mountain Dew.
“You have responsibilities to others,” Gwen Walz recalled telling her husband. “You can’t afford to make foolish decisions.”
Yeah, I think the charges were dropped. The issue of his dishonesty, though, is a bit of a nail in a tire of the Harris honeymoon bus, I fear.
Yep, about 25 years later. Oh well.I agree. It's unfortunate for sure. He does acknowledge this now and apologizes for his past actions, so that's something at the very least
Getting a DUI is often a matter of bad luck. I can say that there have been times, maybe 4-6 in my life, that I drove my car and surely would have failed a sobriety test. I limit my drinking but have been lucky.Understand.
Yes, but we all lie about that. I know very few people that are honest about the details of their DUIs. **** I was arrested for one last year. There is a reason I don't run for politics, they will tear apart anything just to make you look bad.