HOWEVER, having said THAT.....I don't know that I disagree with the Court's ruling. (I'm agreeing with the 9th Circuit...God help me!) The man is a bald-faced liar but do we REALLY want lying to be grounds for the federal government to come in and put us in jail? Where does it stop? If I speak at a group and tell out and out lies about the president (it would be hard to make up lies that could top the TRUTH about him!), should I be arrested for doing so? Someone should call my hand and chastise me for TELLING those lies but do we really want repulsive, disgusting, untrue speech to be punished by the federal government? And who is to say exactly which lies are federal offenses and which are not? Or whether it IS a lie or not? The President? Do we not fear that he, or some future despot in power here, will misuse and abuse their power by arresting ANY kind of dissenting speech?
The Ninth over stepped it's position. By ruling this way, it truly depends on the definition of what is is.
This allows the further denigration of the Rule of Law to mean what ever a self serving individual wants it
to mean. In the cases of Kerry and Clinton it allows them to lie to advance their own careers at the cost
of others. It allows them to enrich themselves personally at the expense of others.
Why have the Rule of Law unless there are consequences for actions?
There are consequences for lying. It's called perjury, or fraud. By lying about his awards to obtain a public office, he committed both offenses.
