Posted By:
PASJDKenny I guess what I am saying is that outside the courtroom, I don't really buy the notion that someone who lies (in this case I think the better word is exaggerates but that is an unimportant quibble) on a small matter is also probably lying about everything else, or can't be trusted generally. I don't think there is a person on this earth who hasn't at one time or another said something that wasn't 100 percent accurate -- it's human nature to exaggerate and to embellish. To me, there is no per se rule. Whether a given lie/exaggeration taints an individual's overall credibility depends on the nature of the lie/exaggeration and the circumstances. Here, I just don't get bad vibes about someone slightly overstating his educational background particularly where that background is (to me anyhow) immaterial to what he does. Similarly, the fact that President Clinton lied about Lewinsky did not in my view taint his credibility as a leader -- in context, one can understand, if not condone, the reasons he lied. If an economist being offered as an expert witness lied about having a Ph.D., or said that he went to Harvard when in fact he went to (you fill in the blank, I don't want to inadvertently disparage anyone's alma mater), then that is one thing. Dave Bushing saying he has a Master's degree when he apparently completed his coursework but didn't complete his dissertation, to me anyhow, does not undermine his overall credibility. Other stuff might. I am not defending him, I don't know him, I don't own anything of his. But not this.