BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Alex[_10_]

Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 11/8/2016 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 05:46:33 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

He never said she "lied" but he did say some of her testimony was not
true.

Semantics. She testified under oath. Comey said that some of her
testimony was not true. How can you make specific statements under oath
that are not true and not be lying?

The above has been brought to you by the Save the Lemmings Foundation.

Hey we have already heard her husband debate what "is" is.
She will just be questioning about when saying something that she
knows is untrue is not a lie. (AKA perjury)
As long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate, she gets away with
it.

Ok. I get it. According to BOA, uttering a "non-truth" under oath is
*not* a lie. It's simply a "non-truth". I guess I have a ways to go
to get up to speed on modern, progressive liberal lingo.
Are you excusing your lie because you weren't under oath?
Does that make your lie a "non-truth?" In your eyes I suppose it does.
I can't put you under oath. But using the same standards you apply to
HRC, you're a low-down liar.
I can't prosecute you for lying here.
But if HRC lied to Congress, they have a remedy.
Why don't they use it?
Because this entire "lying" line is simply bull****.

How was your day today, Kevin?