sphere wrote:
I'm familiar with the exchange, but I'd forgotten about the "...I imagine that is the case." I also heard quite a bit of stammering prior to that answer, which given her otherwise articulate testimony suggests to me that she wasn't comfortable claiming that knowledge which I'm certain she possesses on the matter. If asked whether I knew that Nigeria is a "predominantly black country" my answer is "Yes, or at least I presume that to be the case." It wouldn't be to deny that fairly basic knowledge as the foundation of my understanding.
Call that what you will, I guess.
I don't think there's any question that we will need to agree to disagree here. And I respect your position. You may very well be right. There may have been malice intent to lie in this answer.
I absolutely concede the stammering that preceeded the answer. You and I see the reason for it differently. I believe she was coached about where Leahy was eventually taking his line of questioning. I believe he got flummoxed by her initial answer and blurted out the second question. I think it caught her off guard how blatently he was trying to draw the conclusion that this was all racist intented. I think she was talking as she was thinking of a response. She began by stammering, then threw out some form of how she had been coached to never get pushed into a definitive and incriminating answer and then caught herself without pause and (from my perspective) confirmed his position with the part you had forgotten about.
That's my belief. I respect yours is different. I respect that you believe she intentionally set out to lie about this particular piece of testimony.
Presuming for a minute that I take your position and believe that she intentionally lied about her knowledge of the makeup of the population of Norway.......to what end? What purpose was served. And why the add on at the end that you had forgotten about?
I recognize that we can both sit here in our comfy chairs and answer what we would have said if the question were posed to us, in this setting, in the manner it was posed. You would have forth-rightly and full throatedly said yes (and then it looks like basically say the same thing she ultimately said). I have stated that in my perfectly world I would have been so clever as to continue to stone wall him with asking what he meant by Norway (a country) being predominantly white and then when he got around to making it about the actual population turn the question around on him as to relevance.
But the fact is we don't know what our response would be. Because we are both human. As is she. The difference between you and I is how we choose to decide what her reaction was.
You believe it was with malice intent to lie to presumably protect herself and others including Donald Trump. Correct?