She wasn’t under oath, and it was a simple misunderstanding. She thought the questioner meant a PRIVATE meeting with the Russian ambassador, or maybe she simply forgot. Either way, it’s quite dishonest to twist a politician’s words to blow an innocent statement out of proportion for political gain, much like the media and Democrats are doing to Sessions.
I agree.
However, if the enemy is doing this, then give it to them right back in their face or they will never knock it off. Tit for tat.
It wasn't an innocent statement. It was at the very least a reckless one--and, to cite an example, acting in reckless disregard of the facts leaves you vulnerable to a libel suit, even if you can show no explicit malice was present. The sloppiness in making a serious claim against someone based on flimsy evidence is considered culpable indifference to any damage you're falsely causing your target--hence, malice.
And of course Nancy and her mouth were acting maliciously anyway. We're talking about someone who put on a burka and paid a one-on-one visit to Prime Minister Assad of Syria, explicitly to substitute herself for President Bush and his diplomatic corps. This was at a time Syria was arming Hezbollah in Lebanon to sneak into Israel and kill civilians, and she thought Syria needed support in this. Can't make this stuff up.
Of course she meant to damage Sessions by making her loopy statement, which she knew would not be fact-checked by our 0bama Media. And of course Nancy knows she and colleagues like Ted Kennedy have intentionally done as much to compromise American diplomacy as any Americans since Harry Hopkins served as FDR's national security advisor--while a paid agent for the KGB. (Speaking of Russia.)
Did you forget the sarc tag or are you as stupid as she is?