Lying about Ben Carson? What, pay tell, did I lie about?
You stated, within this thread, I think, in reference to Dr. Carson, “The Mannatech thing is clearly a lie.”
No, it is not.
Carson said, “I have no involvement with them.” Then in the next breath, he says, “I was paid for some speeches by them.”
If I were a lawyer who received this testimony on the stand from a sworn witness, I would not say the witness is lying. If I were a prosecutor, I wouldn’t call it prtjury. If I were a judge, I would throw out any perjury charges on the basis of those staements. They are, at most, confused.
The underlying facts are that Dr. Carson, like others, trades off his celebrity the form of paid speeches. Whether one thinks that is good, bad, or indifferent, the paid speaker, even if he uses products of the company paying for the speech, may have a de minimis involvement with the company for which he speaks, but not more. This is especially true for speakers booked through a speaker’s bureau, as is the case here.
Thus, the statement must be understood in the context in which it’s made. The context here is that Dr. Carson is denying substantive involvement even while admitting he served as a paid spokesman. No lie there. Now, if you can find that he was a founder, an employee, a major shareholder, a formally-appointed director, on a board of advisers, or in a similar relationship, then he would have a substantive relationship, and, given the context of hiding remarks, might be lying.
But it is beyond unreasonable to call this a “lie” when the next thing he says is that he was paid for some speeches for the company.
Do you really believe that the late Sen. Thompson was “involved” in reverse mortgages because he extolled their benefits for large sums of money? If so, then perhaps you didn’t knowingly tell a falsehood in this case (a “lie”) but rather, just merely have the naivete of a newborn.