Your comments only make sense, from a standpoint of deductive logic, if you first assume the larger premise is false.
The larger premise is that Q already has all the information. Meaning all of it.
I don't think that's so. I'll try to explain.
-- The larger premise is that Q already has all the information. Meaning all of it. --
For talking purposes, assume this is true. There is still a risk of communication breakdown, where the speaker and listener don't have a meeting of the minds.
The November post has a number of lines, some of which are obviously disjointed from others. You chose to join the "was a meeting" and "hillary didn't concede" so that "hillary was at the meeting." But that joinder isn't necessarily what the "omniscient" writer had in mind.