I think your analysis while properly confusing, is quite accurate. This applies especially to the Clintons. Their language is perfectly confusing to allow them to change the story as needed.
For example, Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian “asset”. But Hillary never said Tulsi worked for the Russians, she’ll claim she meant something about Tulsi helped the Russians in some way. But of course she really did accuse Tulsi. Or did she?
The Clinton Gang’s most serious crime is corruption of language.
My response was meant to be properly confusing. This is deliberate. It’s designed to create anti-clarity, anti-coherence in/of language. Blitherization. Every point of information is divided, then sub-divided, then sub-sub divided. It depends upon what the meaning of “is” is. Until the salient facts are reduced to a level where even if and when one gets their mind around it/them, they have by then become only 1/8th of the picture. Ergo, nothing is probative, nothing is definitive. And as you imply, even if we agree on 7/8ths of the story, it’s never too late to change that last eighth.
...she really did accuse Tulsi. Or did she?
_____________________________
Already in the narrative that Clinton said ‘the Republicans’ are grooming Tulsi.
This was perhaps a week after Clinton’s ‘prediction’ that the GOP would run a 3rd party candidate in order to dilute the votes. Or something.