Eric Holder debates definition of ‘lying’ with congressman

The Daily Caller ^ | December 08, 2011 | Matthew Boyle

[mwilli20]

I could not understand why Republicans could not make this clear to the leftist media.

The media understood very well that Bush did not lie, as well as they understand very well now that Holder has lied.

At the least, so as to behave consistently, they should be on him like white on rice with questions to dig for the truth.

They cower and hide protecting their masters. Shameful.

[supercat]

Not to defend this lying sack of dog excrement, but the term lying actually DOES depend on what is in the person’s mind.

Naturally an intent to deceive is an essential part of what it means to be "lying". On the other hand, it is not necessary that the liar believe his statement to be factually false. Failure to mention a belief that a statement may be false, if such suppression is for the purpose of deception, is sufficient.

What is significant is that if a person is trying to figure out how to answer a question in such a way that an honest interpretation would be factually incorrect, but the person can claim that he's "telling the truth" because a factually-correct interpretation exists, that person is generally lying. The room for judgment in such a scenario is what would be considered an "honest interpretation". It's entirely reasonable for an honest person questioned by dishonest people to answer the question in such a way that a dishonest interpretation will give the answer the questioner seeks, even though an honest interpretation would yield the truth. I don't think that scenario really works with Holder, though.