Direct from the LibLeadership...a new example of moral relativism:
“Holder responded that whether a statement is a lie or misleading comment depends on what the person making it is thinking at the time.”
Ignorant beyond belief. I fear for the nation.
Not to defend this lying sack of dog excrement, but the term lying actually DOES depend on what is in the person’s mind.
To think or know one thing, and to say another thing knowing that it is false, that is a lie. It is dishonest.
To think something that is not accurate, and to say it, is not a lie, but a mistake. There is no discrepancy between what the person thinks or knows and what they say, hence no dishonesty.
To think one thing, and to say something else by accident, is not a lie, but merely misspeaking. There is no dishonesty.
The clever liar relies on this knowledge if caught in a lie.
Since no one can read the mind of another, they may claim they actually believed what they said, and merely made a false statement. Even if we can prove that they SHOULD have known the truth - for instance, documented correspondence that they knew at a previous time - they can always fall back on the statement that what they previously knew has now slipped their mind.
OTOH, using the “misspoke” defense, they can say that they either misspoke in the past or now, but did not intentionally mean to deceive.
Without being able to actually READ someone’s mind, their is no solid strategy to sort this out to the point of certainty. However, a pattern of such behavior, or relying on common sense if the claim is too outlandish, especially when coupled with a powerful motive for deception, can lead one to believe “beyond a reasonable doubt” that someone is lying.
And Holder lies.