Kelly stated what he was told (similar words) in an attempt to contextualize Trumps words. But it really comes down to how the words were said. Trump appears to have actually said what She said he said. Now did he mean it that way, maybe not. Did it sound sincere vs snarky, neither of us know. That’s how she heard what he said. Thus she wasn’t lying. You started by claiming Trump didn’t say those words which it looks pretty clear he did. Now it’s a matter of delivery rather than wording or context.The lying lib-retard cunt took key words out of context and represented them as the whole of what Trump said. By omitting many words, lying lib-retard cunt sought "to create a false or misleading impression": lie.
Trump said what She says he did.
Kelly doesn’t like it being politicized.
Kelly never said she lied. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
- I B Hankering
- 10-19-2017, 08:52 PM
- 1blackman1
- 10-19-2017, 08:59 PM
That’s just not true. She stated what he said. There is no proof that it was out of context or twisted. Kelly never said that.
And your continued reference to his “empty barrel comment” is incorrect. It’s got nothing to do with lies. He previously used that same phrase and it means something to the effect of “loud mouth people talking that aren’t doing anything of note” or something thereabouts.
Nothing to do with lies or being misleading.
Now, had he wanted to say she was lying he would have. He didn’t because she wasn’t lying. Did she take what Trump said wrong, maybe. Did Trump say it in a less than empathetic way, that’s possible as well.
But there is no proof that she lied or misled and Kelly never said or implied that.
And your continued reference to his “empty barrel comment” is incorrect. It’s got nothing to do with lies. He previously used that same phrase and it means something to the effect of “loud mouth people talking that aren’t doing anything of note” or something thereabouts.
Nothing to do with lies or being misleading.
Now, had he wanted to say she was lying he would have. He didn’t because she wasn’t lying. Did she take what Trump said wrong, maybe. Did Trump say it in a less than empathetic way, that’s possible as well.
But there is no proof that she lied or misled and Kelly never said or implied that.
- I B Hankering
- 10-19-2017, 09:02 PM
That’s just not true. She stated what he said. There is no proof that it was out of context or twisted. Kelly never said that.The lying lib-retarded cunt lied by omission. She didn't accurately quote him in full or in context. Kelly said as much when he contrasted the lying lib-retarded cunt's comments against Trumps'.
And your continued reference to his “empty barrel comment” is incorrect. It’s got nothing to do with lies. He previously used that same phrase and it means something to the effect of “loud mouth people talking that aren’t doing anything of note” or something thereabouts.
Nothing to do with lies or being misleading.
Now, had he wanted to say she was lying he would have. He didn’t because she wasn’t lying. Did she take what Trump said wrong, maybe. Did Trump say it in a less than empathetic way, that’s possible as well.
But there is no proof that she lied or misled and Kelly never said or implied that. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
- 1blackman1
- 10-19-2017, 09:13 PM
Nope. Not correct. Kelly never said she lied or misled. He never implied what you say he implied. Kelly never said “as much” in any way. Kelly said he didn’t like it being political or publicized.
There’s no proof that she omitted anything. Were that the case he could have said that as well. He didn’t.
There’s no proof that she omitted anything. Were that the case he could have said that as well. He didn’t.
- I B Hankering
- 10-19-2017, 09:17 PM
Nope. Not correct. Kelly never said she lied or misled. He never implied what you say he implied. Kelly never said “as much” in any way. Kelly said he didn’t like it being political or publicized.Kelly said the lying, lib-retarded cunt was spouting noise which means he was saying she wasn't telling the truth; thus, she was lying.
There’s no proof that she omitted anything. Were that the case he could have said that as well. He didn’t. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
- 1blackman1
- 10-19-2017, 09:32 PM
That’s not what that means.
- I B Hankering
- 10-19-2017, 09:36 PM
- 1blackman1
- 10-19-2017, 09:41 PM
Nope. It’s not. Nothing at all to do with truthfulness.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 10-19-2017, 09:43 PM
Why argue with this 0zombie?
- I B Hankering
- 10-19-2017, 09:45 PM
Nope. It’s not. Nothing at all to do with truthfulness. Originally Posted by 1blackman1The lying, lib-retarded cunt lied, and there's no other way to read Kelly's remarks. Kelly claimed the lying, lib-retarded cunt was spouting noise, and by spouting "noise", she was by definition not spouting truth or facts in this instance.
- 1blackman1
- 10-19-2017, 10:21 PM
That’s not what that means but now I’m bored with this back and forth.
- I B Hankering
- 10-19-2017, 10:31 PM
That’s not what that means but now I’m bored with this back and forth. Originally Posted by 1blackman1It's your interpretation that is incorrect. Kelly restated Trump's full message and emphatically stated, "That was the message. That was the message that was transmitted." Then, in contrast, Kelly stated that he was so stunned by what the lying, lib-retard cunt was saying on TV, that he took a walk in the Arlington cemetery. He termed her a "selfish, empty barrel" and called her remarks "noise". Kelly called Trump's remarks the message, and Kelly called the lying, lib-retard cunt's remarks "noise" -- NOT the message -- ergo, a lie. The lying, lib-retard cunt lied through omission "to create a false or misleading impression."
Lying by omission
Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, lying by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions. For example, when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission. It can be compared to dissimulation.
An omission is when a person tells some of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore completely change the story.
- Muscleup
- 10-19-2017, 10:36 PM
Why argue with this 0zombie? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB+1
The feral buck gorilla will drag you down to its level.
They are unable to comprehend human logic or values.
This "looks at me with da hat" gorilla sow con-grease sheboon is applying another nail in the coffin of the leftest agenda.
Americans are starting to see through the bullshit and corruption of the left soulless animals.
I'm sensing the worm is turning.
- WTF
- 10-19-2017, 11:18 PM
The Congresswoman was wrong. IMHO Trump was probably trying to say the right thing. Politics on her part.
But there is no proof that she lied or misled and Kelly never said or implied that. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
Trump was wrong to bring up Kelly's son. And it appears he was wrong to say the Congresswoman was lying. Period. Politics on his part.
Kelly was right in trying to add context to Trumps call but wrong in trying to demean the Congresswoman. Politics on Kelly's part.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...z&ocid=U221DHP
Kelly tapped into his personal experience as the former head of the Southern Command headquarters in Doral, a position that often had him representing the Defense Department in local events. That included the dedication of the FBI regional building in Miramar, when he said Wilson’s remarks were jarring and self-serving.
“A congresswoman stood up, and in a long tradition of empty barrels making the most noise, stood up there in all of that and talked about how she was instrumental in getting the funding for that building, and how she took care of her constituents because she got the money, and she just called up President Obama, and on that phone call, he gave the money, the $20 million, to build the building, and she sat down,” Kelly told reporters.
“That is crazy that I got [the money] and Mr. Obama just gave it to me,” Wilson said. “That building was funded long before I got to Congress, I didn’t say that. I have staff, people who write the speeches. You can’t say that.”
The 380,000-square-foot pair of glass towers cost $194 million to build, much higher than the $20 million Kelly cited in his White House remarks.
- lustylad
- 10-19-2017, 11:54 PM
John Kelly’s Heroes
The White House chief of staff teaches a lesson in grief and sacrifice.
Oct. 19, 2017 7:25 p.m. ET
Over the past nine months, Donald Trump’s cage match with the Washington press corps has turned into an unedifying national spectacle. Too often, the serious business of the nation has been pushed aside so that the press and Mr. Trump could go tit for tat, like children on a schoolyard. On Thursday, an adult finally stepped into the room.
John Kelly, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff and a retired four-star general, addressed White House reporters on this week’s dispute between the press and the President. That is the controversy around Mr. Trump’s call to the mother of a U.S. soldier who was killed during an ambush in Niger recently.
As anyone who follows media reports knows, the President’s call to this mother grew into a personal feud between Mr. Trump and a Democratic Congresswoman who disclosed what the President said. It then produced long newspaper reports examining the President’s relationship with every identifiable Gold Star family during his term.
It took awhile for Mr. Kelly to get around to talking about that phone call. Instead, he spent some time offering what we in journalism—or anyone purporting to be engaged in a serious line of work—would call context. Mr. Kelly described what happens when a U.S. soldier or Marine—“the best 1% this country produces”—gets killed in action. What he described was a military process that is graphic, emotionally intense and, most of all, untouchable.
Untouchable, as Mr. Kelly made clear, in the sense that what has happened is so grave, so personal and so difficult that the reality of pushing through it comes down to an encounter between the fallen soldier’s family, the officer who informs them and, in time, support from those who served alongside their son or daughter.
Mr. Kelly explained that a personal call from the President is in fact not what families expect or want. But it has become something of a presidential tradition, and Mr. Trump asked Mr. Kelly what he should say.
Mr. Kelly related what his friend and “my casualty officer,” Marine General Joseph Dunford, told him when relating that Mr. Kelly’s own son had been killed in Afghanistan: “He said, Kel, he was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that 1%. He knew what the possibilities were because we’re at war.”
That, essentially, is what Mr. Trump said to the Gold Star mother, no doubt less eloquently. Standing in the White House press room, reflecting on a political spat over a dead soldier, Mr. Kelly said, “I thought at least that was sacred.” His remarks are a rebuke to the Congresswoman for politicizing a private phone call, and to the press corps for attempting to turn grief and sacrifice into a hammer against Donald Trump — who, as usual, made things worse by lashing out in response.
John Kelly made a lot of people look small Thursday. The man who led soldiers in combat in Iraq described spending an hour this week walking in Arlington Cemetery, collecting his thoughts and looking at headstones, some with names of Marines who Mr. Kelly said were there because they did what he had told them to do.
Surely there is a sense in which the continuing political life of Washington is possible because of that sacrifice. That was John Kelly’s point. It would be nice to think the rest of the city could get it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-ke...oes-1508455536
The White House chief of staff teaches a lesson in grief and sacrifice.
Oct. 19, 2017 7:25 p.m. ET
Over the past nine months, Donald Trump’s cage match with the Washington press corps has turned into an unedifying national spectacle. Too often, the serious business of the nation has been pushed aside so that the press and Mr. Trump could go tit for tat, like children on a schoolyard. On Thursday, an adult finally stepped into the room.
John Kelly, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff and a retired four-star general, addressed White House reporters on this week’s dispute between the press and the President. That is the controversy around Mr. Trump’s call to the mother of a U.S. soldier who was killed during an ambush in Niger recently.
As anyone who follows media reports knows, the President’s call to this mother grew into a personal feud between Mr. Trump and a Democratic Congresswoman who disclosed what the President said. It then produced long newspaper reports examining the President’s relationship with every identifiable Gold Star family during his term.
It took awhile for Mr. Kelly to get around to talking about that phone call. Instead, he spent some time offering what we in journalism—or anyone purporting to be engaged in a serious line of work—would call context. Mr. Kelly described what happens when a U.S. soldier or Marine—“the best 1% this country produces”—gets killed in action. What he described was a military process that is graphic, emotionally intense and, most of all, untouchable.
Untouchable, as Mr. Kelly made clear, in the sense that what has happened is so grave, so personal and so difficult that the reality of pushing through it comes down to an encounter between the fallen soldier’s family, the officer who informs them and, in time, support from those who served alongside their son or daughter.
Mr. Kelly explained that a personal call from the President is in fact not what families expect or want. But it has become something of a presidential tradition, and Mr. Trump asked Mr. Kelly what he should say.
Mr. Kelly related what his friend and “my casualty officer,” Marine General Joseph Dunford, told him when relating that Mr. Kelly’s own son had been killed in Afghanistan: “He said, Kel, he was doing exactly what he wanted to do when he was killed. He knew what he was getting into by joining that 1%. He knew what the possibilities were because we’re at war.”
That, essentially, is what Mr. Trump said to the Gold Star mother, no doubt less eloquently. Standing in the White House press room, reflecting on a political spat over a dead soldier, Mr. Kelly said, “I thought at least that was sacred.” His remarks are a rebuke to the Congresswoman for politicizing a private phone call, and to the press corps for attempting to turn grief and sacrifice into a hammer against Donald Trump — who, as usual, made things worse by lashing out in response.
John Kelly made a lot of people look small Thursday. The man who led soldiers in combat in Iraq described spending an hour this week walking in Arlington Cemetery, collecting his thoughts and looking at headstones, some with names of Marines who Mr. Kelly said were there because they did what he had told them to do.
Surely there is a sense in which the continuing political life of Washington is possible because of that sacrifice. That was John Kelly’s point. It would be nice to think the rest of the city could get it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-ke...oes-1508455536