Lying to the public should be a criminal offense

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The question was not evaded, I addressed it directly; any government official who were to answer your hypothetical in the same you described would be inept. You deliberately chose a weak way to respond to your own hypothetical; a way a trained politician wouldn't answer questions about classified info.

That's why I gave a more realistic way of how someone with classified intel would publicly say s/he can't discuss such matters.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You can't set up unrealistic scenarios then demand direct answers to them. That's logically dishonest.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You've now resorted to false equivalence. This scenario would NOT be considered classified information, and therefore is not handled the same way.

We're done with your pitifully flawed "logic".

@vivify said
You can't set up unrealistic scenarios then demand direct answers to them. That's logically dishonest.

LOL...maybe intellectually dishonest? 😂

@mott-the-hoople said
LOL...maybe intellectually dishonest? 😂

You're right, Mott. She is intellectually dishonest.

Thanks.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Duchess, due to her stupidity, doesn't know the difference between an unlikely scenario and an unrealistic one.

@vivify said
You're right, Mott. She is intellectually dishonest.

Thanks.

I didnt say a word about her...you have comprehensions issues.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

do you understand how the quote fearure works? when I quoted vivify that meant I was replying to her! dayaaammm 🙄

@mott-the-hoople said
I didnt say a word about her...you have comprehensions issues.

Lmao. Anyone on this forum can see I was kidding when I said that. Everyone else except Mott and Duchess.

We now have proof Duchess and Mott are intellectual equals.