Part 2
but I have been clear from the get go, have corrected you several times, have quoted, and even color-coded to show you where you got lost.
Nonsense. You used two colors in one sentence, even though the words you colored differently were OBVIOUSLY intended as part of the first color.
Using colors erroneously doesn't excuse a falsehood. For you to claim you don't understand basic grammar (which is the ONLY way you can claim you were talking about different things in one sentence, when the second part of the sentence clearly was referencing the situation brought up in the first) when all your other posts have no real grammatical issues is silly.
But you know what? I'll play your little game. Here's your sentence in full:
"Because "Extremely Careless" somehow is different from "Gross Negligence", despite the fact that the actions themselves are prosecutable, and will be prosecuted in the future, should any of us little people whose last name isn't Clinton engage in them."
Let's just break down your sentence:
Segment 1)
Because "Extremely Careless" somehow is different from "Gross Negligence": You're obviously talking about the Clinton case. There is literally no other case to which you can be referring. It's the topic of the thread and, even by your own words, is the only time you're familiar of a difference in these phrases, with regards to the law.
Segment 2)
despite the fact that the actions themselves are prosecutable: Which actions? Given the fact you were clearly talking about Clinton in the last segment, there's no other conclusion to reach other than you're referring to the actions of Clinton, especially given the context we established in the first segment.
Segment 3)
and will be prosecuted in the future: What will be prosecuted in the future? Given what we've established in both the first and second segments, the only obvious conclusion is that actions similar to Clinton will be prosecuted.
Segment 4)
should any of us little people whose last name isn't Clinton engage in them.: While we were not certain in segment three we were talking about Clinton's actions, you reaffirm, in segment four, that you are talking about actions similar to Clinton. Anyone not named Clinton will be prosecuted.
Now, if you'd like, I can color code that for you. But I think it's pretty obvious, as it always has been, that you said anyone not named Clinton will be prosecuted. Which is not what Comey said. So are you going to continue telling untruths or just fess up to your error?
If all you have is to dance around dishonestly accusing others of lying
It's not dishonest to point out you are posting an untruth, I have literally quoted it many times. The only dishonesty comes from one who tries to deny it, even though it is CLEARLY evident in the post.
Also, you kept talking about addressing the topic, but ever since I asked you four questions you have yet to answer, you don't seem interested at all in addressing the topic.
So, let's tally this up.
1) You say Comey said anyone not named Clinton would be prosecuted for the same actions, which is untrue.
2) You say that you didn't say Comey would prosecute, which is untrue since I can literally prove you said it.
3) I asked for a similar case to Clinton's which sent someone to jail and you mentioned Snowden/Manning. I pointed out why they are not comparable and you eventually try to claim you weren't comparing them, which is untrue.
4) Additionally, when trying to provide similar cases to Clinton, you bring up United States v. Rickie Roller. I provide a source from Fortune which said they were different because of how the materials were handled after discovery. You claimed Fortune said it was different because of military, which is untrue.
5) You claimed, repeatedly, you wanted to discuss the merits of this case (presumably to distract from the fact you said something which is "pretty dumb"). However, when I asked you four questions, questions I had already presented to you previously, you repeatedly have ignored them. I have no choice but to assume it is untrue you actually wanted to discuss the case.
By my count, that's at least FIVE different ways you have not told the truth in our discussions in this thread. Four of them are indisputable and the fifth one has to be assumed at this point, given the fact you still won't answer them.
Perhaps, when deciding whether to call another person, including Hillary Clinton, a liar, one might first consider whether or not the pot should call the kettle black.
