Eating Asparagus With Micky Mouse & Lyin’ #ALpolitics @JeffSessions Testimony Under Oath

True, or False?

If under oath, you say, “and I did not have _X_” and in fact, you did have _X_, are you a perjurer?

The statement “and I did not have _X_” is a voluntary assertion, and claim of fact by the speaker. It makes an independent statement. It does not answer a question.

By virtue of the use of the word “and,” the claimant is making a voluntary assertion which can stand alone, and which needs no other support. Rather, by using the word “and,” the statement which follows that word supports any statement predicated within it, and would appear to lend credence to any statement which preceded it, simply because it is “added onto” a primary claim.

And even though it is mentioned in a secondary manner – that is, the remark is mentioned after another statement – it becomes a primary, rather than secondary, assertion. It “flips the table,” in a manner of speaking.

For example, if the claimant were to say “and I did not leap tall buildings in a single bound, and I have not leaped tall buildings in a single bound,” the information put forth by the claimant would would support the belief that s/he has never ever leapt tall buildings, whether in a single bound, or not.

If in response to the question “if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with Micky Mouse ate asparagus in the course of this dinner, what will you do?,” the if the claimant were to say “and I did not eat asparagus with Micky Mouse,” one would reasonably suppose that neither Mickey Mouse nor asparagus were present at any time during the claimant’s dining. And yet, it does not answer the question.

However, if the claimant said, “I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a “surrogate” a time or two in that dinner, and I didn’t have not have asparagus with Micky Mouse. And I’m unable to comment upon it,” one would suppose the claimant were professing ignorance.

It’s noteworthy that the exact words were “and I didn’t have not have,” (see: beginning 3:19 – through 3:47) which is a verbal gaffe indicating a subconscious conflict. It is actually a double negative, which is logically and mathematically a positive.

Given also that we know Q did “X,” the veracity of the claim is false, and having been given under oath, is perjurious.

This is simple logic, “Logic 101,” if you prefer.