re: Omar says "not to my knowledge "

quote:

---

This doesn't just pertain to her brother.

---

In the interview, which if you watch more than the clip you posted, the interviewer is talking SPECIFICALLY about her brother. He literally says “brother “ multiple times. Then he asked if she was related to him.

You are an idiot. She responded to a question that was about her brother, no one else. Not any other family member, her brother.

quote:

---

the interviewer is talking SPECIFICALLY about her brother. He literally says “brother “ multiple times.

---

Her answer covers more than her brother. If it were just her brother her answer doesn’t make any sense as plausible deniability wouldn’t even make sense in that respect. The statement wasn't about him being her brother, it was about him being related to her in any way. So, it’s you who is the idiot.

So you're saying she may not have been aware that she was fu$^#ng her brother? Or her cousin?

Or maybe her dad

Well she's not 100% sure herself that the guy that putting his Somali pud in her wasn't her actual brother. Could it have been a cousin? Sure

...but the whore definitely doesn't know for sure what relation the guy that was plowing her was.


Not to my knowledge,” Omar responded, when asked by MS NOW’s Chris Hayes if there was any “weird kernel of truth” to the claim that she wed her brother.

quote:

---

Correct. Just as the OP stated. Nobody got after the OP. Ronricks, incorrectly stated the OP misrepresented the question in his very poor attempt to defend Omar. That is why we are making fun of him. He posts with hubris while posting incorrect statements.

---

In fairness, the OP does not restate the question verbatim. Importantly, it leaves off the last two words "at all." While the two different forms of the question can be interpreted identically, those last two words emphasize the scope of the question. There are at least four posts before ronricks post that misinterpret the question and limit it to siblings. There are more posts after his post that do the same thing.

While the OP is perhaps functionally adequate, it's at least somewhat misdirecting.

Laughable. The question was very specific. She wasn’t referencing anyone else and neither was the interviewer.

quote:

---

I was mocking the absurdity of using “not to my knowledge” as a carefully worded response to a question that should warrant a straightforward answer. Hence the comparison to Clinton’s infamous “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

---

Her answer makes perfect sense if there is a chance that he was a distant relative but she did not know it. Even if the chance is extremely unlikely, the answer makes sense because the question implies that an affirmative answer is unlikely, and that is why she laughs while answering.

quote:

---

Laughable. The question was very specific. She wasn’t referencing anyone else and neither was the interviewer.

---

The question and answer were specific as to the person referenced.

The question itself was exceedingly broad.

"You're not related to him at all?"

Perhaps he is a fifth cousin. Perhaps he is an eighth cousin twice removed.


Secretary of State Nancy Landry has answered questions about whether she and Governor Jeff Landry are related by stating, "We didn't grow up as cousins or anything". Nevertheless, the likelihood that Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry and Secretary of State Nancy Landry are related at least distantly is extremely high.

If she was asked, "You're not related to him at all?" (referring to Governor Landry). Her most honest answer would be: "Not to my knowledge." or some other equivocal answer.

quote:

---

You’re introducing a hypothetical scenario that wasn’t the subject of the interview. The allegation being discussed for years was that she married her brother, not that she unknowingly married some distant relative. The interviewer even referenced her brother multiple times.

That’s precisely why I compared the response to Clinton. The issue isn’t whether you can invent a technically plausible interpretation of the words. It’s whether the answer directly addresses the question being asked.

---

No. I am not introducing a hypothetical scenario that wasn't the subject of the interview. It was specifically the question asked and the answer given.

quote:

---

Chris Hayes: "You're not related to him at all?"

Ilhan Omar: "Not to my knowledge."

---

Certainly, the allegation being discussed for years was that she married her brother. Certainly, the subject of the interview was whether they were siblings. But the question asked was NOT: "Are you his sister?"

The question was in relation to the statement of whether there might be a "kernel of truth" to the issue of whether they might be related on a more distant basis than siblings, such as cousins or even distant cousins. Hence the question: "You're not related to him at all?"

quote:

---

But by your logic, If someone asked whether you were related to your wife or ex-wife, I’m sure your natural response would be, “Not to my knowledge.” LOL.

Because apparently, “No, she’s not my sister” is just too straightforward when there’s always that remote possibility she’s your long-lost third cousin twice removed

---

No one has accused me of being related to my wife, particularly not as siblings. So, of course, my answer in a casual setting would be an unequivocal "No."

However, in the context of this interview, where she has been accused of marrying her brother, the interview is a matter of record, and she is asked whether she is related to him at all, her answer is completely understandable.

And again, you frame the question as though she was asked if she was his sister and suggest that she should have answered, “No, I'm not his sister.” But that is not the question that was asked.