Bernie tells the biggest lie so far this primary campaign.

[Jim Lane]

222. I did the work and gave you the evidence on currency manipulation

You write that, "even if there were no such {currency manipulation} provisions, she could very easily have been expecting for such provisions to come into being in the final agreement." The facts, as I documented, are that the other countries were adamantly opposed to such provisions, and that the United States wasn't even trying to include them (even aside from the Obama administration's own reservations about the effects of such provisions, as mentioned in Jack Lew's letter).

What is it that Clinton supporters say about Sanders's proposals -- rainbows and unicorns, or some such? You're arguing, in effect, that Clinton "could very easily have been expecting" that a rainbow would appear over a TPP negotiating session, that a unicorn would slide down it and sprinkle fairy dust on the negotiators, and that they would all suddenly start clamoring for regulation of currency manipulation.

That particular point is unusually clear because Senators from both parties were pressuring the administration on currency manipulation, leading to the Lew letter and to similar Congressional testimony by Michael Froman, the USTR. Most aspects of this huge proposal haven't received that much publicity. You're saying that I must support my assertion, which I could do only by pointing to the text of the drafts that were current when Clinton made her pro-TPP statements -- documents that Clinton has had access to but that haven't been publicly released. The drafts that have been released certainly support my position, inasmuch as they are all totally silent on currency manipulation.

I'll also note that Clinton herself has not said that currency manipulation was in the TPP when she endorsed the deal, nor has she said that she at any time expected it to be in, let alone that she had any reasonable basis for such a hope. In particular, she hasn't said that the U.S. negotiators were even seeking to include it.

So, no, I'm not assuming that she's lying. I'm taking such facts as I know (including, where relevant, her silence) and drawing the most plausible inferences.

Your mode of reasoning is different. You start with the assumption that Hillary Clinton can do no wrong. It's on that basis that you can say, "Evidently she did hope that there would be something in there about currencies,...." even though, as you admit, you have no idea what was going on in the negotiations. You're just reasoning backward from the conclusion you want to reach, and filling in whatever factual assumptions are necessary.

And her statement in the debate was NOT an accurate report of what she had said in Adelaide. Maybe one of those sniper bullets grazed her head and impaired her memory.

Inasmuch as facts make no impression on you, I'm done with this exchange. You may now have the last word. I suggest you use it to reiterate your zealous advocacy for Clinton, and add a few nasty words to Bernie on the side.