1. Clinton neither admitted nor denied it. She only said she "didn't recall" making that statement.

2. In any case, Clinton has been very openly critical of Assange, saying the charges were not punishing journalism and that "he has to answer for what he's done." [1]

[1] https://youtu.be/Qc19Qk3KKCw?t=50

Snopes sourced that accusation to the far right True Pundit which had also contributed to the Pizza Gate conspiracy theory. I'm done here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Pundit

For whatever role True Pundit played in spreading the rumor, Clinton played an equally large role via her "denial."

https://x.com/wikileaks/status/783424443070738433

Logical fallacy

Ad hominem is a fallacy if you are arguing hypotheticals and philosophy in a Greek salon.

In understanding how the world around us works, credibility matters quite a bit, and "I'm not interested in pretending True Pundit says true things" is a pretty reasonable shortcut.

Rather than just thought-terminate with "logical fallacy," the burden is now on the one bringing the evidence to bring it via a channel other than True Pundit.

Clinton has had a knack for knowing the real truth of a situation and either not wanting to share that with the public, or doing it in a haughty way where she's simply not believed. Knowing what I know about her in that way, such a quote is worrying.

It implies that she's being characteristically tonedeaf and screwing up the communication of some pretty serious concerns about Assange, but I think that's no mystery by now. You can always get Clinton to make it all about her and spin it in a way that can let you get away with damn near anything, but that's just exploiting personal failings on her part, where if you dig into what she knows it's unsettling how sharp she is.

You can't go by whether Clinton's screwed up the optics.

Your link does not include a denial, it includes Clinton saying she did not recall making such a comment. Is there an outright denial elsewhere?

>Your link does not include a denial

I don't recall calling for or making detailed plans to assassinate the leaders of the G7 at their recent summit.

I also don't recall claiming that you were a pedophile, a murderer and a cross-dresser.

So does that mean you believe I have actually said/done the above, as I haven't denied them?

No one reported you claimed those things and particularly not in an official meeting where there should have been minutes and would have been witnesses which could have boosted a lack of recollection to certainty.

Your examples also fail to continue with "but if I did it was a joke" -- a remark itself almost as damning as the act. We're not talking about mere defamation in the case of Assange: talking about the secretary of state-- who unambiguously has the power to murder foreign persons with a suggestion-- suggesting that she's would joke about murdering people. Not a great look.

So, no, your remarks are unambiguously not denials, but no denial was required in your case.

Mate, this is the comment that they were directly replying to :

> At best unproven and denied.