And that after the very disappointing Jarret article?
Then, in the very first one, four paragraphs in we get this line...
"As the Times stories aimed at Donald Trump Jr. emerged, Trump Jr. and those involved opted for transparency every step of the way."
We all know that to be false.
We know that Trump jr lied for months. Example...
"Did I meet with people that were Russian? I'm sure, I'm sure I did," Trump Jr. said. "But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment. And certainly none that I was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form."
Also, we know he lied the day the story broke, first claiming that - “Meeting ended up being primarily about adoptions. In response to further Q's I simply provided more details.”
So the very first article begins with a demonstrable lie. I stopped reading there.
Honestly, I'm sure there are a million articles that you think somehow make this acceptable, and I've read many of them already. I'm sure there are a million articles talking about how Sandy Hook was a hoax, I've read those too.
We can agree that in the end this comes down to our individual and collective values.
Return to Odd
Reply to message