Yup the report was INTENTIONALLY vague.
You don’t need to say 61 calls or texts, to or from.
If you have just one damning text (or call) you’d show it.
And they barely mentioned this woman has stalked and harassed someone before with texts and calls.
Every one of the smears on Cain are left intentionally vague. Why?
That is all it would take... yet nothing.
—If you have just one damning text (or call) you’d show it.—
I used to work for the law enforcement relations section of a large cell phone company. What is “easily trackable” is stuff like whether a call or text was incoming or outgoing and what number was on the other end of the communication. Even then, though, you need a subpoena to get it. But this woman has that in her bills.
The content of the tex messages is only available if she has saved them. And if she can show how many there are, it may be from her bill, which does not show the content of the messages.
But When I saw the “to or from” in the original article, my first question was, “so how many are ‘from’”, and what is the timing relative to the “to’s”?
Whenever I read a story that causes me to ask more questions than it answers, I smell manipulation.