Nice deflection, there, catfish.
The topic was Todd saying there was more evidence tying Trump to the NE article on Cruz than for Cruz’s alleged infidelities.
It is not my job to provide any proof of what Cruz did.
I am asking where Todd’s so-called evidence is for his statement.
It’s not that Todd has no evidence, it is the seriousness of Chuck Todd’s charge.
After months of this story being out there, the Enquirer who endorsed Trump and is owned by Trump’s BFF, Pecker, decides to publish this as a rumor. This is at a time that Cruz was pulling ahead of Trump in Wisconsin. Further, the only named source for the rumor is Roger Stone, again a close friend and advocate for Donald Trump. How many dots do you need?
No deflection at all. I have noticed you have participated in the chorus cheering the Cruz scandal, which at last look had no PROOF, what so ever. So why would you be angry of an allegation (unproven at this point of course) that Trump was behind it?
It’s because there is no evidence. Chick Todd much like Freepers believe what he does with nary a shred of empirical observance
It’s a hunch that suits his narrative which is that as a leftist media hack he fears Trump in many ways