Skip to comments.
Axelrod: No evidence that Sestak is telling the truth (Spin)
HotAir ^
| May 25, 2010
| Ed Morrissey
Posted on 05/25/2010 7:37:30 AM PDT by FTJM
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
1
posted on
05/25/2010 7:37:30 AM PDT
by
FTJM
To: FTJM
Does this mean that we will see a chubby attention seeker exclaim on MTP that he hopes to see Rahm Emmanuel perp walking in an orange jumpsuit?
2
posted on
05/25/2010 7:39:20 AM PDT
by
chickadee
To: FTJM
Communist defense lawyers have decreed everything to be A-OK. Yip Yip Yahoo! Obama is innocent again. The OJ Press is happy now.
To: FTJM
Sestak... under the very crowded bus!
4
posted on
05/25/2010 7:39:29 AM PDT
by
pnut22
To: FTJM
Unless the White House put the bribe on paper or Sestak recorded the call, Axelrod is probably right that there is no evidence. If the White House recorded the call, that 18 1/2 minutes of tape is certainly long gone.
5
posted on
05/25/2010 7:40:08 AM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(I am so immune to satire that I ate three Irish children after reading Swift's "A Modest Proposal")
To: FTJM
Senior adviser to the president David Axelrod said Monday evening that there is no evidence that White House officials tried to keep a Democratic congressman from entering the Pennsylvania Senate race by offering him a high-ranking government job." He isn't saying it didn't happen; he's saying there's no evidence?
6
posted on
05/25/2010 7:41:15 AM PDT
by
jessduntno
(Kagan...Filly-bust-her. Bork her. Bork her hard. She needs it.)
To: FTJM
There is no evidence that Axelrod has ever told the truth.....
7
posted on
05/25/2010 7:41:18 AM PDT
by
illiac
(If we don't change directions soon, we'll get where we're going)
To: FTJM
no evidence Translation: We're from Chicago. We know how to handle this sort of thing.
8
posted on
05/25/2010 7:41:56 AM PDT
by
FourPeas
(God Bless America)
To: jessduntno
Lampposts...
To: KarlInOhio
For what reason would Sestak lie about this?
No reason.
So, there is no reason to believe Sestak is lying - back atcha, Axelrod.
10
posted on
05/25/2010 7:42:23 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
To: illiac
or maybe “no controlling legal authority” LOL
To: Eric in the Ozarks
They’re looking awfully bare these days, are they not?
Remember, stick to your list when the decorating starts.
Don’t go ninjin’ nobody don’t need ninja’d.
12
posted on
05/25/2010 7:43:23 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
To: FTJM
Great campaign video for Toomey: “Senior White House officials call democratic candiate for US Senate a liar”. “Even Obama doesn’t trust this guy”.
13
posted on
05/25/2010 7:43:28 AM PDT
by
keepitreal
( Don't tread on me.)
To: jessduntno
Exactly. They made sure there was no evidence and that they were covered.
14
posted on
05/25/2010 7:43:34 AM PDT
by
FTJM
To: FTJM
Axelrod also acknowledged that there were conversations involving White House officials and Sestak, but said that those had been looked at by White House lawyers and their conclusion was that it was perfect the conversations were perfectly appropriate.LOL. We are truly living in a Bizzaro world. The WH investigates allegations against the WH and finds that its converstations were "perfectly appropriate." Case closed.
15
posted on
05/25/2010 7:44:19 AM PDT
by
kabar
To: KarlInOhio
SO.... this begs the question, Is Sestek
a) stupid for not simply saying he simply misspoke...that he was offered a job but no one said it was in exchange for not running, or
b) he is a moral man and won’t use the above lie, or
c) there is a record somewhere and he knows it could be found and he would then be found out to be a liar?
16
posted on
05/25/2010 7:45:27 AM PDT
by
Lee'sGhost
(Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
To: KarlInOhio
"Axelrod is probably right that there is no evidence."
I agree that this precludes a "kill shot." IMO, however, it does provide an opportunity for conservatives to inflict some pain.
17
posted on
05/25/2010 7:45:45 AM PDT
by
verity
To: FTJM
Sure about that David? Have you been waking in a cold sweat for a few nights? Better destroy those hard drives. Delete is not sufficient. Remember, “for the want of a nail the shoe was lost...”.
18
posted on
05/25/2010 7:46:51 AM PDT
by
throwback
( The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid)
To: FTJM
When the allegations were made, they were looked into. And there was no evidence of such a thing, Axelrod said Translation: "If this thing doesn't go away we will need some time to find an appropriate stool pigeon..."
19
posted on
05/25/2010 7:47:24 AM PDT
by
avacado
To: FTJM
According to SCAN (Scientific Content Analysis), when someone doesn't answer the question directly but instead says “there's no evidence,” “Would I do something like that,” “They didn't prove it,” etc. they are almost always lying.
SCAN is a very useful tool. I studied it a number of years back and it has really helped hone my BS meter.
20
posted on
05/25/2010 7:47:46 AM PDT
by
Dayman
(My 1919a4 is named Charlotte. When I light her up she has the voice of an angel.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson