Replies

There is insufficient evidence to make a judgement here.

When were the complaints made about her getting half her rent? It sounds like it was a complaint from the 2008 campaign by the short-lived 2008 campaign manager.

But when was the visit made to the townhouses? After this current election? How do we know that the situation didn’t change?

We could know, since the story talks about paperwork, rental agreements, and the like — if we SAW The paperwork, we could see when the two townhomes being discussed now were rented.

But I’m not sure what the point is. We already knew that it was legal for her to have the campaign pay half, whether there were one or two townhomes. People set up offices in their homes all the time, and that is a valid way of running a campaign. What difference does it make whether they offices are in the same home, or next door? It’s like a solution searching for a problem.

It also seems that if this explanation was available, the campaign would have used it, rather than all the explanations they did use. I would note that this story is from someone who visited the home, not from the campaign.

There is insufficient evidence to make a judgement here.

But if you want to bring an accusation against someone, you need to have the proof. You cannot bring an accusation without any proof. If critics cannot prove what they are claiming, then don't they need to admit that they are just spreading hogwash and horse feathers?

It also seems that if this explanation was available, the campaign would have used it, rather than all the explanations they did use.

No, that is false. If you grow up politically, and learn how the media works, you will discover that you can have a 45 minute interview with the news media and only have 5 words actually printed in the newspaper or used on TV.

I was interviewed for about 45 minutes by Gannett. They used about 5 words out of that interview, and indirectly referred to one other point I made.

The fact that you don't read something in the newspaper does not mean the point was not made to them repeatedly.

You can never be a grown-up in politics until you realize that what you read in the newspaper ain't necessarily so.

I would like CharlesWayneCT to prove that Charles did not personally create the AIDS virus as a military experiment.

Or would it be *MY* burden of proof to prove that he DID?

Can I just make a wild accusation, and then demand that Charles prove it false?