What does this mean?
“We weren’t going to comment to the press on it, but it seems pretty clear that the other party involved had a different agenda, Jason Osborne, a spokesperson for the Carson’s campaign told The Beast. How else could we perceive that to be?”
The Daily Beast went to the Carson campaign and the Carson campaign ‘confirmed’ to The Beast......... confirmed what exactly....
There is a whole lot of baloney but apparently you are reading right over the baloney.
Neil Cavuto said they couldn’t get the Cruz campaign to say anything. Show me anyplace where a Cruz person is cited. This article clearly comes from the perspective of the Carson campaign. It has one quote from the Cruz spokesman, saying they had a good talk.
The Carson spokesman’s quote doesn’t even make sense. Either he doesn’t know how to speak English, or Daily Caller chopped up his quote “We weren’t going to comment to the press on it, but it seems pretty clear that the other party involved had a different agenda. How else could we perceive that to be?”
Perceive what to be? That they had a different agenda? How else than what? The quote doesn’t make sense. It was clearly butchered. Why? To make it seem like the Cruz team had leaked information about a disastrous meeting so nobody would think that Carson’s team was dwelling on this to stab Cruz in the back again?