Posted on 02/14/2021 8:47:15 AM PST by foxfield
I watched that video twice and I never heard HER use the word “just” in describing the doctored evidence. It sounds like the lawyer ascribed a motive here that wasn’t reflected in what she said.
I thought it was a great rant, but he jumped the gun on this and should have just let the interview play out.
From post 34:
A lawyer making a compelling point about doctored evidence shouldn't "read through" anything. He had all the facts on his side and should have just hammered the House managers on that alone.
...Listen to the end when he misquotes her as saying: "Just to be fair ..." -- when in fact she said, "Just to be clear to our viewers," when describing the fabricated evidence.
Agreed. It doesn't do our side good to not state the truth. Truth is important. To accuse the other side of lying, then lie ourselves, defeats our argument. Some on our side are becoming so unhinged that they are leaving conservative (and moral) principles behind.
“CBS hack”
No need to be redundant.
But I'm also objective. Go back and read my prior post and tell me where I was wrong. The lawyer flat-out misquoted her -- probably not deliberately (for the reasons I gave), but he absolutely misrepresented what she said when she was speaking to him.
If you can't see that, then I suspect you didn't watch the video clip at all.
Great jib
Great job
Then you should be freaking out about the fact that this reporter doesn’t care a whit about the democrats manufacturing evidence and all you care about is that he didn’t quote her verbatim.
If you are for truth and justice you certainly wouldn’t be defending that brainless twit.
Those house managers should be in jail right now. If I did that in a court, I’d be spending a year in prison and lose my license. But OMG, he didn’t quote her perfectly. He got the gist of what she said. What she said was that she didn’t give a damn about the House Managers doctoring evidence.
The lawyer stepped on his own message by making his disdain for the media the focus of the conversation instead of absolutely hammering the point home about the doctored evidence. I was sitting there waiting for him to do it, but he got off on a tangent that made no sense to me -- an objective viewer -- in the context of their conversation.
He got the gist of what she said. What she said was that she didn’t give a damn about the House Managers doctoring evidence.
How could he get the gist of what she said if he didn't even represent it clearly to her audience? He didn't just quote her "imperfectly." He completely misrepresented what she said.
I give the guy a B for performance and an A for his passion in attacking the media. If he had played this well he would have gotten an A+ all around.
And you get an F for missing the underlying hatred this woman has for Trump, his attorney and you and the 80 million Trump voters who got robbed by the same cheaters that would manufacture evidence in a trial.
There is no “explaining” on her part. She was saying that a little evidence manufacturing is ok. It’s what the Soviets and Nazis did to their Domestic enemies. They’ll do it to you if they can. Well maybe not you, but certainly vocal Trump supporters.
Maybe you can “explain” what exactly is involved in manufacturing evidence and what she was about to explain to her audience. Maybe you think it’s ok if it’s just a little bit of evidence tampering.
Why don’t you explain to everyone here what she was intending to say. Maybe you are her spokesperson.
I’ve been pretty disappointed in your recent posts here, but this one takes the cake.
I’m an attorney and if someone tried to manufacture even a little bit of evidence against my client, I would be furious. That’s not what is supposed to happen. Maybe in your socialist republic of Canada that’s ok. But it’s not ok here.
I have no idea what she thinks about Trump, his attorney, or his 80 million supporters (which would include me).
She was saying that a little evidence manufacturing is ok.
She said no such thing.
Maybe you can “explain” what exactly is involved in manufacturing evidence and what she was about to explain to her audience.
I did already. I thought I explained it clearly earlier on this thread.
Why don’t you explain to everyone here what she was intending to say.
I don't know what she "intended" to say. I only know what she ACTUALLY SAID.
I’ve been pretty disappointed in your recent posts here, but this one takes the cake.
I don't give a flaming crap.
Maybe in your socialist republic of Canada that’s ok. But it’s not ok here.
I don't know where "here" is. IF I was a Canadian your point might make sense.
Btw, who pays Trump’s legal fees?
Should come from House Dems’ pension funds directly.
> Btw, who pays Trump’s legal fees?
Dunno. Could Trump sue Congress for legal fees and also for fraud upon the court?
Former 0bama White House Adviser Charged With Stealing Over $200,000 From Charter School Chain He Founded 4/27/2021, 7:01:28 PM · by Diana in Wisconsin · 31 replies The Epoch Times ^ | April 27, 2021 | Samuel Allegri
A former White House adviser has been arrested and charged by the FBI with stealing $218,005 from charter schools he helped found. Seth Andrew, 42, served under former President Barack 0bama as a senior adviser in the Office of Educational Technology. He was arrested on charges of wire fraud, money laundering, and making false statements to a financial institution. Federal prosecutors said that he used more than half of the allegedly stolen money to maintain his bank account above a threshold that enabled him to get better interest rates for a mortgage of his multimillion Manhattan apartment. “As alleged, Seth...
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.