Quote:
|
The rest of us all understand that many people, especially Trump defenders, are not arguing in good faith. When it suits you, you pretend to care about that. For example, your complaint that CNN was showing bias when described a Trump lie as such. When you post about Schiff, you weren't saying, Republicans will lie about his role. You said, he orchestrated the whistleblower's complaint, and you linked to articles that did not say that. It's one thing to recognize that other people spread falsehoods, and another to spread them yourself.
|
This is your characterization. The actual quote I used discussing whether there was orchestration is as follows:
I do, unless he orchestrated this with Schiff. In which case, he can't say he didn't expect something along the lines of this. He's poking the world's biggest bear.
This was stated in regard to whether the WB was being unfairly smeared. You'll note, this uses a caveat some people like to use from time to time, "if." Look it up. It's really useful word.
Quote:
|
There isn't unless you make shit up, and everyone knows it. You're either being stupid or dishonest. Pick one and own it.
|
There's more than enough for any PR flack or defense lawyer to say, without appearing stupid or dishonest, "I think we need to look into how and when Schiff became involved. A lot of this seems to be orchestrated from behind the scenes."
Defense lawyers have to say things far worse all the time, as they often represent unquestionably guilty clients. Pointing a finger at Schiff here, where there's more than adequate plausible deniability of the allegation one is acting in bad faith, is not a heavy lift.
Threaded Mode