https://twitter.com/Biz_Shrink/status/1740790026802462918
Added: the apology is about her claim that Trump visited the Epstein pedo island once, in 1997.
But when I see this tweet she retweeted its possible she is a Zionist asset.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (149)
sorted by:
So, how do you know your first "fact" is indeed factual? That seems entirely out of synch with her apology. What is important is not that the information was "not new," but that it was new to her. (Was it? You don't know.) And your second "fact" is only an appendage to the first "fact." These are both conclusions you have leaped to without any evidence.
The third "fact": I'm not "weaseling" out of anything. I don't have any knowledge of her previous post. You are assuming facts not in evidence, regarding what I know. Nothing in what you say that wouldn't be the result of sloppiness, not prevarication.
The going-in position for all testimony (particularly in court) is to take the testator at their word---unless there is evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence to the contrary, or you would have cited it. I don't know of any evidence that she has lied in the past, nor do you bring up any. Moreover, a mistaken statement made in good faith is not a lie, but a mistake.
You are not "teaching" me anything. I have in my time solved a number of puzzling technical questions (e.g., "Why does this fast igniter result in slow ignition?") which required close and careful thinking, because reality doesn't lie. I have a backlog of 40 years of technical analysis that my colleagues have all recognized as being first rate. So, don't waste my time or yours by talking down to me over what is or is not an assumption, when all you have demonstrated is your propensity to shoot first and not ask questions later.
Yes it was.
There there, you are assuming again.
If you have no idea what she is apologising for, then you are not in a position to judge whether her apology should be taken at face value or not. Infact, your opinion in this regards is what we call "Uninformed opinion".
Evidence? If you know something, tell me from what source you know. You simply haven't been doing that. And you certainly have no power to look inside her mind.
How do you prove that her apology was not bona fide? You've already danced down a stairway of deduction fueled by your suppositions about what she knew or didn't know, with no room for her error or inattention.
I would not recommend you to be empaneled as a juror.
Are you asking this question in good faith?
Don't be an idiot. How would I know unless you answer the question? Don't bother, then, since you think you have to ask that question. (What would a "yes" answer mean to you? You would have no idea if it was the truth or a lie.) You have a problem dealing with reality; you expect it to be a disguise for ulterior motives.