I’ve heard two good explanations as to why she’d publicize such a story:
She botched a common Republican technique by choosing the wrong victim to villainize (full explanation here)
There are witnesses to the puppy murder (construction crew) so this is her way of getting ahead of the story before someone else tells it (AFAIK so far we’ve only heard her version; maybe reality is even worse)
There are witnesses to the puppy murder (construction crew) so this is her way of getting ahead of the story before someone else tells it (AFAIK so far we’ve only heard her version; maybe reality is even worse)
That is what Democrats in the state legislature are claiming. That this was known in a lot of circles already and there were witnesses.
So this was damage control. The worst attempt at damage control I’ve ever seen.
Some parts of these articles are always so weird for me. It’s not that I disagree or don’t understand the point, but that it’s always such a stupid part where they say “…now then, Trump said we’re X and Y, now this actually isn’t true, because in fact, he is.” and I can’t help but very silently yell to myself “my brother in Christ you are yet to prove your point in a logically sound way”. I mean I know that he is and he acts like people other than him are, but it shouldn’t be assumed I have that knowledge.
I think it’s just bad writing from the journalists’ part, that’s all.
I’ve heard two good explanations as to why she’d publicize such a story:
She botched a common Republican technique by choosing the wrong victim to villainize (full explanation here)
There are witnesses to the puppy murder (construction crew) so this is her way of getting ahead of the story before someone else tells it (AFAIK so far we’ve only heard her version; maybe reality is even worse)
That is what Democrats in the state legislature are claiming. That this was known in a lot of circles already and there were witnesses.
So this was damage control. The worst attempt at damage control I’ve ever seen.
Even Republicans love dogs.
(Almost) Totally out of context comment warning
Some parts of these articles are always so weird for me. It’s not that I disagree or don’t understand the point, but that it’s always such a stupid part where they say “…now then, Trump said we’re X and Y, now this actually isn’t true, because in fact, he is.” and I can’t help but very silently yell to myself “my brother in Christ you are yet to prove your point in a logically sound way”. I mean I know that he is and he acts like people other than him are, but it shouldn’t be assumed I have that knowledge.
I think it’s just bad writing from the journalists’ part, that’s all.