Earlier this year (paraphrasing): "Conservative politicians lie and keep repeating the lies. Biden and Democrats don't lie... they correct their misspoken statements when presented with new information and don't double- down..."

Yesterday:

Biden is awarded a Bottomless Pinocchio for statements regarding his relationship with Chinese President Xi.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/07/bottomless-pinocchio-biden-ot
her-recent-gaffes/

https://tinyurl.com/3ybd4fx3

A Bottomless Pinocchio is significant because it means a statement has been rated as a 3- or greater Pinocchio statement and the person in question continues to repeat it at least 20 times.

So, in this case, Biden has made a claim, it was shown to be unverifiable,
and he has kept repeating it at multiple high-profile speeches, even after
the White House also admitted it was not accurate. At least 21 times by
the Washington Post's count last week.

After the White House admission, Biden doubled-down by increasing the "distance" of the lie, from 17,000 travel miles to "17-18,000," for the
21st repetition.

There are some other "errors of fact" are interesting and are ones that have either been repeated by Biden or his supporters since he said them. The one where he takes credit for Social Security checks going up is very telling... for it to be true, he also has to be taking credit for the rate of inflation. The checks are inflation adjusted BY LAW and will go up 8.7% because inflation has "soared" to that level.

Even more interesting is that, after Biden made the Social Security claim, the White House Twitter account made a very similar, and equally misleading, claim that this increase was due to "President Biden's leadership..." That Tweet was later deleted after Twitter flagged it (fact-checked it) for "lacking context."

Depending on how you look at it, the tweet may also be true, but not for any reason to brag about.


* SLMR 2.1a * "End of quote. Repeat the line." - Biden Words of Wisdom
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 08 Nov 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

Earlier this year (paraphrasing): "Conservative politicians lie and keep repeating the lies. Biden and Democrats don't lie... they correct their misspoken statements when presented with new information and don't
double- down..."
Yesterday:
Biden is awarded a Bottomless Pinocchio for statements regarding his relationship with Chinese President Xi.

How many Bottomless Pinnochio awards did Trump get? 56.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/fact-checker-most-repeated-dis information/
(https://tinyurl.com/yckrz53n)

Many of the debunked lies that Trump repeated (and continues to repeat) have been claimed by him more than 200 times each.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

So, in this case, Biden has made a claim, it was shown to be
unverifiable, and he has kept repeating it at multiple high-profile speeches, even after the White House also admitted it was not accurate. At least 21 times by the Washington Post's count last week.

Just a couple years ago, the media was telling us that it was "unpresidential for president to lie to the American people," but things have changed a lot.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

Hello Aaron,

So, in this case, Biden has made a claim, it was shown to be
unverifiable, and he has kept repeating it at multiple high-profile
speeches, even after the White House also admitted it was not accurate.
At least 21 times by the Washington Post's count last week.

Just a couple years ago, the media was telling us that it was "unpresidential
for president to lie to the American people," but things have changed a lot.

"As president, I will never lie to you." ~Jimmy Carter

For Life,
Lee

--
Love! Not hate! Makes America great!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

Earlier this year (paraphrasing): "Conservative politicians lie and keep repeating the lies. Biden and Democrats don't lie... they correct their misspoken statements when presented with new information and don't double- down..."
Yesterday:
Biden is awarded a Bottomless Pinocchio for statements regarding his relationship with Chinese President Xi.

How many Bottomless Pinnochio awards did Trump get? 56.

They were created because of Trump. But that was not the point. The point
was that persons have stated here that Democrats don't lie, that they
correct their misspoken statements when presented with new information.

Biden did not do that and actually increased the lie after the White House admitted it was not verifiable. In another case, he made a very misleading statement, the Biden White House made an even more misleading one, and then retracted it when Twitter embarrassed them with a fact check.

I am going to lean on one of Aaron's statements, that Trump is no longer relevant. Yesterday proved that. Out of the Congressional candidates that
he stumped for that were predicted to be in tight races, only one won.
Another will apparently have to survive a run-off to win. The rest of them lost, and some big.

So you will need to find another Republican to fixate on.


* SLMR 2.1a * Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

So, in this case, Biden has made a claim, it was shown to be unverifiable, and he has kept repeating it at multiple high-profile speeches, even after the White House also admitted it was not accurate. At least 21 times by the Washington Post's count last week.

Just a couple years ago, the media was telling us that it was "unpresidential for president to lie to the American people," but things have changed a lot.

And it was also "unpresidential" to snap at and mock reporters regularly
during that same time period.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-makes-fun-of-reporters-with-faces -imitations-in-latest-incident-insulting-the-press/ar-AA13qYej?ocid=entnewsntp& pc=U531&cvid=5dd535b7ed8b40ad9716a8827ddcd0a4

https://tinyurl.com/4fbxhdka

In what way do you think that Biden has committed treason? That alone w
make you "radical."

Not if he actually has some proof that he did that we've not seen yet.

Jeff thinks that the Pelosi attacker was "radicalized by American conservatives," so I'm just wondering how that happened (maybe he was kidnapped by Trump supporters and forced to listen to Trump rhetoric?)

He could have easily been radicalized by Canadian conservatives, or by
exposure to Canadian leftists, like the ones that run the federal
government and freeze the bank accounts of (actual) peaceful protesters
because they make the PM sad.

Being in California could do it to someone, too.


* SLMR 2.1a * ....we came in?
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 09 Nov 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

Earlier this year (paraphrasing): "Conservative politicians lie and repeating the lies. Biden and Democrats don't lie... they correct misspoken statements when presented with new information and don't double- down..."
Yesterday:
Biden is awarded a Bottomless Pinocchio for statements regarding hi relationship with Chinese President Xi.

How many Bottomless Pinnochio awards did Trump get? 56.

They were created because of Trump. But that was not the point. The point was that persons have stated here that Democrats don't lie, that they correct their misspoken statements when presented with new information.

For the most part, yes. Democrats do lie, but not at the rate that
Republicans and conservatives do.

Biden did not do that and actually increased the lie after the White
House admitted it was not verifiable. In another case, he made a very misleading statement, the Biden White House made an even more misleading one, and then retracted it when Twitter embarrassed them with a fact check.

So in the second case, he did take corrective measures after being informed
of his mistake. How many times did Trump do that?

I am going to lean on one of Aaron's statements, that Trump is no longer relevant. Yesterday proved that. Out of the Congressional candidates that he stumped for that were predicted to be in tight races, only one won. Another will apparently have to survive a run-off to win. The rest of them lost, and some big.

Trump is much less relevant as a political force, but is still quite relevant historically. That Republicans only stopped supporting him after his picks performed poorly does not mean that those same Republicans supported him through all sorts of other things.

So you will need to find another Republican to fixate on.

Nope. That you don't support Trump now doesn't mean that you didn't support
him for 4+ years.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Jeff thinks that the Pelosi attacker was "radicalized by American conservatives," so I'm just wondering how that happened (maybe he was kidnapped by Trump supporters and forced to listen to Trump rhetoric?)

He could have easily been radicalized by Canadian conservatives, or by exposure to Canadian leftists, like the ones that run the federal government and freeze the bank accounts of (actual) peaceful protesters because they make the PM sad.

But is "radicalized" the right word for it? Here's Google's preferred definition of it:

"advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party"

This Canadian goose wasn't advocating a complete political or social change,
he doesn't represent or necessarily support the Republican party either. Mentally ill people are unpredictable, but they shouldn't be thought of as "politically violent offenders." Unless he had plans to take over the United States government (you know, like Trump allegedly tried to do.)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

For the most part, yes. Democrats do lie, but not at the rate that Republicans and conservatives do.

That's the most full of it thing you've said all day. All is well when Jeff's spewing BS.

You said "Democrats lie for the most part"

and then you said

"but not as much as Republicans!"

Makes no sense, is contradictory, but is funny!

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

On 09 Nov 2022, Aaron Thomas said the following...

For the most part, yes. Democrats do lie, but not at the rate that Republicans and conservatives do.

That's the most full of it thing you've said all day. All is well when Jeff's spewing BS.

Let's see who's spewing BS, shall we?

You said "Democrats lie for the most part"

No, I didn't. Mike brought up the claim that Democrats change their minds
when confronted with contradictory evidence. That's what I was saying "Yes,
for the most part" to. I notice that you've left that out of your quote, though.

And then, what's that right there? Do you see that little dot after the word "part?" What could that be? Why, it's a period, marking the end of a
sentence!

and then you said
"but not as much as Republicans!"

I did say that Democrats don't lie with the frequency or amplitude with which Republicans lie.

Makes no sense, is contradictory, but is funny!

It's not contradictory at all, unless one can't read.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 09 Nov 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

I am going to lean on one of Aaron's statements, that Trump is no longer relevant. Yesterday proved that. Out of the Congressional candidates that he stumped for that were predicted to be in tight races, only one won. Another will apparently have to survive a run-off to win. The rest of them lost, and some big.

Is it outside the realm of possibility that Trump could seek, and win, the
GOP nomination for 2024?

We don't know what he's planning. We do know that some Republicans have had enough of him, but we also know that he continues to have a very devoted base (even if it consists solely of Marjorie Taylor Green). What we don't know is what the relative sizes of those components of the GOP are.

Why did the "red wave" fail to materialize? Was it because some Republican voters chose to abstain? Was it because some Republican voters chose to vote for a Democrat? Was it due to independent voters? The answer to that question is quite relevant to Trump's relevancy.

Is Trump's MAGA worldview more popular than his damage to the party is unpopular? Will Trump voluntarily step down from a fight against Ron "DeSanctimonious?"

Perhaps we should wait for his "very big announcement" on November 15th to evaluate his relevancy. Future rally attendance statistics could also be informative.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Earlier this year (paraphrasing): "Conservative politicians lie an
repeating the lies. Biden and Democrats don't lie... they correct
misspoken statements when presented with new information and don't
double- down..."
Yesterday:
Biden is awarded a Bottomless Pinocchio for statements regarding h
relationship with Chinese President Xi.

How many Bottomless Pinnochio awards did Trump get? 56.

They were created because of Trump. But that was not the point. The point was that persons have stated here that Democrats don't lie, that they correct their misspoken statements when presented with new information.

For the most part, yes. Democrats do lie, but not at the rate that Republicans and conservatives do.

I think it is more along the lines of a Democrat is more forgiving and will pass something off as a gaffe, mis-statement, etc., when a Democrat says something that is not true, just like a Republican probably would for a Republican.

Biden did not do that and actually increased the lie after the White House admitted it was not verifiable. In another case, he made a very misleading statement, the Biden White House made an even more misleading one, and then retracted it when Twitter embarrassed them with a fact check.

So in the second case, he did take corrective measures after being informed of his mistake. How many times did Trump do that?

He did not take corrective measures. The person running the White House Twitter account deleted their tweet. Since it is a recent one, we have to
wait and see if Biden repeats that one to know, or if he comes out and
corrects the statement with something like "Social Security checks are
going up because of the existing cost of living adjustment, and are going
up a whole bunch because of inflation."

If he continues to take credit for it, it is not corrected.

Trump is much less relevant as a political force, but is still quite relevant historically. That Republicans only stopped supporting him after his picks performed poorly does not mean that those same Republicans supported him through all sorts of other things.

I would say his picks performed poorly because most Republicans had already stopped supporting him. I don't know any that are excited about the possibility of him running again.

So you will need to find another Republican to fixate on.

Nope. That you don't support Trump now doesn't mean that you didn't support him for 4+ years.

When looking at events happening now and in the future, you do indeed need
to fixate on someone else.


* SLMR 2.1a * This message brought to you by JAMMITIN (tm)!!
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Is it outside the realm of possibility that Trump could seek, and win, the GOP nomination for 2024?

Anything is possible. Few initially thought he would win the nomination in 2016, just as few initially thought that Obama would beat Hillary, that
Hillary would be able to come back and win it in 2016 (if they knew she was
in control of the DNC finances, they might have thought so), or that Biden would be able to come back from multiple failed attempts over 30+ years and finally win the nomination.

For Trump to do so, I would say there would need to be a very weak field.

Why did the "red wave" fail to materialize? Was it because some Republican voters chose to abstain? Was it because some Republican voters chose to vote for a Democrat? Was it due to independent voters? The answer to that question is quite relevant to Trump's relevancy.

I think that was an over-prediction. My understanding was always that the Republicans were likely to take control of the House (which they did) and
had an outside chance of having a thin Senate majority (which is yet to be decided, last I checked). That was the "wave" that I thought was expected.

Others were apparently expecting most all Democrats to lose, which is not realistic. They are disappointed I am sure but that was predictable.

Is Trump's MAGA worldview more popular than his damage to the party is unpopular? Will Trump voluntarily step down from a fight against Ron "DeSanctimonious?"

I doubt he'd step down, but I also doubt he'd win.

Perhaps we should wait for his "very big announcement" on November 15th to evaluate his relevancy. Future rally attendance statistics could also be informative.

Maybe, but they really were not informative when it came to the 2020
election outcome.


* SLMR 2.1a * "I'm cold, and there are wolves after me!"-Granpa Simpson
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 10 Nov 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

For the most part, yes. Democrats do lie, but not at the rate that Republicans and conservatives do.

I think it is more along the lines of a Democrat is more forgiving and will pass something off as a gaffe, mis-statement, etc., when a Democrat says something that is not true, just like a Republican probably would
for a Republican.

Perhaps, but even so, Biden is criticized for making gaffes while if these
lies were considered gaffes, Trump had at least 56x more "gaffes" than Biden does. Something doesn't add up there.

Biden did not do that and actually increased the lie after the Whit House admitted it was not verifiable. In another case, he made a v misleading statement, the Biden White House made an even more misle one, and then retracted it when Twitter embarrassed them with a fac check.

So in the second case, he did take corrective measures after being infor of his mistake. How many times did Trump do that?

He did not take corrective measures. The person running the White House Twitter account deleted their tweet. Since it is a recent one, we have
to wait and see if Biden repeats that one to know, or if he comes out and corrects the statement with something like "Social Security checks are going up because of the existing cost of living adjustment, and are going up a whole bunch because of inflation."

Yep, we'll see. At any rate, corrective measures were taken.

Trump is much less relevant as a political force, but is still quite rel historically. That Republicans only stopped supporting him after his pic performed poorly does not mean that those same Republicans supported him through all sorts of other things.

I would say his picks performed poorly because most Republicans had already stopped supporting him. I don't know any that are excited about the possibility of him running again.

I'm not sure if Trump's picks performed poorly because of ins endorsement, or in spite of it. In other words, did people specifically avoid voting for candidates with a Trump endorsement, or did a Trump endorsement simply fail
to help already-bad candidates?

So you will need to find another Republican to fixate on.

Nope. That you don't support Trump now doesn't mean that you didn't supp him for 4+ years.

When looking at events happening now and in the future, you do indeed
need to fixate on someone else.

Not necessarily. He may try to run again, and he may end up being the GOP nominee. He is under a lot of legal pressure from the DOJ, NY, and GA. His legal strategy when attacked has been to delay, but he's running out of ways
to do that. If he ran again, he could have two more years in which he could claim that his legal adversaries are attacking a political figure. I think it "only" costs a $25,000 "filing fee" to become a Republican candidate, no
matter who you are or what your chances of getting the nomination are. If he wins the 2024 presidential election, that's another four years of virtual immunity. It's got to be tempting.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 10 Nov 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

Is it outside the realm of possibility that Trump could seek, and win, t GOP nomination for 2024?

Anything is possible. Few initially thought he would win the nomination in 2016, just as few initially thought that Obama would beat Hillary,
that Hillary would be able to come back and win it in 2016 (if they knew she was in control of the DNC finances, they might have thought so), or that Biden would be able to come back from multiple failed attempts over 30+ years and finally win the nomination.
For Trump to do so, I would say there would need to be a very weak field.

Or an incredible amount of intra-party mudslinging.

Why did the "red wave" fail to materialize? Was it because some Republic voters chose to abstain? Was it because some Republican voters chose to for a Democrat? Was it due to independent voters? The answer to that que is quite relevant to Trump's relevancy.

I think that was an over-prediction. My understanding was always that
the Republicans were likely to take control of the House (which they
did) and had an outside chance of having a thin Senate majority (which
is yet to be decided, last I checked). That was the "wave" that I
thought was expected.

The "red tsunami" that others expected was the customary big wins that the party not in power historically achieves during the midterm elections. Republicans' midterm gains in that regard were very, very low.

Others were apparently expecting most all Democrats to lose, which is not realistic. They are disappointed I am sure but that was predictable.

It's happened before, and when it did it was during a Democrat president's midterms.

Is Trump's MAGA worldview more popular than his damage to the party is unpopular? Will Trump voluntarily step down from a fight against Ron "DeSanctimonious?"

I doubt he'd step down, but I also doubt he'd win.

He can do a lot of damage without winning. We both know how Trump operates.
And if he does, he's still relevant.

Perhaps we should wait for his "very big announcement" on November 15th evaluate his relevancy. Future rally attendance statistics could also be informative.

Maybe, but they really were not informative when it came to the 2020 election outcome.

In a sense they were, and in a sense they weren't. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election but won the 2020 Republican primary against several arguably better general-election candidates. With the 2022 midterms behind us, we're now turning to the 2024 presidential party nominations. It's not quite time for the 2024 general election yet.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Others were apparently expecting most all Democrats to lose, which is

ot

realistic. They are disappointed I am sure but that was predictable.

It's happened before, and when it did it was during a Democrat president's midterms.

So we've had a mostly all Republican House in recent times?

One thing I doubt we've had is so many ultra-right-wing candidates getting money from Democrat donors leading up to primaries.

Maybe, but they really were not informative when it came to the 2020 election outcome.

In a sense they were, and in a sense they weren't. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election but won the 2020 Republican primary against several arguably better general-election candidates. With the 2022 midterms behind

s,

we're now turning to the 2024 presidential party nominations. It's not quite time for the 2024 general election yet.

I would agree there were better candidates in 2016 (Ben Carson, for one).
I have no idea who you think was viable in 2020 and think you are mixing
your years up.


* SLMR 2.1a * A restless eye across a weary room...
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 11 Nov 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

Others were apparently expecting most all Democrats to lose, which

ot

realistic. They are disappointed I am sure but that was predictabl

It's happened before, and when it did it was during a Democrat president midterms.

So we've had a mostly all Republican House in recent times?

Nope. But they do tend to make substantial gains in Democrat presidents' midterms.

One thing I doubt we've had is so many ultra-right-wing candidates
getting money from Democrat donors leading up to primaries.

And yet there's no proff of that. At all. Maybe one or two, maybe.

Maybe, but they really were not informative when it came to the 202 election outcome.

In a sense they were, and in a sense they weren't. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election but won the 2020 Republican primary against severa arguably better general-election candidates. With the 2022 midterms behi

s,

we're now turning to the 2024 presidential party nominations. It's not q time for the 2024 general election yet.

I would agree there were better candidates in 2016 (Ben Carson, for one). I have no idea who you think was viable in 2020 and think you are mixing your years up.

Yeah, that's true. He was pretty much unopposed. But the reason he was unopposed was because he was the sitting president. Had another candidate won the primary in 2016, *they( might have been the sitting president.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

One thing I doubt we've had is so many ultra-right-wing candidates getting money from Democrat donors leading up to primaries.

And yet there's no proff of that. At all. Maybe one or two, maybe.

Psaki, in her own words, admitted that this was happening. I trust Psaki
to know more than you (sorry!). Another person during the interview seemed
to also have knowledge of it.

In a sense they were, and in a sense they weren't. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election but won the 2020 Republican primary against sever
arguably better general-election candidates. With the 2022 midterms beh

I would agree there were better candidates in 2016 (Ben Carson, for one).
I have no idea who you think was viable in 2020 and think you are mixing your years up.

Yeah, that's true. He was pretty much unopposed. But the reason he was unopposed was because he was the sitting president. Had another candidate won the primary in 2016, *they( might have been the sitting president.

I was all for another candiate winning the primary in 2016. I voted for Carson.


* SLMR 2.1a * "Tryin' is the first step towards failure." - Homer
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 12 Nov 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

One thing I doubt we've had is so many ultra-right-wing candidates getting money from Democrat donors leading up to primaries.

And yet there's no proff of that. At all. Maybe one or two, maybe.

Psaki, in her own words, admitted that this was happening. I trust Psaki to know more than you (sorry!). Another person during the interview seemed to also have knowledge of it.

So how many donors are we talking about? How much money are we talking about? You seem convinced that it was done by big donors and a lot of money was involved, but did she actually say that?

In a sense they were, and in a sense they weren't. Trump lost the presidential election but won the 2020 Republican primary against sever
arguably better general-election candidates. With the 2022 midter beh

I would agree there were better candidates in 2016 (Ben Carson, for one).
I have no idea who you think was viable in 2020 and think you are m your years up.

Yeah, that's true. He was pretty much unopposed. But the reason he was unopposed was because he was the sitting president. Had another candidat the primary in 2016, *they( might have been the sitting president.

I was all for another candiate winning the primary in 2016. I voted for Carson.

Carson didn't win, though. Republicans as a whole chose Trump.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

One thing I doubt we've had is so many ultra-right-wing candidates
getting money from Democrat donors leading up to primaries.

And yet there's no proff of that. At all. Maybe one or two, maybe.

Psaki, in her own words, admitted that this was happening. I trust Psaki
to know more than you (sorry!). Another person during the interview seemed to also have knowledge of it.

So how many donors are we talking about? How much money are we talking about? You seem convinced that it was done by big donors and a lot of money was involved, but did she actually say that?

If it wasn't a lot of money, why would Psaki and others be worried? Why would she say the quiet part out loud on TV?

If we were talking about Jeff T giving $5 to the local GOP MAGA candidate,
I doubt she'd care (or even know) about it.


* SLMR 2.1a * Here is a loud announcement... Silence in the studio!!
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)