re: James Comer read Brooklyn Barack’s email to Epstein on the house floor

quote:

---

Has he? I'm late to the party. Jbird, don't you think it's inaccurate to call that "Brooklyn Barack's email" though.

I know we aren't writing English papers, but it clearly was written by an independent contractor engaged by Jeffries...not by Jeffries.

Fun. Funny. Embarrassing...but not literally true.

---

Exactly my point.

Meanwhile Chuck Schumer received $22,000 in campaign donations from Epstein. The DNC got $32,000. Hillary got $20,000. It seems silly to misrepresent something when there are many better examples.

quote:

---

Meanwhile Chuck Schumer received $22,000 in campaign donations from Epstein. The DNC got $32,000. Hillary got $20,000. It seems silly to misrepresent something when there are many better examples.

---

I appreciate your offer to sacrifice the Democrat dinosaurs that have no place in today's Democrat party. But we'll stick to calling out the leftist hypocrisy whilst they defend bargain-bin Barry.

quote:

---

Then ooops they get caught and it's DENY DENY DENY:

---

He was my constituent!

Who doesn’t text their sex trafficking constituents for advice.

quote:

---

Valiant effort Mountain, but the Clapping Seals are imperious to logic. Your appeal to it is perceived as a threat.

---

Imperious to logic.

Again….. what is Epstein, a convicted sexual predator, doing on democrat email contact lists?

Also, why are the Dems asking for campaign bucks from a convicted sexual predator?

Why did the overwhelming majority of Epstein’s pedo bucks go to democrats?

“But but but but but… the campaign n’ shite”

Ok.. why do democrat congresswomen have a convicted sexual predator’s personal cell phone number, and he have theirs, and they are close enough to be texting during a congressional hearing??

“Uhhh. None of this is important! It’s just third party stuff. Let’s just sit this over here and forget about it. No more inquiries. It’s ok. No need to concern ourselves with thiiiss stuff. It’s irrelevant.. yea that’s it… it’s irrelevant”

Boy… the mood of the “Epstien files NOW!!” Crew sure have changed in a few days. lol.

quote:

---

So you would consider it logically plausible that a political campaign would allow a completely "independent" individual or group to invite whomever they wanted to invite to the candidate's fundraisers, invitation-only meetings,etc. ... with a paper trail ... and without any campaign or candidate input?

---

“Uhhh…. Ummmm.. welll….. this really isn’t….. ahhh…. It’s not really concerning. See really any “constituent” can just walk in these things and they just invite everyone I guess…. Mmmmm… yea it’s not concerning.. no more questions.. irrevelent n stuff. Third parties n’ shite”

quote:

---

So you would consider it logically plausible that a political campaign would allow a completely "independent" individual or group to invite whomever they wanted to invite to the candidate's fundraisers, invitation-only meetings,etc. ... with a paper trail ... and without any campaign or candidate input?

---

Yes. I think this might happen. Wasn't it his first run for Congress?

Whatever the case, this didn't come from Jeffries. Did he approve of everyone who was invited? Maybe, but why hire a third party to do this.

Words matter. Call it an email from a company hired by Jeffries. If you have proof he approved, that makes it worse.

The Dems are guilty of countless, more egregious sins. IMO, it undercuts credibility to lie about a relatively minor offense.

Just my opinion. Others think it's a good idea to exaggerate. Obviously, that has helped Trump...which is good.

quote:

---

It is literally frightening to me just how ignorant Americans are to elect people like Jeffries, Crockett, islamic radicals, etc.

---

They are not voted on by the people. They are installed via manipulation of the election apparatus in areas where folks don't ask too many questions.

The alters in this thread...

Sucks when the rabbit has the gun doesn't it?

quote:

---

Imperious to logic.

---

That IS a funny typo. Thanks for pointing it out.

quote:

---

Words matter. Call it an email from a company hired by Jeffries. If you have proof he approved, that makes it worse.

---

Words matter, but so does plausible deniability.

It is plausible that someone within the campaign, or elsewhere, made a decision claiming to represent Hakeem Jeffries, which Jefferies might take great offense to. In a large campaign things like that happen. However, when discovered, there are exchanges of information to ensure the same mistake is not made again. It is not plausible that a person with Epstein's public presence would be invited to fund, or otherwise support, a campaign without anyone in the campaign being aware such an invitation was extended, and was extended in the name of the campaign.

"That dog don't hunt."

CYA is endemic in politics. Had the invitation to Epstein, not been approved at some level, likely by Jefferies himself, there would've been hell to pay for the originator of the email, and there would be a record to demonstrate it. That is how one covers one's own arse.

I'd say that, without evidence of such an internal critical exchange regarding the originator of the Epstein invitation, it leaves Hakeem Jeffries and his campaign culpable. In that instance, my opinion is whether Jefferies penned the email himself or someone else did it in his behalf is a distinction without a difference.