BowlBrother85
1 star recruit
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 46,701
- Likes
- 41,322
I didn't select the source.I can’t help but notice you sure are selective about your sources when it comes to things that reflect poorly on the Democrats.
Here we have a diary with a page in the middle of it in the same handwriting, and you are willing to dismiss it. While it’s not “proof”, it’s still compelling. And, as Hog pointed out, hasn’t been denied.
On the other hand, you have a long history of accepting information about Trump that was far less compelling. Some if it was so flimsy it just took a little bit of thinking to realize it had a low probability of being true. I don’t recall you being so discerning of sources then.
At a minimum, this suggests to me you should spend more time thinking and less time discerning which sources you think are valid. Because you’re not so good at it.
The source is Project Veritas because they paid Robert Kurlander and Aimee Harris for the diary, and then were in physical possession of it for close to a month before finally taking it to the police.
That isn't compelling evidence at all, considering that it was in the possession of Project Veritas for close to a month, and they have revealed themselves to be capable of crimes such as bribery and forgery in the recent past. I have posted evidence of their acts of dishonesty up above. You should click on those links and learn something about who you are trusting in this matter.