Actually the reporter lumps phone calls and texts together and doesn't differentiate the number of each from Herman as opposed to how many she originated:
She showed us some of her cell phone bills that included 61 phone calls or text messages to or from a number starting with 678. She says it is Herman Cain's private cell phone. The calls were made during four different months -- calls or texts made as early as 4:26 in the early morning, and as late as 7:52 at night. The latest were in September of this year.A short session of texting back and forth could be as few as 2 or as many as 10 or more. Was the reporter being intentionally vague so it appears to be more than it is?
Something I just noticed from the article:
The calls were made during four different monthsSo, it wasn't over a 4 month period - they were even more spread out.
The calls were made during four different months
So, it wasn't over a 4 month period - they were even more spread out.
So it could be calls in:
September (Please help, I can't pay the rent and my kid needs new shoes for school)
December (I have no money for my kids Christmas presents)
February (I am getting evicted)
March (I need money for my lawyer since I am being sued for slander)
Yup the report was INTENTIONALLY vague.
You don’t need to say 61 calls or texts, to or from.
If you have just one damning text (or call) you’d show it.
And they barely mentioned this woman has stalked and harassed someone before with texts and calls.
Every one of the smears on Cain are left intentionally vague. Why?