Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: F15Eagle

This is a good example of how the truth can be skewed in this sort of reporting. Using the word “admits” implies that this version is, in fact, the truth. Using the phrase “now claims” is still a bit inflamatory in that just as the word “admits” implies what is now being said is the truth, the word “claims” implies, though to a lesser degree, that the original statement was the truth, but at least the phrase “now claims” is closer to giving both stories equal trust. I guess the most “fair” way to say it would be “now says”.

However, regardless of that, one must ask hypothetically what would have motivated him to lie the first time, and do the same regarding what would motivate him to lie the second time. To make such a transparent reversal implies VERY strong motivation. And yes, I am thinking along the lines of fear of harm of some sort.


93 posted on 01/26/2011 2:35:22 PM PST by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: RobRoy

You are right on. Looking at the first statement we see a rather long account of a sympathetic friend of Abercrombie disclosing an embarrassing fact. Throughout the entire conversation there was no retraction or doubt given as the accuracy of the fact. If the information was false in the first place, why would a close friend of Abercrombie screw his friend with the false account of what happened? If you go back and listen to the entire conversation and understand the long time, close relationship of the two, it is clear that Evans was reporting correctly the first time, but failed to understand the significance of the facts he was reporting. If the truth be know, I bet Evans and Abercrombie chat on a regular basis. As Evans says he just picked up the phone and called Abercrombie’s office. Is this someone who hasn’t talked to Abercrombie in two or more years. Then along come the Obama goons and he is forced to lie to save himself.


105 posted on 01/26/2011 2:51:26 PM PST by iontheball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

To: RobRoy

The “I mis-spoke” defense for Mike Evans is hard to swallow. If he indeed “mis-spoke”, he likely did it thirty-something times, with each of his call-ins to the various stations where he’s syndicated.

I heard him tell the same story that day on KLBJ in Austin to their local talent. He left no ambiguity that he HAD spoken to the governor and the governor had personally told him it wasn’t there.

I figure he heard from his good friend the gov again and the conversation began with words beginning with the letters WTF.


107 posted on 01/26/2011 2:52:06 PM PST by Quanah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson