Ronan Farrow just threw some twitter shade at Avenatti by retweeting a post stating that the Avenatti bombshell did not go through reputable journalistic vetting.
Ronan Farrow just threw some twitter shade at Avenatti by retweeting a post stating that the Avenatti bombshell did not go through reputable journalistic vetting.You should go back and read my post more closely because I said nothing about the credibility of the account, I was talking about the credibility of right wing talk radio as a source.
When a highly credible publication like the Washington Post or New York Times uses anonymous sources this is credible because they've built up a reputation for integrity and high quality journalism over the course of decades. Right wing talk radio has also built up a reputation over decades, but it's about the worst reputation you can imagine. It's a refuge for psychos, cranks, and conspiracy theorists. Therefore, when an actually credible journalistic enterprise cites an anonymous source, I judge that to be generally credible because the WaPo or the Times is putting their reputation behind it. When right wing talk radio cites an anonymous source I ignore it because they have literally zero credibility. Anyone who listens to right wing radio and believes a word of it is a moron.
I also suspect you don't know what hearsay is.
When it comes to anonymous sources providing second-hand information, I'm not nearly as good as you at rationalizing which ones are "credible" vs those that are not. You seem to have a lot of experience in this area.IF "Bobby Joe from Boston" had an account worth any kind of salt, he would lawyer up, testify, submit it as a confession and appear as a witness.
Just like the accusers have already done.
But hey, it's cute to watch you struggle and make the same dumbshit comparisons that no middle-school graduate would ever attempt to make. Maybe cute isn't the proper word, but let's go with that. You're having a good week, no?
Here is the problem I have with Avenatti being involved in this:
He's a very biased, political activist and quasi celebrity of the left. He has aspirations of running for president in 2020? Think about it...he will be torn to shreds during the vetting process, for being the scumbag, ambulance chasing attorney that he is. All of his shady dealings will be exposed. He's like a modern day Roy Cohn, child of Satan.
When it comes to anonymous sources providing second-hand information, I'm not nearly as good as you at rationalizing which ones are "credible" vs those that are not. You seem to have a lot of experience in this area.
Ronan Farrow just threw some twitter shade at Avenatti by retweeting a post stating that the Avenatti bombshell did not go through reputable journalistic vetting.
Avenatti claims to have pictures of Trump's penis. Really? What kind of a lawyer would want such a pic and was there a photographer in the room? He must enjoy having such a pic to fulfill a personal fantasy. The guy is full of shit and will eventually be exposed.
Dont forget that Obama put mustard in that burger ... so much to be upset about on the left! !!!! !! !! ! !!!!!Avenatti claims to have pictures of Trump's penis. Really? What kind of a lawyer would want such a pic and was there a photographer in the room? He must enjoy having such a pic to fulfill a personal fantasy. The guy is full of shit and will eventually be exposed.
Dont forget that Obama put mustard in that burger ... so much to be upset about on the left! !!!! !! !! ! !!!!!
Shithole, i've always said it's worth investigating.
Why don't you go start another bullshit conspiracy theory thread only to disappear when it gets proven wrong again?
Shoo, adults are talking.
lol you an adult? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
Try to stick with one lie at a time.But you do have prior knowledge that nothing happened. You have claimed as much. You fundamentally know something that no one else really does.
Why would you believe that it is worth investigating when you already know that there is nothing to investigate? I think "worth" confuses you?
Julie Swetnick claimed that she attended High School parties with Kavanaugh and Judge from 1981 to 1983. According to the New York Times she graduated high school in 1980 and was attending college at the University of Maryland in those years. Just doesn't sound plausible that a college girl was attending parties where gang rapes were happening and she keeps going to them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/julie-swetnick-avenatti-kavenaugh.html
I said before and I'll say it again, Avenati and her story don't pass the smell test.
Stormy is a porn star and she was banging a celebrity. What do you the odds of there not being a camera in the room are?Avenatti claims to have pictures of Trump's penis. Really? What kind of a lawyer would want such a pic and was there a photographer in the room? He must enjoy having such a pic to fulfill a personal fantasy. The guy is full of shit and will eventually be exposed.
Try to stick with one lie at a time.
Actually, I just wanted to talk about Harris is likely going to bring her prosecutorial background to bear upon the head of Kavanaugh.I thought metaphor was a He-Man villain. Metaphor or analogy, doesn’t change the fact that you wanted to talk about snipers.
Now explain why any of that is a problem for you.Here is the problem I have with Avenatti being involved in this:
He's a very biased, political activist and quasi celebrity of the left. He has aspirations of running for president in 2020? Think about it...he will be torn to shreds during the vetting process, for being the scumbag, ambulance chasing attorney that he is. All of his shady dealings will be exposed. He's like a modern day Roy Cohn, child of Satan.
No, it doesn't imply personal knowledge, but lie on Berkeley boy.Huh?
You vehemently declared that nothing happened. Nothing happened.
That's a very declarative statement that implies personal knowledge of the event. This is what you said.
So are you now saying that you were lying?