re: #563 Arbalest

My nest sentence is this:

“But it’s important to look at the subject: is Van Jones’ signature a forgery, …”

and finally this:

“Proximity, motive and opportunity. Ok, I’ll listen. Make the case. In this case, it is Jones who needs to defend himself. ”

The problem I stated is that Jones chose to associate re. his job, with Truthers.

Dogs, fleas, … The stink is his.

Please.

Try reading the post at the top of this thread.

There’s pretty good evidence that Jones was misled into signing something that had no Trutherism in it.

He was at an anti-war demonstration, with probably dozens of groups attending. One of those groups was a Truther group.

But Van Jones WAS NOT PART OF THAT GROUP.

I feel like I’m talking to a wall.