re: #77 Nyet

The article uses exactly the expressions one uses when one puts a person’s words in doubt without impugning their integrity. There are no discernible double meanings or undercurrents there, at least none one could cite until this moment. Whereas it is explicit about Fields not lying. Occam’s razor, burden of proof etc.

Also don’t forget that Fields is a Breitbrat. Should one trust her on anything?

Really?:

“New video of Donald Trump’s press conference Tuesday evening shows that the Washington Post’s account of an altercation involving Breitbart News reporter Michelle Fields could not possibly have happened as Ben Terris reported.”

Obviously the target is more Terris, but what’s the implication when Fields is standing by what Terris said?