You are so far behind the pace here, John, I had some trouble in finding what you were referring to! However, now I've tracked it down - post 232 - let me reply.
No, John, I didn't mean "lying", as if you read what I was saying carefully, you will find that I was attempting a courteous and clear paraphrase of Charlie's accusations (vide "your drift would appear to be").
The meaning was his, not mine.
Now that I have wasted an hour or so of my life following up many of the tangled skeins of this supposedly politically 'significant' story, I have discovered that it amounts to diddly-squat. A utterly useless piece of innuendo piled on assertion, amounting to nothing of any significance, save that it illuminates a pretty amateur attempt at character assasination - which, even if proved, which it clealry is not - would not affect the real arguments about Sessions fitness, or not, for his new role.
What all this does do, for me as someone outside of the polity concerned, is to raise serious questions about the purposes of those public figures who chose not only to employ this tactic, but to couch it in often somewhat racially offensive language. Their behaviour, of course, on its own proves nothing - but it does not make me ready to trust their good intent.
|