Here's a prediction.
So Ms. Pit Bull With Lipstick is still lying about her supposed opposition to the "Bridge to Nowhere", long after it's been publicly proven to be a big fat pile of moose crap. So what will happen if she's ever called on it? I'll tell ya.
In her speeches, note that she does not say "I was always against this wasteful project." Or anything like that. What she says is, "I told congress 'Thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere.'". Note the construction.
She can make the legal case that this is not a lie. Here's how. First she said "thanks." (When? When the money was offered for the project.) Then she said "no, thanks". (When? When it turned out that the money wasn't enough.) So, while the "thanks but no thanks" line is meant to mislead and declare objection from the beginning, it can be defended (if it's ever pressed) by saying it's legally accurate.
There's more cover. Because of course, even after saying "no thanks" to the bridge, she kept the money, which is why she is careful to include "for that bridge to nowhere" in her stump line. So thanks for the money but no thanks for the bridge. Sophistry at its finest.
Bullshit? Of course. But what do you expect?
Mark my words. It will be defended this way.
THE HEALTHY ECONOMY
4 days ago