3 ms·
> are you saying it’s a better strategy to just not comment on it Yes. > Seems like a strong denial would go much further here. "But he would say that, would
by zimpenfish 6y ago
> are you saying it’s a better strategy to just not comment on it
Yes.
> Seems like a strong denial would go much further here.
"But he would say that, wouldn't he? Why would he deny it if it was fake?"
- refurb 6y agoSeems like the exact opposite is happening right now. Since he isn’t issuing a blanket denial, people think that means it’s not fake.
- zimpenfish 6y agoI think it pretty much doesn't matter what he says or does - people will believe the angle they believe and that's presumably what the people behind this are hoping will carry for three weeks until election night.
- sawjet 6y ago> > are you saying it’s a better strategy to just not comment on it > Yes. > > Seems like a strong denial would go much further here. > "But he would say that, wouldn't he? Why would he deny it if it was fake?" That would be much easier to verify in that case. It seems more that the biden admin knows that any refutation of the content of the emails would backfire when they are proven to be true. In that case claiming ignorance is the correct nice.
- refurb 6y agoExactly. This was how the media verified the wikileaks - they asked the NSA if they were fake and the response was "no comment".