I am not sure you actually paid attention to what you quoted of me. I have included the relevant portion so you can see what you missed.
At no time did I claim the article did not say what they did.
I said those two articles lied by making the claim.
The article to which you are referring is one of the two which was lying.
Their claim was that the Trump campaign made the claim. Trump, nor his campaign made such a claim.
1. You provided what the author of the article said, not anything from Trump or is campaign.
2. What you provided is not what is claimed to have been said either.
From the source the reporter used.
"They know that they're not going to have enough money to be on TV in June and probably most of July, until they actually accept the nomination and get RNC funds, so they plan to just use earned media to compete on the airwaves," one GOP source familiar with Manafort's comments told the Examiner.
1. Really? "One GOP source familiar with his comments said." Doh!
2. That does not say the campaign is broke. In no way does it even suggest that the campaign is broke. It would take idiotic biased liberal sources to interpret it as that way. Oh wait, that type of source is what was used, the dailykook[SUP][sp][/SUP] and policalliesus[SUP][sp][/SUP].
Let me put this a different way so biased readers aren't confused.
Allocating certain amounts of monies, for certain things, over certain time periods, is called budgeting.
If the anonymous source is correct in what they heard, not having monies for advertising for a certain period of time does not mean the campaign is broke as the articles idiotically claimed. Thus they are lying to their lemmings, which is exactly what I said.
And again, this all ignores the over-all context of the campaign trying to force the GOP to do what they are supposed to do.
