What do you think when someone won't answer a straightforward, non-loaded/-leading question?

[Xelor]

​

In the indictment document re: Roger Stone, the following statement appears:

After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign.
​

On New Day, anchor John Berman, interviewing Sarah Sanders, read that passages and asked, "By whom? Did the President direct someone to contact Roger Stone about stolen emails?" (~1:20)

It wasn't a trick question. Berman's question is directly answered with either "yes," "no," "I don't know," or something near as makes no difference to "I don't know." It's not the kind of question for which a direct and complete answer requires more than three words. Despite the simplicity and directness of the question, Sanders responds by talking about all sorts of stuff, not one bit of which directly answered the question.

In stark contrast to her evasive response to the above noted question, Sanders gave a direct answer to another of Berman's questions (~3:45).

Berman asked, "Did the White House get a 'heads up' from the Justice Department that this arrest was going to take place this morning?"

Sanders answered, "Not that I know of. I'm not aware of any notification ahead of time."​

Sanders had no trouble just saying, basically, "I don't know," to the question about advance notification. All she had to do was say the same for the first question, but she didn't.


The fact of the matter is that although the indictment document hasn't disclosed the specific evidentiary item(s) that show who, Mueller has probative evidence indicating who directed the contact with Stone. He couldn't have averred the direction came from a senior campaign official if he didn't; it's not as though folks like Stone, a three-decades long pal of Donald, Sr., would comply with update/information requests ordered by a "mail clerk." (The clerk may be the one asked to retrieve the information form Stone, but Stone's not going to give it to the clerk, absent awareness that someone far, far higher on the food chain had bid the clerk to do so.)

There were only so many senior people on the campaign; indeed the comparative leanness of Trump's campaign was a distinguishing quality between it and the Clinton campaign. Of them which had enough authority to move Stone to respond to a request for advance notice of Wikileaks ("Organization 1") email releases?


Sanders joined the Trump campaign in February 2016. Truth be told, she joined as a senior advisor. Berman should have asked if she was the person directed to contact Stone. I wonder whether she'd have answered directly or would she have again bobbed and weaved.

The indictment's statement about an official having directed someone to contact Stone structurally, as do all passive voice statements, leaves unstated who issued the direction. "Who did so?" is the most obvious natural question in the world to ask, and, make no mistake, it has an objective and factually accurate answer, and that answer is a person's name. Sanders should have either given that name or said she didn't know. Period.

In any case, what the hell is with the government officials that they won't directly answer very simple and straightforward questions. They are public servants. They have an obligation to answer directly and truthfully because the people they serve have a right to know.

 

[Xelor]

To answer my own question, when I ask a straightforward question -- not loaded, not leading, etc. -- and the person doesn't answer it, I think the person has something to hide that, were they to directly answer, they'd lose my approbation or lose something more important to them than that.

 

[NebraskaFtball]

I don't believe many, if any, and certainly not SHS, view themselves as servants of the public. They view themselves as loyal subjects of the Crown. Their first, last, and only prerogative is to protect the Crown at all costs. An attack on the King's men is an attack on the King himself.

Also, it could have to do with this....

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1088852661200453633?s=21

“I am one of @realDonaldTrump’s oldest friends,” Roger Stone just said.

So the unnamed person in question may in fact be the King himself. :think:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

​

In the indictment document re: Roger Stone, the following statement appears:

After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign.
​

On New Day, anchor John Berman, interviewing Sarah Sanders, read that passages and asked, "By whom? Did the President direct someone to contact Roger Stone about stolen emails?" (~1:20)

It wasn't a trick question. Berman's question is directly answered with either "yes," "no," "I don't know," or something near as makes no difference to "I don't know." It's not the kind of question for which a direct and complete answer requires more than three words. Despite the simplicity and directness of the question, Sanders responds by talking about all sorts of stuff, not one bit of which directly answered the question.

In stark contrast to her evasive response to the above noted question, Sanders gave a direct answer to another of Berman's questions (~3:45).

Berman asked, "Did the White House get a 'heads up' from the Justice Department that this arrest was going to take place this morning?"

Sanders answered, "Not that I know of. I'm not aware of any notification ahead of time."​

Sanders had no trouble just saying, basically, "I don't know," to the question about advance notification. All she had to do was say the same for the first question, but she didn't.


The fact of the matter is that although the indictment document hasn't disclosed the specific evidentiary item(s) that show who, Mueller has probative evidence indicating who directed the contact with Stone. He couldn't have averred the direction came from a senior campaign official if he didn't; it's not as though folks like Stone, a three-decades long pal of Donald, Sr., would comply with update/information requests ordered by a "mail clerk." (The clerk may be the one asked to retrieve the information form Stone, but Stone's not going to give it to the clerk, absent awareness that someone far, far higher on the food chain had bid the clerk to do so.)

There were only so many senior people on the campaign; indeed the comparative leanness of Trump's campaign was a distinguishing quality between it and the Clinton campaign. Of them which had enough authority to move Stone to respond to a request for advance notice of Wikileaks ("Organization 1") email releases?


Sanders joined the Trump campaign in February 2016. Truth be told, she joined as a senior advisor. Berman should have asked if she was the person directed to contact Stone. I wonder whether she'd have answered directly or would she have again bobbed and weaved.

The indictment's statement about an official having directed someone to contact Stone structurally, as do all passive voice statements, leaves unstated who issued the direction. "Who did so?" is the most obvious natural question in the world to ask, and, make no mistake, it has an objective and factually accurate answer, and that answer is a person's name. Sanders should have either given that name or said she didn't know. Period.

In any case, what the hell is with the government officials that they won't directly answer very simple and straightforward questions. They are public servants. They have an obligation to answer directly and truthfully because the people they serve have a right to know.

Nothing, in this case. She's paid to lie. Lying is at the very core of her being. No one familiar with her expects anything less from her, or hopes for anything more.

It's why her pimp, Daddy Trump, keeps her on the payroll.

 

[Xelor]

I don't believe many, if any, and certainly not SHS, view themselves as servants of the public. They view themselves as loyal subjects of the Crown. Their first, last, and only prerogative is to protect the Crown at all costs. An attack on the King's men is an attack on the King himself.

Also, it could have to do with this....

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1088852661200453633?s=21



So the unnamed person in question may in fact be the King himself. :think:

I think the same thing because among my friends of 30+ years, were I a candidate for office and they not officially part of my campaign team, the only person from whom they'd take any direction would be me. If someone who was officially part of my campaign team asked them to do "such and such," they'd say something to the effect of, "Let me check with 'Xelor.' As long as it's okay with him, sure." No friend having 30-year-plus status with me would take orders from someone else.

 

[Xelor]

Nothing, in this case. She's paid to lie. Lying is at the very core of her being. No one familiar with her expects anything less from her, or hopes for anything more.

It's why her pimp, Daddy Trump, keeps her on the payroll.

I suppose if I disabuse myself of the notion that she serves out of duty to the US and replace that notion with the one you've proffered, yes, "nothing" is what I'd think about anything and everything she says.