She posted a LINK, to a story by NPR. That's it.
I don't care what YOU think that shows, but not everyone is gullible enough to believe it shows some extensive knowledge of Stone, or that it shows she was dishonest, or that it even shows she read the indictment. Do you think everyone clicks on every link in a story? Do you think everyone reads past the headline? If you think either is true, you're very uninformed about how we consume news.
Here's a story - 55% of people who click an article spend 15 seconds or less reading it.
Did you click on that link? How
about this link in the story?
This one? No? How about
this link? Or
this one?
This one? Here's one from the NYT. You read it all I am sure.
Well, if you quote my comment, using your theory, we can assume, the law must assume, that you read the entire article I linked, every word, and that you read every word of every article linked in it!! Does that sound reasonable? :2rofll:
It's the equivalent of showing someone with a copy of a newspaper, and assuming they read every story on every page. What SHE did was post a link to an NPR article. That's it. And when you add the other Tweet about the arrest, you've exhausted her entire social media history of posts about Stone.
