Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
It's quite clear that the intent of the article is to get its readers to imagine a conspiracy related to the political leanings of Wanda Lenius in murdering her husband. Firstly, the article presents being investigated by homicide detectives with the implication that the PD thinks it's a homicide, and that has been blown out of the water above. Secondly, there really isn't any evidence that their political leanings relate at all to the chloroquine poisoning. Presenting them together in such a fashion is inviting the inference that one follows from the other. That's the intent, and clearly we can see the effects of that in the OP. National Review is also quite sneaky in sourcing the word "prolific" from the clickbait title which then details contributions including to groups with varying missions (e.g. countering resistance to incorporating science into policy making, supporting pro-choice female candidates) which are not explicitly partisan in mission although at least in today's political climate obviously lean Democrat. She also contributed to Clinton and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Well I say details. Actually they omit probably the most important one: magnitude of contribution, instead using the vague language "thousands of dollars". Would you call someone who gave, in total, $2200 to political campaigns or policy interest groups over the last 2 years a prolific Democratic donor? I sure as hell wouldn't, but of course I don't know the number is $2200 and not $72000 either, except that there really isn't any good reason to avoid being specific unless they intend to imply something is more significant than it seems.
Basically, it's downright dirty. Not including any technically false statements when taken individually doesn't make something appropriate.
According to the Examiner's article, she's given $6000 to democrat groups since 2018.
Interviews show that the relationship was previously troubled, including a domestic violence charge that was dropped because her husband supported her.
Do we even know that the husband knew what he was drinking?
You don't think it's at all strange that the police have asked for the recordings of the interview?
It merits at least a little investigation, and that's what's happening.
Last edited:

