Whoa: Prostitute Who Claimed She Was Paid to Spread Lies About Menendez Is Not the Same Prostitute Who Accused Him

As previously reported by @benk84 in the morning headlines, but which I've consciously decided is so important as to merit a second mention (dicks!)...

As I said, it's hard to rely on the word of a hooker, even if she does claim she loves you and would do it without being paid but right now she's a little behind and will have to charge me because Ruy is all up in her shit, because they can be bought.

But this same "they can be bought" principle applies to both Menendez' accusing prostitutes as well as his alibi prostitutes.

The other day the Washington Post reported that "the" prostitutes had sworn in affidavits that they were paid to lie about Menendez.

One problem: There aren't the same prostitutes' whose allegations were aired on The Daily Caller. Though the Washington Post claimed they were (or at least wrote their story to strongly imply that).

In fact, these are other people entirely. And now the Washington Post stealth-edits to make its error go away, without acknowledgement.

A Gallon of Irony Spilled But Not a Drop Splashed on Them: Doc Zero notes the whole tone of the Washington Post piece was chiding and intended as a victory lap over the supposedly-inferior truthiness of competing new media.

They should spend more time trying to be what they claim they are and less time simply asserting it.

posted by Ace at 03:54 PM

| Access Comments