White House press secretary Jen Psaki took some more questions today and got in some more dodging practice with this inquiry about a Senate report on President Biden’s son Hunter:
.@PressSec got a Hunter Biden question today. She pleaded ignorance. (Question concerned $3.5 million for Hunter Biden from wife of Moscow mayor. It was widely covered at the time, and mentioned in a Senate report.) #WhiteHouseBriefing
— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) March 24, 2021
.@PressSec is asked about last year's Senate report that the wife of the former mayor of Moscow paid a company associated with Hunter Biden $3.5 million:
"I am not familiar with that claim. It does not sound like it is backed up with a lot of evidence." pic.twitter.com/uz4DO07pzY
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 24, 2021
Psaki’s never heard the claim but seems pretty sure it’s not true so she’ll really appreciate it if reporters just let it go.
So… “Senate report” equals “not a lot of evidence.” Copy that. https://t.co/1l1tlNN7UV
— Skippy for President (@sean_k_thompson) March 24, 2021
The fact she doesn’t deny it, says everything we need to know. https://t.co/1Al2QJkHmQ
— J.R.S (@_JRS79) March 24, 2021
So the press secretary is obviously compromised to then…we all know…she effing knows about hunter and the money too ? https://t.co/3Cb7jF55ZG
— Blue (@BIueDeamer) March 24, 2021
Maybe Psaki can read the Senate report in question and “circle back” to this later.
Note she didn’t say not true, rather no evidence
— Richard (@richardnh33) March 24, 2021
“Not backed up with evidence” is the new “circle back”
— Pierre Delecto (@Tonyyjabroni) March 24, 2021
This was even brought up during the debates. How does she not willing know this? https://t.co/7zQYYEpuMh
— David Stilwell (@Stillsmack) March 24, 2021
What's the name for the logical fallacy "I have not heard that evidence before therefore it must be false"? https://t.co/vWZRqhs1ft
— Renna (@RennaW) March 24, 2021
For now we’ll just call it a “Psaki fallacy.”
To change your comments display name, click here.