From Jon Jeter (on Facebook yesterday):
I have a good friend who is a former prosecutor and he has always said that narrative beats evidence at a trial. In other words, you can show a jury that a defendant murdered someone because it was physically impossible for anyone else to have murdered him; but if you can’t provide the motive, even though it’s not required by law, you are likely going to lose at trial.
So, with that in mind, WHICH of these narratives sounds more plausible: (A) that Joe Biden, who didn’t have a pot to piss in and even less infrastructure on the ground in Texas, rose like Lazarus from the dead, and swayed blacks and presumably Latinos to vote for a candidate that is the political twin of Hillary Clinton? That the same Joe Biden won Minnesota, a state that elected Paul Wellstone, and has a tiny black electorate? That the same Joe Biden somehow won over voters in Maine and Massachusetts, when their cousins in New Hampshire just turned out overwhelmingly for Sanders?
Or (B) that Hil and Bill and Barry told Tom Perez to rig the vote for Biden the same way it was rigged for Hil in ’16 (what about that Brooklyn apartment complex that was wiped from the rolls?) because if they didn’t stop this fool Sanders now, he was gonna run away with this shit, and they’d be unable to give it to ol’ Joe at the convention? Oh, and, by the way, you can say that the darkies love ol’ Lock-’em-Up Joe because no one in the media will talk to them.
Which one of those scenarios is more plausible, Fam?