Yeah, I’m not surprised. A couple people on this post suggested that might be a lie too but it seems too absurd to lie about. Trying to shift the story from “fit of rage” to “calm and calculated decision” sounds more realistic.
I skimmed the article, I’m not reading anything about witnesses or people already knowing about it before the recent uproar. Its in the article
(Not that it really matters: However the story turns out, she’s an awful person either way. It’s just I’m not sure what kind of awful person we’re dealing with here.)
But South Dakota Democratic Senate Minority Leader Reynold Nesiba considered the disclosure more calculated than stupid. He said the story has circulated for years among lawmakers that Noem killed a dog in a “fit of anger” and that there were witnesses. He speculated that it was coming out now because Noem is being vetted as a candidate for vice president.
“She knew that this was a political vulnerability, and she needed to put it out there, before it came up in some other venue,” he said. “Why else would she write about it?”
According to Democrats in her state’s legislature, not only was this a story that a lot of people already knew about, there were witnesses.
So no, it’s true, and she did the worst attempt at damage control I’ve ever seen.
See about half-way down here: https://apnews.com/article/kristi-noem-book-dog-killing-5710b302e33f61c697f20ab3b227a19b
Yeah, I’m not surprised. A couple people on this post suggested that might be a lie too but it seems too absurd to lie about. Trying to shift the story from “fit of rage” to “calm and calculated decision” sounds more realistic.
I skimmed the article, I’m not reading anything about witnesses or people already knowing about it before the recent uproar.Its in the article (Not that it really matters: However the story turns out, she’s an awful person either way. It’s just I’m not sure what kind of awful person we’re dealing with here.)my skimming skills need polishing. thanks 👍