I'm sure you've heard the old adage that "the simplest explanation is usually the right one."
So true in so many cases.
To recap, Ms. Barber, a homemaker and one-time candidate for Goodyear City Council claims that criminal and AZGOP employee (redundant, I know) Brett Mecum told her that Constantin Querard could get her Joe Arpaio's endorsement for the low low price of only $2,000.
Querard denies the story.
We're left with the proverbial he said/she said, at least until some indictments come down, so let's do a thought experiment, shall we?
What is more logical, i.e. the simplest explanation:
1) Jennifer Barber, homemaker, woke up one day and decided to concoct a fantastical story about a AZGOP staffer and a Political Consultant, then she decided to file a false report with the F.B.I. When contacted by the media she decided to double-down on the lie and stand by her story "110 percent".
2) Jennifer Barber, homemaker, perhaps inspired by a new wave of citizen candidates across the country, wakes up one day and decides she may want to run for city council. Being a Republican, but new to politics, she naively thinks that the State Republican Party would be a good place to go for help in her endeavor.
When she gets to AZGOP HQ, she meets this guy (Brett Mecum), who is no stranger to the criminal justice system.
Mecum tells her that if she wants to get an endorsement from a popular local Sheriff, she has to contact this guy (Constantin Querard) and pay him $2,000.
Something doesn't seem right to Ms. Barber, and after one look at Constantin's slicked-back hair she knows in her heart something is not right.
Disgusted with her experience, Ms. Barber contacts the F.B.I. to file a report, then changes her party registration to "Independent."
Querard, gentleman that he is, when contacted by the media, accuses the homemaker of being "on drugs".
I know which story makes sense to me. Which one makes sense to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment