|Photo credit: Katrina Pierson Facebook|
A Facebook pal sent me a link to a blog-site claiming that Pierson collected unemployment benefits while still working. Jeez 'o Petes, are little whiny girls really going to play the semantics game as they look for any tool possible to attack Donald Trump?
Accusations like those made by writers for liberal loon sites Addicting Info and Daily News Bin all relate back to a Texas Observer article written during Pierson's 2014 run for Congress against Pete Sessions. The article lists $11K unemployment collected by Pierson, which by the way was made public as part of her required campaign financials. It's not like she was attempting to hide her unemployment stint or anything.
The article also highlighted Pierson's shoplifting conviction from over two decades ago which is purely old news being recycled yet again in a half-assed attack on Trump, through her. He's the real target here.
The article sent to me is full of nothing but speculation. There are no document copies or links to anything that corroborates the accusations. Why? Because they have no proof other than the mysterious word, "work".
Oh my actual good gosh and golly, Pierson "worked" on a campaign while collecting unemployment benefits. Really? This is their big claim against her? So where's the unemployment commission's case? Where's the big investigation? It's over the rainbow along with all the other nonsensical tripe.
The article cited is shamefully make-believe, because Pierson was not paid for her volunteer work on Ted Cruz's campaign for Senate, though these liberal ass-trumpets certainly intimate she was.
The term "work" has been bastardized here in a pretend game of Candyland, where the pesky little fact that Pierson did not get paid one thin dime for her volunteer work on Cruz's campaign is candy coated over. Frankly, she didn't get jack out of the man, and barely a mention during her own campaign.
Yet the preposterous accusation is made that she bilked the unemployment commission out of money. The article links all pretend to show some sort of "proof" yet they relate back to an old article written in 2014. This attack is totally lamesville and I am left yawning.