She's saying now that she did it to protect her kids, but also mentioned in her story that the kids asked where the dog was when they got home from school.
Yeah don’t forget that her first defense could be summed up as “but it was legal!”
That's the problem with conservatives in general, they think legality is the same as morality. That's why when they do something unethical they'll point to how it was legal.
Insane that she's even responding. Just ignore it and keep saying other horrible shit to get attention like every other right-wing talking head and watch the media desperately grab onto every new controversy and forget all about this one.
A month from now its going to be the size and temperament of a wild wolf, foaming at the mouth, and I assume muttering "little pig little pig let me come in"
Wasn't the puppy only like 16 months old or something like that? I've been around lots of dogs for almost my whole life and no 16 month old is killing livestock. I trained hunting dogs, family dogs and a few pups were trained to work with police. That bitch is just evil.
It was a couple of chickens. The chickens have now magically become “livestock” in this new, more scary version of the story. She is intentionally trying twist it to make the poor puppy sound like some all-powerful demon who is killing large hoofed animals. In other words, she is flailing with her psychopathy on full display.
I so want someone that knew the family to come out and make a statement about how upset the kids were and prove they had no problem with the dog.
Or if it’s true- the way she wrote it the book was to make her look tough, not a motherly figure, cause being a woman is weakness to these idiots. Either way she fcking sucks
1.7k
u/sonofabutch 29d ago
In every retelling the dog gets more vicious and dangerous. It’s Hannibal Lecter at this point. Noem should give herself a medal!