I am convinced.
Her rant is prima facie evidence. Seems that people that are correctly accused of an embarrassing negative respond with considerably more vigor than than those wrongly accused. Had she, instead of ranting, responded somewhat quietly and certainly more calmly her rebuttal would have been more believable. Something like, "No, I do not hate the President, although, I do find much of what he says and does disagreeable as I believe it not to be in the best interest of the country, and, as I've said, even unconstitutional."
And, Nancy being a Catholic seems to mean little more to her than tagging all the sacramental bases. Being Catholic is not exculpatory evidence that she does not hate. How could a true Catholic support the murder of unborn children? Nope, don't believe it's possible. As for her hating Trump, sure she does. Meriam-Webster says she does. Shakespeare says she does, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". The President is an aversion to her. She demonstrates an"extreme dislike" and "disgust" of Trump, the very definition of "hate." To accuse anyone with wrongdoing of any kind with finality is an emotional not a logical response to that person's being. Nancy lied and the majority of Americans know so, some because they also hate the President and others because they support him.
