Robyn Hamlin, primary candidate for Missouri’s first Congressional seat finally responded to her opponent Martin Baker…but than immediately retracted her response on Facebook.
Baker sent Hamlin an invitation to the event on July 24, sponsored by the League if Women Voters, via certified mail. Hamlin responded to Baker via telephone that she had finally received the invitation this last Saturday…although time-stamp on the letter has yet to be verified. In the message she left for Baker during that call, she stated that she had another obligation where voters would be present (though she could not provide details as the what or where this event was), and then threatened Baker that she would expose an apparent “warrant for arrest” regarding negligent Child Support…of which was proven to be untrue by Baker’s ex-wife Channel last week. Hamlin also went on to state that Baker had “stiffed several landlords” in the past…also proven to be a blatant lie.
Yesterday, Hamlin apparently accepted the invitation to the debate, but then immediately retracted. Baker staffer David Singleton managed to capture screen shots, as well as the content of an email generated by Hamlin’s Facebook post:
You made your most recent post to this thread on July 16, 2012 at approximately 10:32 PM CST (verified by the email automatically generated when someone replies to a thread). That original post of yours, which has now been subsequently deleted by you and replaced with a different one originally stated:
Hamlin: “Schedule the debate. It will be interesting. I am not playing with personal attacks. Look it up yourself. https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchCases.do”
Singleton: So for clarification: did you want the debate scheduled, or have you changed your mind leading you to retract the statement?
Great question David!
As far as “playing with personal attacks”, it is quite unclear if Hamlin understands what she is saying. Dozens of researched articles have popped up in the last week shedding the light of truth upon Hamlin’s failed attempts at mud-slinging. It appears that each attempt flew back in her face only to portray Baker as the upstanding man that he is.
The question that remains is this: does the online retraction of her acceptance to the debate invitation stand, although she retracted it, or was her retraction if the statement a retraction of her attendance? Only time will tell.