Fact checking fact checkers

CtC

Mar 2019
12,844
4,575
California
There is no statutory crime called "COLLUSION" and only Trump, his shills and trolls have made the claim there was "no collusion". They aren't lying in one sense, but they also are NOT telling the whole truth. One can't commit a crime that is NOT a crime. In addition, Trump was NOT exonerated on the potential charge of "obstruction of justice" which would be a statutory crime. Moreover, Mueller said that based on a long standing DoJ policy the DoJ cannot indict a sitting President and made it clear that there is only one body that can do that when it comes to what would be similar to an "indictment" of the POTUS. Presidents can be indicted by states for the breaking of state laws, but when it comes to actions taken while in office that are unfitting of that office or break statutory federal law, the only avenue is impeachment. The House Democrats have taken up that responsibility, as is their duty and according to the oath of office they and all elected, appointed or hired people of the federal goverment, take, including the POTUS.

What remains to be seen is whether the republican majority in the Senate will choose to act in political partisan ways, showing higher loyalty to their political party than to the Constitution of the U.S.A. or will they behave as those who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic.

If they choose to be partisan, I am unsure of how they are going to defend the man you see and hear talking in the following tapes and they are older videos. He has accumulated a lot more of the same (all in the public record) since.


If so,then he should never have been appointed. There was no interference. No voting machines tampered with. No Ballots fixed. No "Russians" sneaking in here to vote. Putting out a few Facebook adds is NOT interference. And Trump had no part of even that.
 
Jun 2013
18,994
17,130
Here
If so,then he should never have been appointed. There was no interference. No voting machines tampered with. No Ballots fixed. No "Russians" sneaking in here to vote. Putting out a few Facebook adds is NOT interference. And Trump had no part of even that.
Says who? Mueller was conducting an investigation, no less than Kenneth Starr, who took over the White Water investigation that ended up being about BJ's in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky and the impeachement of Bill Clinton.




Trump effectively has impeached himself, by his own bevavior and talking out of both sides of his mouth. His associates being indicted and convicted for lying in so many instances, speaks for itself. Why lie about something if you weren't doing anything wrong? Typically Trump has a history of wanting to run the show and have his finger in all things. He dictated his medical report, he ALSO dictated his son's report about meeting with Russians. A meeting that was unaccounted for, at first. Just like the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels was denied and lied about.


 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: the bull59

CtC

Mar 2019
12,844
4,575
California
Says who?



Lib Sources. Null and Void.
 

CtC

Mar 2019
12,844
4,575
California
So if I claim "Trump" sources. Does that magically make all Trump, his shills and Trolls say, "Null and Void"?

You're a hoot. Not one that thinks too much, but a hoot...........or just a programmed robot?
Whether a "Hoot" or a "Robot" .I do not stoop to personal insult. I leave that to Dems. Look at what they ELECT. Nothing but identity politics. No ideas. No solutions. No Legislation. See the irony there?
 
Mar 2019
949
1,556
TN
Over your head I guess and news busters isn't a fact check site
The Media Research Center is flipping the script on these faux-fact-checkers. It’s time to turn the tables and give the public the real facts.
Sounds like they are FACT CHECKING to me !!! How else could they provide "real facts" if they aren't checking them ?? OH WAIT I FORGOT !!!!!!

ALTERNATIVE FACTS !!!!! They'll just MAKE THEM UP !!!!
 
Sep 2019
2,454
647
Idaho
The public checks them. They support their assertions with links. They show the sourse of their information and direct you to it.

That's how this has worked for 500 years. You cite your work and show your source so you show support for your statement.

If there are no sources cited, then don't use that cite.

If one is a ridiculous sham, find a better one.
Fact check sites just like the so called news organizations that they are part of have become nothing more than DNC disinformation disguised as news and fact checking.
 
Sep 2019
2,454
647
Idaho
A careful look at what Rasmussen itself says will show that it's not "fact checkers" that people don't trust, but "media" and "news outlets." They believe that each media outlet skews things to their own side's benefit. The language they apparently used in their poll and the language cited by your source aren't the same. So much for playing fair with the facts.
Don't know how you came up with that but people mistrust fact check sites and the news organizations that sponsor them.