Posted on 07/20/2016 2:45:05 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
"GUILTY!"
That was the verdict of the delegates at the Republican convention last night when New Jersey governor Chris Christie laid out a series of charges against Hillary Clinton and asked if she were guilty or not guilty. No surprise as to the verdict from the delegates but guess who else basically affirmed Hillary's guilt via fact checking Christie's speech. The New York Times. That's right. Times fact checkers Michael D. Shear and David E. Sanger went through Christie's speech and fact checked what his charges. Essentially they determined that Christie was "not necessarily false" except for some "exculpatory evidence" that comes off as rather minor quibbles that did not contradict Christie's charges.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Lock her up!
I read the article.
The NYT comes across as soft and apologetic.
“Essentially correct” is not the theme that comes across.
LOCK. HER. UP!
That was great!
“Essentially correct” because their “exculpatory evidence” defense of Hillary wasn’t at all exculpating.
Christie for US Attorney General.
He just auditioned for the job on national TV.
Don’t worry, Snopes will have the NYT’s back.
I’ve been told that Snopes isn’t necessarily reliable, especially when issues can be parsed, especially political issues-who “fact checks” Snopes, hehe?
(Kinda like the left has rather a lock on Wikipedia)
Nah, the NYT is just trying to get rid of her and get Bernie nominated in her place.
Do you suppose this same bunch will “Fact Check” a SINGLE one of the speakers’ speeches at the Beast’s convention?
Do you suppose this same bunch will “Fact Check” a SINGLE one of the speakers’ speeches at the Beast’s convention?
“Do you suppose this same bunch will “Fact Check” a SINGLE one of the speakers’ speeches at the Beast’s convention?”.....
One thing I can tell you, it will take a long time to fact check all the lies coming from that bunch of habitual liars.
You are correct. Lies with machine-gun rapidity. Orwell called it duckspeak.
“I’ve been told that Snopes isn’t necessarily reliable, especially when issues can be parsed, especially political issues-who “fact checks” Snopes, hehe?”
Yea, we’ve discussed it here. It’s run by Democrat operatives. That’s why I mentioned it.
“...was “not necessarily false”...”
Turds just couldn’t choke out “true”!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.