Posted on 11/17/2021 7:50:25 AM PST by markomalley
PolitiFact doubled down on Tuesday after being roasted for a poorly aged "fact-check" claiming Kyle Rittenhouse's firearm possession was illegal by adding a long-winded explanation declaring the much-criticized piece remains unchanged.
Judge Bruce Schroeder, who is overseeing the Rittenhouse murder trial, made headlines on Monday over his decision to throw out the sixth charge against the 18-year-old for having a dangerous weapon as a minor. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the deadly shootings.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
That’s what commies do. When faced with logic and reason, double down on stupid....................
Ah, Politi-joke. Oh well, there must be employment for those incapable of actually producing useful work. Besides the Democrat party, that is.
In case you haven’t figured it out, “facts” are whatever they choose them to be. They’re the Fact Checkers. They need never be wrong.
Polifact is know as a Leftist wing porpagnada outfit with zero crediblity as a “fact checker” They need to be labled as Left wing not as a fact checker
Anyone can claim to be a “fact checker” that doesn’t make them one
If its a “murky” or “grey area” then there is some doubt that Kyle broke that law.
If there is any doubt then there is no doubt.
And there ya go.
Absolute proof that politifact is a disinformation service and should NOT be used for any purpose.
PolitiFact = The Onion
They’re butt hurt about Kyle’s rifle but don’t have a problem with rioters illegally carrying and using guns during a riot.
PolitiFuct can piss off, because the judge said otherwise.
Saw a post where they said “See! No magazine! Rifle couldn’t have been fired!”
Well actually they called it a “clip”
But whatever
not fact checkers. fact creators. nice way to say liars.
They claimed it “false” that Rittenhouse was legally allowed to carry the rifle, because the law was “murky”.
They ignored the long standing principle that if there is ambiguity in the law, then the interpretation which benefits the defense wins.
“Reasonable doubt” benefits the defense.
Any of these rags out there fact-checking Joe, Camela, and their minions or don’t they like 20 hour workdays 7 days a week?
http://cardozolawreview.com/reconstructing-the-rule-of-lenity/
INTRODUCTION
The rule of lenity is easy to define but difficult to apply. Simply stated, it is a rule of statutory construction that requires a court to resolve statutory ambiguity in favor of a criminal defendant, or to strictly construe the statute against the state.
Generously provided by Geo S0r0s - who has recently been fabulously successful in his goal to overthrow the United States.
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.
