Why The New York Times’s Jan. 6 U-turn is a big deal

domer76 said:
The tapes have this Mock motherfucker assaulting an officer.

His own kid turned him in. Said the old man was consumed with the stolen election bullshit.

Mock even represented himself, which shows how fucking stupid he is. Know what he asked his kid when his kid was on the stand?

He tried to elicit his son's sexual orientation. What the fuck is that all about?

So, stupid motherfucker, you lie again about an article you cite.

Were you Trumpers always liars or did you just become unashamed chronic liars when your cult leader normalized it?
Click to expand...

The son turned his father in.
 
BidenPresident said:
Last time: What is the U-turn the NY Times took?
Click to expand...

Acknowledging this, just for starters.:



" Coverage from the liberal media, and the made-for-TV depiction of events skillfully put together by House Democrats for the second impeachment trial of Trump, tell one story. Certain videos, some of which were released by Tucker Carlson in April, tell another. It is clear that Democrats cherry-picked the evidence that painted Trump and his supporters in the worst possible light. Commentators on the right have done the opposite. Legitimate questions persist.

For instance, some protestors are shown being uncuffed and fist-bumped by cops, suggesting that there were undercover FBI or police in the crowd, whom some accuse of purposefully instigating the storming of the Capitol. That issue was raised last spring by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, who wrote a letter to the Metropolitan Police Department asking about the presence of “plain-clothes officers.”

When Rasmussen polling asked in April (after the Tucker release): “How likely is it that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot?” 59 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of independents agreed it was likely.


 
Grokmaster said:

Acknowledging this, just for starters.:



" Coverage from the liberal media, and the made-for-TV depiction of events skillfully put together by House Democrats for the second impeachment trial of Trump, tell one story. Certain videos, some of which were released by Tucker Carlson in April, tell another. It is clear that Democrats cherry-picked the evidence that painted Trump and his supporters in the worst possible light. Commentators on the right have done the opposite. Legitimate questions persist.

For instance, some protestors are shown being uncuffed and fist-bumped by cops, suggesting that there were undercover FBI or police in the crowd, whom some accuse of purposefully instigating the storming of the Capitol. That issue was raised last spring by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, who wrote a letter to the Metropolitan Police Department asking about the presence of “plain-clothes officers.”

When Rasmussen polling asked in April (after the Tucker release): “How likely is it that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot?” 59 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of independents agreed it was likely.


Click to expand...

Where did that text come from?

And what does it have to do with the NY Times?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top