Yes. Because, as I was sadly forced to admit, that is the sum and total evidence. Nothing more at all was said, so you not thinking that's enough really just sinks the entire case. Moron.
No, a talking head saying "Today Sidney Powell said..." is reporting on what's said. Inviting her on so often that she'd qualify for an "Also starring" credit if they admitted they're dramatic fiction, and responding to everything she says with nods, "wow!" and "Of course." when you know it's nuttier than squirrel shit is not "reporting". And again, huge teams of very expensive trained lawyers disagree with you. Remind me of your extensive legal credentials again?
And yet Rachel Maddow got away scott free for literally slandering someone on air.
Yep, using a watered down version of the same shitty defence that's previously gotten tucker carlson off the hook. Don't love it in general, and would much rather news and media generally were held to stricter and more specific standards. On the other hand, do you actually think there were any measurable damages in that case? It's hard to credit the idea that anyone who already did would choose not to watch OAN because Rachel Maddow accused them of shilling for Russia.
Whelp, I'm cut to the quick by your dazzling wit. You realise of course, that actual real life teams of lawyers do agree with me? Like, Dominions, third party media, and fox's own legal army? Maybe you could get Giuliani and Powell to back you though. They have a record for supporting losers with shitty legal theory, and they could probably use whatever money you can spare these days!
Maybe you could get Giuliani and Powell to back you though. They have a record for supporting losers with shitty legal theory, and they could probably use whatever money you can spare these days!
Cope harder. At least we agree fox are dumb.
You know, despite their behaviour fox aren't technically part of the gop apparatus, right?
Uh... Their overwhelmingly positive treatment? You know that fox management were basically working as unofficial PR consultants, and leaking privileged information to him during his campaign, yes?
You'll have to show where exactly they did anything of the sort. I somehow missed it and sounds like it'd be good for a laugh.
Note that this poll is so fucking wrong that the impeachment bullshit was one of the reasons democrats lost seats in the house.
Well, that was disappointing. How on earth do you call giving the results of public interviews "cheering on" anything? That's not even a devil's advocate opinion piece, it's literally just "We asked a bunch of people these questions, here's what they said." I mean, it might well have bad methodology, because fox are shite at reporting, but if you really think that's fox cheering on the impeachment, when they had Tucker Carlson saying republicans who voted for trump's impeachment are 'Dumb and guilty', or dobbs saying "In the face of the party of hate's endless efforts to abuse President Trump, to try to overthrow his presidency, President Trump for his part says he won't attend Joe Biden's inauguration." then you're just being an idiot.
It's two of the biggest talking heads, and I can find more from others if you'd like. But I hardly see the point when your own position is based on one shitty poll. Not a news article, or a segment of one of their shows, not something put together by their creative or editorial staff, or said by one of their representatives... Nope, one public survey that you disagree with is all the evidence you need that they're insufficiently loyal to the gloriously stupid cause.
