2,318 Mark Meadows texts reveal the plot to overturn Biden's election

Incompetent rebuttal, reply dismissed.

The circular logic you used against MBFC is without merit especially with respect to the highlighted below

Please review prior post #6,


http://politicalforum.com/index.php...rturn-bidens-election.606400/#post-1073905353

Circular argument, all of your sites are sites poorly rated by MBFC.

I also try to confirm, with my own eyes, the MBFC rating, for example when I see reportage rife with weasel words, loaded phrases, clearly designed to appeal to one's biases, I'm inclined to believe the reportage is not trustworthy. there are news sources, both left and right, which fall into this category and MBFC is pretty good at identifying them. But, more important, are the pass/fail percentages in the fact checking department. Does MBFC bat 1000? No, no one bats 1000, but if you bat above 900, or even 800, that's good enough to serve as a general guide, and I think MBFC does, that plus my own eyeball confirmation and I think it works.

Show me reportage by WSJ, Christian Science Monitor, or even the National Review, all are center right and highly rated by MBFC, and on the left The Wonkette, Occupy Democrats, HuffPo (about on par with CNN) lefty sites, are poorly rated. I have sourced the above center right sources a number of times. The only time I will source a site with a 'mixed' rating on the factual scale, is on a case by case basis, and the story has been run in numerous places, which normally means that there were at least 3 confirmed sources (most sources, when repeating a story that is originated in another news source, they will require 3 or more confirmations on the story before rerunning the story).

The have longs lists of good and bad ratings on both sides of the left to right spectrum, a fact which you failed to check, which only reveals YOUR bias.

The left to right bias rating could be argued to be somewhat subjective, noting that this rating, 'bias' has to do with which audience they cater to, a source could select stories of interest to the right or left, and that is what 'bias' means, but the caliber of the reportage is what is important, and the factual rating is based on pass/fail percentage on fact checks. If the factual rating is below mixed I won't use them as a source/link no matter right or left).

The only time where the left to right bias rating affects the factual rating is where the bias rating is extreme to the right or extreme to the left, then the factual rating is usually below 'mixed'.

You could argue areas where they might get it wrong, but, on the whole, they do a fair job and some kind of rating site is needed. They are pretty good on the really terrible sites, those are the ones I look out for, such as Gatewaypundit, .

 

Irrelevant to the indictment for which Donald Trump is unindicted co-conspirator.

 

It does when it is corroborated (by hard evidence, the photocopies of the checks which equalled the sum Cohen paid to Stormy) and testified to under oath, and Trump has not testified to the contrary.. Cohen was directed by Trump to facilitate hush money payments by Trump, who wrote the checks that paid Storm to keep quiet so that her being quiet about it wouldn't have a negative impact on Trump's election campaign.

That's an in kind donation and given that it exceeded $2700, a felony. .

 

It is very relevant..... because Trump was unindicted...

 

Dismiss your own arguments.... you are the one with Incompetent rebuttal.... please review prior post #5... your fake fact check site is a fake fact check site...

Media Bias Fact Check Literally is a written opinion site by a man with a ""Communications Degree in college"" Dave Van Zandt

The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest

Discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker’ website was served with a ‘cease and desist’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).
MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself as a seasoned journalist.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-bias-fact-check-site-served-cease-and-desist/

Media Bias/Fact Check bills itself as "The most comprehensive media bias resource." It's run by Dave Van Zandt, making it fair to say it's run by "some guy" ("Dave studied Communications in college" is his main claim to expertise).
We have nothing against "some guy" possessing expertise despite a lack of qualifications, of course. One doesn't need a degree or awards (or audience) to be right about stuff. But is Van Zandt and his Media Bias/Fact Check right about PolitiFact?
https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/10/can-you-trust-what-media-biasfact-check.html

Media Bias Fact Check Is a Major SCAM to Silence the Right
https://www.independentsentinel.com/media-bias-fact-checking-scam-silence-right/

Don't trust Fact checkers, especially not this one. It favors fake news on the left, and to true sites that are not on the mainstream media, it labels as conspiracy theory and junk pseudo science, when the truth is just the opposite. This website is as biased and as full of lies as you get.
https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/mediabiasfactcheck.com

Conservatives have criticized the liberal "fact-checking" website for being subjective and often outright false.[19][20][21] On their "10 Best Fact Checking Sites," they list several objectively false and generally inaccurate left-wing "fact-checkers," including PolitiFact, Snopes, and the Fact Checker by the Washington Post.[22]
Media Bias Fact Check sources its information from the Anti-Defamation League and the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center in order to inaccurately label right-wing websites and organizations as "questionable" sources according to Robert Spencer, who wrote to Media Bias/Fact Check's editor describing the attacks on his website, Jihad Watch, as "pure libel," afterward claiming he received no response from the editor.[23]
https://conservapedia.com/Media_Bias_Fact_Check

Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called “Media Bias Fact Check” which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence – and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam.
https://www.palmerreport.com/politics/palmer-report-exclusive-media-bias-fact-check/2115/

Overall, such fallacious attacks on outsider-opinion represent an effort to strangle social discourse from the top down. In this writer’s opinion, sites like Media Bias Fact Check constitute a desperate retaliatory measure in the wake of the legacy media’s loss of collective attention, and seek to reinforce narrative control in the hands of organizations like the Atlantic Council while smearing reliable sources of scientific journalism like WikiLeaks.
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com...ikileaks-supports-western-propaganda-machine/

If Media Bias Fact Check were to be given a rating, they would be “Left” with “Mixed” honesty. Interestingly enough, they don’t rate themselves. Not that it matters, they’d certainly put themselves squarely in the middle as “Least Biased” with “High” ratings for honesty, neither of which are even remotely true
https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/topic/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-just-dishonest

 

A crime requires intent. Intent is only known by the person taking the action.