Unarmed woman is shot by Police in Capitol. The People Who Scream ‘Police Brutality’ Don’t Care.

You claiming that my sources are not credible, is just your opinion,.... not based on anything.
Your claim JW is a credible source, is also just your opinion,.... not based on anything.

Does it look like I care about your opinion?

 

JW is not a news site.

 

Whatever. It remains an not trust worthy source. I linked 3 sources saying that, and mentioned a 4th.
You right wing lot got no sources disputing this. Case closed.

 

please show your 3 sources with their investigation of
Iowa Secretary of State Misleading about Accuracy of State’s Registration Rolls and HOW JW was wrong…

please show us their Metrpolitan police report on Ashli’s shooting…

If you can’t do that then you got nothing.

 

LOL, you will believe anything.

Evidently the facts they uncover using the legal system are not facts at all but something some right wing person created for the defendants. You just can't make this stuff up.

 

“”””I labelled JW a fraudulent source.””””” Well there you go…..when you label something then it is not to be argued with… you may want to study what your sources are saying cause it is as wrong as wrong can be… your “credible sources “” are garbage… and left of Bernie Sanders…

 

I still am not seeing a source saying JW is credible.
While I got 3 sources saying it's crap.

You've shown no intent at all to prove it's good so far.
You lost the discussion if you keep this up.

 

I didn't label anything as fraudulent.
I got 3 sources saying that it's crap.
You got zero sources saying it's good.

You've shown no intent at all to prove it's good so far.
You lost the discussion if you keep this up.

 

JW?

 

Are we FINALLY done? You missed: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ty’-don’t-care.583573/page-76#post-1073013286

 

your sources are garbage that are left leaning biased and they are spreading misinformation which you eat up like candy….

 

Please prove Judicial Watch is wrong in the article I posted above… YOU try it… try not letting other people speak for you….

 

I would've thought that you would agree with Judicial Watch. Don't you think that the criminal justice system is corrupt and racist? From the website:

"Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

Litigation and the civil discovery process not only uncover information for the education of the American people on anti-corruption issues, but can also provide a basis for civil authorities to criminally prosecute corrupt officials. Judicial Watch seeks to ensure high ethical standards in the judiciary through monitoring activities and the use of the judicial ethics process to hold judges to account.

Through its publication The Verdict and occasional special reports, Judicial Watch educates the public about abuses and misconduct by political and judicial officials, and advocates for the need for an ethical, law abiding and moral civic culture." https://www.judicialwatch.org/about/

 

That is according to your opinion. And I do not care about your opinion.

 

Not seeing you sourcing this so called fact to be true.

You said that rather exceptionally recent, after you went all out disputing.

So what that da bomb is slang and so bomb has 2 different meanings.
That is calling... moving the goalposts, when you disputed it has 2 different meaning.

 

Darn… now you hurt my feelings…

 

So it remains, I got 3 sources saying I am right.
and you got just your opinion saying you are right.
Well well

 

The fact checkers who check the fact checkers says they're garbage...


https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politifact
https://winteryknight.com/2021/03/2...politifact-unbiased-a-review-of-past-rulings/
https://www.politifactbias.com/
https://www.liveaction.org/news/politifact-misleads-rating-roe-abortion-deaths/
https://www.politifactbias.com/2019/12/politifact-ratings-arent-scientific-or.html

 

Wikipedia is not a credible source that you should use to cite from. Wikipedia allows multiple users to edit, and it is not safe to assume that the facts presented there have been checked before publishing them.
“Many pages on the Web reflect incompetence, and some are pure hoaxes.”
https://connorsstate.edu/disted/wikipedia/
https://paperpile.com/g/wikipedia-credible-source/
https://www.makeuseof.com/why-wikipedia-not-as-credible-you-think/
https://josefinescott.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/why-is-wikipedia-not-a-credible-source/

 

Darn those factcheckers that check your factcheckers and actually say your factcheckers are not credible

https://www.factcheck.org
FactCheck.org may be older, but these days it is in with the in-crowd at Facebook, Instagram, Google and YouTube. All four tech companies partner with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) run by the liberal Poynter Institute, which receives funding from many liberals, including billionaire George Soros.
Upon further investigation, the leftist Annenberg Public Policy Foundation at the University of Pennsylvania directly sponsors and is the organization behind FactCheck.org.

https://censortrack.org/organization/factcheck-org

https://reinventingwildfire.com/is-factcheck-org-reliable/

https://capitalresearch.org/article/dishonest-fact-checkers/

Where their funding comes from says it all
Annenberg Foundation: $207,632 - A far left group activist . Annenberg are the founders and have been until 2020 they were by far the majority funder and primary funder of Factcheck.org
Facebook: $323,745 - Starting in 2020 Facebook became the primary funder of FactCheck.org with the goal of discrediting posts on social media. (Basically Trump’s posts)
Google: $100,000 - Google started partnering with Factcheck.org with the specific goal of starting a campaign to discredit anyone that went against the liberal Covid narrative. - From Google.
Stanton Foundation: $50,000 - Leftist group promoting liberal journalist.

 

Now after you have drug us off into the weeds about Judicial Watch with you discredited source...
Let's get back to the facts.... and the fact is YOU have not proven Judicial Watch wrong in the above article..
Please give it a try...

 

The first link says there is a slight left wing bias. That's a far cry of saying what they say is false.

The 3rd one is whines that Politicalfact complains that something might not be true since there is no peer review yet. Politicalfact is right, but somehow it remains an issue to complain about. They also complain that it doesn't say where they got their facts from to check it, but they know where they got it and are right... yet it remains an issue. I honestly do not see any issue in there. This is just desperate. lol

The 4th one complains about... that woe vs wade. Fact checker say it did not end the deaths, since they were still happening but rare. The article disagrees, yet posts statistics that it indeed it hardly but still happens.... proving the fact checkers are right.

Your last one notes that +700 claims investigated by the fact checkers and the results of it wasn't the problem. The problem is, that them +700 claims were cherry picked. And because of all that cherry picking its not fair to judge that Donald is lying more.



And so I wasted quiet some time seeing if factcheckers tells the truth about things they check... and they aint really touching that at all.

 

You have no case here... it is hard to swallow ain't it... why don't you move on from your deflection from JW article...

I notice you keep running away from showing Judicial Watch was wrong in the previous posts

The documents show witnesses recount they did not see Babbitt holding a weapon. From Capitol CCTV """"Approximately 2:23:15 (actual time) video captured a number of rioters inside the US
Capitol and further captured Ms. Babbitt climbing up and entering through a broken out
windowpane. Ms. Babbitt does not appear to be carrying anything in her hands."""

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/JW-v-DC-Babbitt-October-2021-001710.pdf

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/babbitt-capitol-jan-6/

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...-details-about-ashli-babbitt-shooting-n152396

 

But do they fact check correctly?

 

Not as good as Judicial watch...

You still have not shown Judicial Watch is wrong in the above article...