Good grief. Keep spinning.Interesting how some folks suddenly become fans of the MSM - and CNN in particular - depending on the exact nature of the "evidence" they are offering.
Good grief. Keep spinning.Interesting how some folks suddenly become fans of the MSM - and CNN in particular - depending on the exact nature of the "evidence" they are offering.
It makes you wonder why they're rushing through the impeachment trial with erroneously information in their charging document.
Good grief. Keep spinning.
The fact of the matter is there has been scant information released about the investigation of what happened to the officer. But multiple "news" reports said that his cause of death was "due to getting hit with a fire extinguisher". Other news outlets said investigators were "looking into reports" that he was hit by a fire extinguisher. You see the difference? The Dems charging document chose the former and put it in their document.Not necessarily false ...
"... according to reports ..."
Fact is, we are at the mercy of the investigating authorities (and whatever the media can document) in terms of what evidence we have ... and it's an ongoing investigation.
Wouldn't be entirely surprising if the authorities didn't release everything they are aware of.
Remember: some of the video footage shown today had never been publicly released before today.
Then what should be explored is what basis did the media have for reporting it initially.
Again with the "reports" ...
"Evidence": A tweet saying " the Calvary is coming".
It's a figure of speech.
The fact of the matter is there has been scant information released about the investigation of what happened to the officer.
But multiple "news" reports said that his cause of death was "due to getting hit with a fire extinguisher". Other news outlets said investigators were "looking into reports" that he was hit by a fire extinguisher. You see the difference? The Dems charging document chose the former and put it in their document.
New York Times. Go figure
Hard up for conviction votes?I understand that a "juror" was observed passing a note to the defense team.
Pretty sure that in a trial in the US legal system that would get the juror disqualified.
Hard up for conviction votes?
Yes I know.No ... because votes to acquit (or dismiss) can, and will, actually serve as votes to convict ... so it's a double-edged sword.
Some folks are under the misguided impression that Trump is the only one on trial here ... he isn't.
There are 50 Senators on trial as well.
"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
Soooo, if you cite a news report, that makes you a fan of the news outlet? Interesting. I never heard of that before.Interesting how some folks suddenly become fans of the MSM - and CNN in particular - depending on the exact nature of the "evidence" they are offering.
An ongoing investigation cloaked in quite a bit of secrecy. Even more so the investigation of the unarmed woman that was shot and killed.Yup.
Ongoing investigation.
Now do Cheeto's "voter fraud" claims.
An ongoing investigation cloaked in quite a bit of secrecy. Even more so the investigation of the unarmed woman that was shot and killed.
It's unusual. That's what.
Soooo, if you cite a news report, that makes you a fan of the news outlet? Interesting. I never heard of that before.
Uh oh, ............But speaking of investigations, I'm sure many here will want to get onboard with this: