Hillary Clinton found to be as culpable as Alex Jones!

Thistle

Well-known member
In a civil action by the FEC Hillary Clinton is found to be as culpable as Alex Jones.


"Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee have been fined by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for lying about funding the false Russian “dossier” that was used against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in the weeks leading up to his win."​
Justice delayed… It still justice!

special thanks to @tbeachhead for calling this to our attention!​
 
In a civil action by the FEC Hillary Clinton is found to be as culpable as Alex Jones.


"Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee have been fined by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for lying about funding the false Russian “dossier” that was used against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in the weeks leading up to his win."​
Justice delayed… It still justice!

special thanks to @tbeachhead for calling this to our attention!​
Completely fake.


Just remember CNN first in fake news. Just remember.
 
Completely fake.
Fake? This is what your article says. "The Clinton campaign . . . agreed to . . . accept the civil fines, according to the FEC letter."

Just remember CNN first in fake news. Just remember.
It's hard to forget it.
 
Fake? This is what your article says. "The Clinton campaign . . . agreed to . . . accept the civil fines, according to the FEC letter."

It's hard to forget it.
It's CNN is CNN FAKE OR NOT? This selective fake only if it doesn't agree is nonsense and I've proven it.
 
It's CNN is CNN FAKE OR NOT? This selective fake only if it doesn't agree is nonsense and I've proven it.
Oh my...you can't win. If you post from a RW source FOB will then complain about the platform....but if you post using FOB's sources..CNN...FOB will blast you because you once said it is fake news.
 
Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they don't. Just like every other news outlet in the world. How difficult is that for you to understand?
It's not difficult at all. CNN posts retraction which shows me they want to be accurate in reporting. The rw conspiracy blogs DO NOT post retractions which tells me they lie more often than not.
 
It's not difficult at all. CNN posts retraction which shows me they want to be accurate in reporting. The rw conspiracy blogs DO NOT post retractions which tells me they lie more often than not.
So then you are just trolling.

Trolling for Hillary.
Trolling for Democrats.
 
It's not difficult at all. CNN posts retraction which shows me they want to be accurate in reporting. The rw conspiracy blogs DO NOT post retractions which tells me they lie more often than not.

Selective retractions. You can not deny that what they call "news" is a matter of perspective. They have a very poor perspective when it comes to moral issues.
 
It's not difficult at all. CNN posts retraction which shows me they want to be accurate in reporting. The rw conspiracy blogs DO NOT post retractions which tells me they lie more often than not.

PJ_2020.01.24_media-polarization_2-03.png

" I was talking to a friend recently who told me that they rely on the New York Times and NPR for all of their information. They would never trust anything that came from Breitbart or Fox News. Prior to my time at The Factual, I would probably say the same. But The Factual’s work consistently shows how valuable news stories come from across the political spectrum. Reading too narrowly can lead to ignorance on specific issues, a lack of awareness about the range of perspectives, and an inability to bring people and ideas into a conversation.

Loyalty to one narrative can inhibit us from receiving the best news out there, and in such a saturated news space, there is no reason to read anything but the very best. And even if we hate to admit it, sometimes the highest-quality article is from a source whose political leaning differs from our own." [ link]
 
PJ_2020.01.24_media-polarization_2-03.png

" I was talking to a friend recently who told me that they rely on the New York Times and NPR for all of their information. They would never trust anything that came from Breitbart or Fox News. Prior to my time at The Factual, I would probably say the same. But The Factual’s work consistently shows how valuable news stories come from across the political spectrum. Reading too narrowly can lead to ignorance on specific issues, a lack of awareness about the range of perspectives, and an inability to bring people and ideas into a conversation.

Loyalty to one narrative can inhibit us from receiving the best news out there, and in such a saturated news space, there is no reason to read anything but the very best. And even if we hate to admit it, sometimes the highest-quality article is from a source whose political leaning differs from our own." [ link]
I agree with that to an extent. As an example I find the national review to be trustworthy.
 
Back
Top