Speaking of Fake News...
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
"The first: Andrea Mitchell’s claim Juanita Broadrick’s accusations against Bill Clinton were discredited."
Lol, she literally signed an affidavit that it wasn't true. I gave it a shot, clicked the article and see an obvious factual misrepresentation right up front. She literally could not discredit her story any more than stating under oath that it wasn't true. Every time I look at these "facts" that you guys throw out it's just bullshit. Now they're trying to explain away all the obvious right wing lying and propaganda by more lies and propaganda and you'll gladly help, knowing it's untrue. Unreal. Then you'll be the first to bitch that someone else isn't being honest!
An affidavit!
Lol, she literally signed an affidavit that it wasn't true. I gave it a shot, clicked the article and see an obvious factual misrepresentation right up front. She literally could not discredit her story any more than stating under oath that it wasn't true. Every time I look at these "facts" that you guys throw out it's just bullshit. Now they're trying to explain away all the obvious right wing lying and propaganda by more lies and propaganda and you'll gladly help, knowing it's untrue. Unreal. Then you'll be the first to bitch that someone else isn't being honest!
An affidavit!
So, she was "discredited" by her own affidavit? Why the edit by NBC?
https://www.thenation.com/article/re-juanita-broaddrick/
https://www.thenation.com/article/re-juanita-broaddrick/
First you answer my question. Why doesn't her own statement under oath that it didn't happen discredit her?
Because she's now said for years that she signed that affidavit to avoid testifying. She only came forward after Paula Jones' attorneys released her name publicly. What did she have to gain by filing the affidavit in 1997 and then disavowing it in 1998? She told K Starr's investigators she was raped.
5 separate friend/acquaintances of hers at the time of the alleged incident corroborated her story, saying she told them of it at the time.
Certainly you aren't going to suggest that women who are raped never seek to avoid testifying?
No, they usually don't recant in a sworn statement though. In writing.
So she lied in the written, sworn statement but she's telling the truth now. Only a conservative would try to pull that one off.
Well, quite a bit of liberal news sites, reporters have found her to be believable. Obviously NBC News, whose own reporter, Lisa Myers (who is certainly more of a credible journalist than Andrea Mitchell), said she has seen nothing in the ensuing years to discredit Braddock's story, must have agreed since they edited out the word "discredited".
Better throw the Clintons in that batch of conservatives then. Impeached. Yep, Billy sure is credible.
So what? There literally is no more definitive way to discredit a person's story than the same person who told the story signing a statement under oath that it didn't happen. Did she or did she not recant under oath in writing? I'm not asking for other people's opinions (msm opinions at that!) -- I'm focusing on a fact. Your stupid right wing slam piece just misrepresented a very basic fact and you lapped it up and tried to pass it off. No wonder you're so defensive about "fake news."
I lapped it up? The stories questioning Mitchell were widespread at the time. I've read quite a bit about her claims over the years and some of the details she included independently which align with statements made by, for example, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, and Gennfier Flowers.
As it happens, when Clinton was first running for the Democratic nomination in 1992, I worked with two folks from Arkansas. One was a white male, who was very buttoned down but loved Clinton. The other was a black woman, whose entire family back in Little Rock loved Clinton, not least because her sister-in-law was the principal of the special school Hillary/Bill helped promote. She hated him. She told me "there's no way Clinton will ever get the nomination. EVERYONE in Arkansas know that he cheats on his wife any girl that comes along." This was well before Gennifer Flowers and I had barely even heard of him. That always stuck with me when the media/people like you tried to suggest that all the stories about his philandering were a witch hunt.
Broadrrick isn't on trial nor currently testifying in a trial case. You act as if no one has ever recanted an affidavit that later proved out to be false and was given under some duress. Most everyone other than you agrees that her story wasn't discredited, including NBC News.
sysk, sysk, sysk, I could cite a dozen stories per week of fake news without breaking a sweat that appear in the NYT, WaPo, NBC news, etc. I'm not defensive about "fake news" because I recognize the whole charade for what it is.
I'm not suggest that "all the stories about his philandering were a witch hunt" am I? That's another deceptive point you're trying to make.
His girlfriends were getting in fistfights as recently as 2 -3 years ago. I have my own set of Arkansas Bill philandering stories. Of course he's a hound -- always has been. The fact that he's a 2 term POTUS and we have Trump in the white house should convince you the country really doesn't give a shit about that, except for the GOP when a democrat is running.
And no, not "most everyone" agrees that her story is discredited. If you've conducted a poll on that I'd love to see it. Most everyone I know considers a statement against interest, under oath, in writing, as pretty conclusive. Plus, to paraphrase Trump, Juanita isn't really rape material.
For sure, no one gives a shit now. In 1992, a lot of people did, and they covered it up fairly well. Beating Bob Dole in 1996 was hardly a halcyon achievement confirming no one cared.
Not rape material? Have you seen pictures of her when she was younger? Not my type for sure, but she was right in the Monica Lewinsky wheelhouse.
That's not all that was in Monica's wheelhouse.
She was eh. Maybe Arkansas passable. The redhead and Gennifer Flowers were cute and Paula Jones was just.... well, we've all seen her.
Bill is married to Hillary. Let's not pretend he has any standards. Close to human and above room temperature are probably his only two criteria.
Except "Grab her by the pussy" and about 10 random women who came out of nowhere to accuse Trump and then strangely vanish. Dang those facts.
Your hyper partisan binary thought process lacks any factual substance for anyone but you to believe you've made a factual point, much like your lack of 2nd Amendment and gun knowledge demonstrates why nobody believes you own 30 guns, or even 2.
Did you notice how quickly the sexual assault stuff ended when Trump said he was going to sue?
Funny how that works.
Funny how that works.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ussian-propaganda-story-admits-it-may-be-fake
https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/...ppends-editors-note-russian-propaganda-story/
"Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list."
https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/...ppends-editors-note-russian-propaganda-story/
"Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list."
This is funny. Woman whose consigliere originated and first promoted the Obama "birther" story decries fake news.
Rich.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/309532-clinton-blasts-epidemic-of-fake-news
Rich.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/309532-clinton-blasts-epidemic-of-fake-news
Fake News hysteria is just an updated, repackaged version of this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html
Climate of Hate/Change of Tone needed rhetoric when the media/DNC got their asses handed to them in 2010, complete with the necessary double-standards.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html
Climate of Hate/Change of Tone needed rhetoric when the media/DNC got their asses handed to them in 2010, complete with the necessary double-standards.
This part is especially entertaining...
"The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary."
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...-report-of-trump-supporters-booing-john-glenn
Fake news by the "News?" No way! I won't believe it! It must be fake!
Fake news by the "News?" No way! I won't believe it! It must be fake!
Interesting that the writer of the article included the government's accusation that the Russians did it but omitted Assange's denial of Russian involvement stated in the same interview.
Ha! Julian better stay away from the poker table. Too bad that murder is basically unsolvable.
