A historian's biased and uninformed opinion represents again MSM BIAS News!

[healthmyths]

Douglas Brinkley who suppose to be an academic, OBJECTIVE historian pompously preached today on
CBS Sunday morning the following totally BARE-FACED LIE!!!

"But with the impending acquittal of President Donald Trump in a Senate impeachment trial –
one which disallowed witnesses and documents – my heart has sunk. "

Really? And Brinkley is professor of history at Rice University. History!
Is he really that ignorant of what the House did regarding "witnesses"?????
A) The house had 4 legal witnesses... 3 against Trump and 1 who DIDN"T vote for Trump but was an honest legal scholar. The 3 had worked for Trump's impeachment starting in 2017!
One of the 3, Noah Feldman wrote, in the past and on different occasions, that the President could be impeached for: calling the MSM fake news; for a Mar-A-Lago ad that showed up on a government website; for pardoning Sheriff Arpaio; for criticizing President Obama in a tweet for wiretapping him; and over the debunked BuzzFeed story about Trump directing Michael Cohen to lie under oath.
One of Nadler's Constitutional Scholars Lied Under Oath

But Brinkley Never mentioned the 3 to 1 truly partisan Democrat biased legal witnesses.

But Brinkley NEVER mentioned the LEGAL right to have the Courts decide the validity of witnesses, material etc.! YET the Democrats never allowed the courts to rule!

And even the extremely biased Politifact.org declared:
In the resolution, Graham wrote that House Democrats leading the impeachment inquiry are "denying President Trump basic fairness and due process accorded every American."

Constitutional scholars said due process rights are not necessarily guaranteed to a president during an impeachment inquiry. If they were, they would be granted during the Senate trial, not the House’s evidence-gathering process.
PolitiFact | Graham wrong that House impeachment inquiry denies Trump ‘due process’

 

[ColonelAngus]

They are going to run with this bullshit narrative.

They will forget that it was Schiff that rushed it all through the house and claimed the case was proven.

Dimms are disgusting.

 

[Zorro!]

Douglas Brinkley who suppose to be an academic, OBJECTIVE historian pompously preached today on
CBS Sunday morning the following totally BARE-FACED LIE!!!

"But with the impending acquittal of President Donald Trump in a Senate impeachment trial –
one which disallowed witnesses and documents – my heart has sunk. "

Really? And Brinkley is professor of history at Rice University. History!
Is he really that ignorant of what the House did regarding "witnesses"?????
A) The house had 4 legal witnesses... 3 against Trump and 1 who DIDN"T vote for Trump but was an honest legal scholar. The 3 had worked for Trump's impeachment starting in 2017!
One of the 3, Noah Feldman wrote, in the past and on different occasions, that the President could be impeached for: calling the MSM fake news; for a Mar-A-Lago ad that showed up on a government website; for pardoning Sheriff Arpaio; for criticizing President Obama in a tweet for wiretapping him; and over the debunked BuzzFeed story about Trump directing Michael Cohen to lie under oath.
One of Nadler's Constitutional Scholars Lied Under Oath

But Brinkley Never mentioned the 3 to 1 truly partisan Democrat biased legal witnesses.

But Brinkley NEVER mentioned the LEGAL right to have the Courts decide the validity of witnesses, material etc.! YET the Democrats never allowed the courts to rule!

And even the extremely biased Politifact.org declared:
In the resolution, Graham wrote that House Democrats leading the impeachment inquiry are "denying President Trump basic fairness and due process accorded every American."

Constitutional scholars said due process rights are not necessarily guaranteed to a president during an impeachment inquiry. If they were, they would be granted during the Senate trial, not the House’s evidence-gathering process.
PolitiFact | Graham wrong that House impeachment inquiry denies Trump ‘due process’

This "Bias" crap is about shutting people up that disagree with them.

Bias Response Teams Silence Civic Debate.

And that of course, was always the goal.

Today the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Speech First v. Fenves. Six amicus briefs joined by nine organizations—several with national profiles—were filed with the court in August 2019 supporting the Speech First organization’s lawsuit against the University of Texas (UT) over its bias response team (BRT) policies. UT has hired outside counsel to defend.

The BRT for UT’s 52,000-student campus is called the Campus Climate Response Team (CCRT) and it is empowered to investigate and sanction any speech that is perceived to be discriminatory based on “race, color, religion, national origin, gender, gender identify, gender expression, age, disability, citizenship, veteran status, sexual orientation, ideology, political views, or political affiliation.” According to UT’s administrative rules, speech should be reported if perceived as “offensive, insulting, insensitive, or derogatory” and occurring “in the classroom, on social media, at a party or student organization event.”

If the City of Austin passed such a policy for its residents or visitors, it would be an obvious First Amendment violation. While some kinds of inflammatory speech targeting specific nearby individuals—“fighting words”—are not constitutionally protected (as established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942), criticizing group characteristics and behaviors is protected speech, regardless of the groups’ perception of the criticism. Certainly criticizing supposed white supremacy, white privilege, or white fragility is common enough on campuses these days.

Federal District Court Judge Lee Yeakel, however, held that UT had the right to balance free expression with civility and that the student plaintiffs who wished to remain anonymous had weakened their standing to complain. He also accepted UT’s assertion that, although administrators followed up on the complaints and held hearings, they did not actually discipline offenders of the desired campus climate. Thus the Plaintiffs had no “objective fear” of censorship.

The six amicus briefs were filed by a wide variety of organizations ranging from the centrist American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) to the libertarian CATO Institute to the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). These briefs touched on essential issues, such as the important role that anonymous speech has played in American history, the national trend of BRTs specifically targeting conservative speech, and—perhaps most importantly—the chilling impact that public shaming has on free expression.

There is also the question of why academic institutions would try to judge and control speech regarding such a wide variety of topics that are discussed passionately off campus every day. Are they really just sending a message of civility, or is it a matter of censorship? Only a few of the BRT policies on the almost 200 campuses where they exist emphasize the role of free speech in American life and jurisprudence, opting instead for stern, admonitory lists of “no go” topics subject to administrative questioning.