Martha Raddatz - Sunday Morning Fake News

[protectionist]

Sometimes fake news is clear and direct Some other times it is indirect and less clear. Nevertheless, it is just as fake, if not worse, because of it's deceptiveness, and capability of hoodwinking TV viewers.

One example of this is Martha Raddatz, hosting one of the Sunday morning "news" shows. Interviewing Trump associate, Kelly Anne Conway, lots of puzzled expressions appeared on Kelly Anne's face, and often she had to re-ask the questions, taking them out of the their loaded and biased form.''

Here's a few examples:

1) Referring to sex molestation accusations against Repubican Senate candidate Roy Moore, Martha asked >> "Do you have any doubt about the veracity of the accusations." See the bias ? This sentence used the words "the veracity" (as if it had been established that the accusations had veracity, which is not the case).

Martha asked this question twice, both times putting the accusations into a mode of truth, that they have no right to be, (since no evidence has been produced to support them (A more proper question might have asked >> "Do you have any thoughts about the accusations ?"

2) Martha also stated >> "You either believe the women, or you don't." Sorry, this doesn't qualify as proper either. The statement is simply FALSE. Since there is no evidence, to show Moore as having committed these nefarious acts, we should not be making a judgement at all (as Martha suggests). One can only believe or disbelieve in the presence of some evidence.

3) Martha also states >> "Maybe these 4 women are lying." Well golly gee, Martha, who could ever have imagined that ? (sarcasm).....when the women refer to an alleged incident 39 years old, and one month before an election.

4) Martha then tells Kelly Anne >> "You can't say whether you believe the women or not." Well, first, she shouldn't HAVE a belief, when there's no evidence, and second, why on earth would she believe it ? It's about as UNbelievable as anything could be, and has all the earmarks of a political hit job, designed to derail someone's candidacy in an election.

5) Martha adds >> "So that means it goes nowhere" LOL. You can't help but get the feeling Martha is disappointed that Moore hasn't been derailed already, from running for the Senate. And this is ABC TV's conception of "news" ? Yes, Martha, without evidence, it would go nowhere, just as thousands of accusations do, that never go to an arrest, or trial, or anything, nor should they.

6) Here's the one that really raised my eyebrows (and I'm pretty used hearing liberal lunacy/stupidity). Martha, again (in her mind) having already convicted Moore, said >> "Steve Bannon endorses Roy Moore. Does that tarnish Steve Bannon ?" Pheeew! (high-pitched whistle) No Martha. But that question sure does tarnish YOU (and ABC TV).

Quite amazing the trash we're seeing on supposedly reputable TV stations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Martha Radditz and the Moore accusers are believable.

The fake analysis of Conway and Protectionist are not.

 

[gipper]

Radditz is a D party operative, like so many in the MSM. Only fools like Jake believe her.

 

[MarcATL]

Note who, or what rather, the OP is DEFENDING.

An alleged pedophile.

That is all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not a pedofile, MarcATL: an abuser of underage girls.

 

[protectionist]

Note who, or what rather, the OP is DEFENDING.

An alleged pedophile.

That is all.

That is NOTHING. I am defending a person's right to not be smeared, in a obvious political hit job. The BS of the unsubstantiated smear is irrelevant Note that.

 

[protectionist]

Not a pedofile, MarcATL: an abuser of underage girls.

That is a unsubstantiated, reckless, and slanderous charge. Shame on you.

 

[protectionist]

Martha Radditz and the Moore accusers are believable.

The fake analysis of Conway and Protectionist are not.

"Believable" ? HA HA HA!! Wow, Jake is really hanging himself now. Good grief!

 

[blastoff]

Martha Radditz and the Moore accusers are believable.

The fake analysis of Conway and Protectionist are not.

You can believe anything you want but lacking any proof whatsoever it's no different that believing in Santa Clause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Martha Radditz and the Moore accusers are believable.

The fake analysis of Conway and Protectionist are not.

You can believe anything you want but lacking any proof whatsoever it's no different that believing in Santa Clause.

The proof is their in the character of the individuals and the quality of their statements.

Moore falls before his accusers like a slain anti-Christ.

 

[blastoff]

Martha Radditz and the Moore accusers are believable.

The fake analysis of Conway and Protectionist are not.

You can believe anything you want but lacking any proof whatsoever it's no different that believing in Santa Clause.

The proof is their in the character of the individuals and the quality of their statements.

Moore falls before his accusers like a slain anti-Christ.

LOL...you're joking, right?

ZERO proof, Jakey. That's the reality but pukes like you are too fucked up to deal in that realm.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Martha Radditz and the Moore accusers are believable.

The fake analysis of Conway and Protectionist are not.

You can believe anything you want but lacking any proof whatsoever it's no different that believing in Santa Clause.

The proof is their in the character of the individuals and the quality of their statements.

Moore falls before his accusers like a slain anti-Christ.

LOL...you're joking, right?

ZERO proof, Jakey. That's the reality but pukes like you are too fucked up to deal in that realm.

We are not in court, comrade blastoff, so your comment does not count.

Reputation and propensity for truthfulness: comrade Moore fails the smell test.

 

[protectionist]

The proof is their in the character of the individuals and the quality of their statements.

Moore falls before his accusers like a slain anti-Christ.

The "quality of their statements" is absolutely nothing, because they lack evidence. They can get on TV, say words, turn on the tears, use hand gestures, all irrelevant without a shred of evidence, and their 39 year silence, only broken a month before the election is the only (circumstantial) evidence there is - all against the accusers.

I suspect that before this is all over, we'll find out about sources behind these women, and quite possibly the DNC. Don't bet against it.

 

[protectionist]

We are not in court, comrade blastoff, so your comment does not count.

Reputation and propensity for truthfulness: comrade Moore fails the smell test.

Actually, Moore's reputation is crystal clear for decades. It is the accuser women who have questionable reputations. You have it backwards (as usual)

My only question now is how much were these women PAID ?

ROY MOORE’S TWO ACCUSERS: LEIGH CORFMAN’S HAS HISTORY OF MAKING FALSE SEXUAL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PASTORS, DEBORAH GIBSON A DEM VOLUNTEER FOR MOORE’S OPPONENT – HAPPENED 40 YEARS AGO!

One of Roy Moore's accusers worked as interpreter for Hillary Clinton campaign

 

[JakeStarkey]

protectionist, you are in the same boat as Avatar. You can believe what you want, but it means nothing in the court of public opinion. Your suspicions, as usual, are nonsensical.