The DoJ Is Still Corrupt And It's Supporting The Criminal Establishment

[mudwhistle]

So Andrew McCabe is out doing high-fives on CNN because the corrupt DoJ decided to drop all of the charges against him....literally begging Trump to say something about it. This is Nancy Pelosi's next opportunity to impeach Trump....set up by the DoJ.

McCabe was fired by Jeff Sessions for the following:

• Lying to investigators
• Leaking information to the media
• Perjury

To illustrate the two-tiered justice system we have in America today.....if you're a member of the establishment you can get away with murder....but if you're a Trump insider or a friend of Trump...forgetting if you ever received an email from somebody can possibly result in several years in prison.

The problem isn't just that the DoJ is corrupt....but the judges (and the jury pool) in Washington D.C. are corrupt as well. The Establishment is so firmly rooted in Washington that it's impossible to convene a jury without biased jurors somehow lying their way onto juries. Rodger Stone's jury foreman turned out to be a Democrat who actually ran for political office, a glaring red-flag.

Hello.....can you say massive conflict of interest!!!!!!!!!!!!!


An anti-Trumper that posted negative Trump Administration information on Twitter somehow got on his jury. The hand-picked, Democrat friendly judge, saw fit to allow this woman to somehow be placed on the jury and in a bold move, she was somehow miraculously even given the position as foreman so she could control the debate during deliberations. You see, they aren't even attempting to hide their corruption these days. The discovery of this fact should have resulted in a mistrial....but I don't think they care about it. The only hope Stone has is that he will win on appeal or the president pardons him....setting up another opportunity for Nancy Pelosi to tear up the Constitution and impeach Trump again.

Democrats are getting to be pretty damned bold about their corruption these days. But why would they be so bold? Well....most of the liberals here on this forum see no problem with this overt corruption...this highly charged political climate in Democrat strongholds like Washington D.C. and New York City. Nothing to see here. They don't care if innocent people are going to prison while the guilty are allowed to walk the streets and make millions spreading fake news on CNN and MSNBC. Wherever the Democrats control the city....nothing that happens there can be trusted. It's like the State of California on a smaller scale. Rigged elections and padded electoral counts thanks to their heavy illegal immigrant populations.

The frightening thing is this: If this is the brand of justice that Democrats are going to practice....what's to stop them from stealing elections in November? Image what will happen once the Democrats get their communists in total control of the government.

We were led to believe that charges were going to be filed against the perpetrators of the FISA abuse scandal....but it appears that nothing is going to happen to the guilty parties. So now is the time for the degenerates on the left to cheer. They're getting away with murder...because the system is so corrupt that our laws mean nothing anymore. Congratulations.....America is now a Banana Republic.

Links

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/has_the_deep_state_beaten_bill_barr.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/02/democrats_aiming_for_more_impeachments.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/is_the_doj_the_us_department_of_injustice.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...e_roger_stone_case_step_into_a_barr_trap.html

 

[playtime]

lenny lenny lenny...........

American Thinker
Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.

American Thinker - Media Bias/Fact Check

 

[mudwhistle]

lenny lenny lenny...........

American Thinker
Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.

American Thinker - Media Bias/Fact Check

Nice try...but no cigar.

Liberal blogs are hardly a good source for factchecking.

 

[playtime]

lenny lenny lenny...........

American Thinker
Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.

American Thinker - Media Bias/Fact Check

Nice try...but no cigar.

Liberal blogs are hardly a good source for factchecking.

learn what a blog is, lenny, cause that ain't one.

they go by this:

IFCN Code of Principles

Methodology - Media Bias/Fact Check

 

[mudwhistle]

lenny lenny lenny...........

American Thinker
Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.

American Thinker - Media Bias/Fact Check

Nice try...but no cigar.

Liberal blogs are hardly a good source for factchecking.

learn what a blog is, lenny, cause that ain't one.

they go by this:

IFCN Code of Principles

Methodology - Media Bias/Fact Check

That's your opinion....and opinions are like assholes.

 

[playtime]

lenny lenny lenny...........

American Thinker
Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.

American Thinker - Media Bias/Fact Check

Nice try...but no cigar.

Liberal blogs are hardly a good source for factchecking.

learn what a blog is, lenny, cause that ain't one.

they go by this:

IFCN Code of Principles

Methodology - Media Bias/Fact Check

That's your opinion....and opinions are like assholes.

so international standards are my opinion? silly silly you.

so............ they are wrong about this too?
MSNBC
Share:

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Wall Street Journal

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

 

[mudwhistle]

lenny lenny lenny...........

American Thinker
Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.

American Thinker - Media Bias/Fact Check

Nice try...but no cigar.

Liberal blogs are hardly a good source for factchecking.

learn what a blog is, lenny, cause that ain't one.

they go by this:

IFCN Code of Principles

Methodology - Media Bias/Fact Check

That's your opinion....and opinions are like assholes.

so international standards are my opinion? silly silly you.

so............ they are wrong about this too?
MSNBC
Share:

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Wall Street Journal

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

Just because your leftist site agrees with the fake news published on leftist stations....it doesn't mean it's even remotely a fact.

 

[beautress]

Andrew McCabe was the first FBI man to shed light on the Benghazi investigation that Hillary Clinton will never live down. Bill Barr looks at the facts, not the momentary fragments of political theories about any given person. Yes, he was the second in charge, but he also put his life on the line for the American people when he was on the FBI swat team for several years, and he acted out heroic things while there. I can't favor punishing a man who risked his life in the behalf of all Americans, not just the ones he picked. He was chosen to be second in command because he declared neutrality when his wife ran for high office in their state but lost her bid back when. He did not try to hide behind his wife's being a
Democrat, and openly declared he would act as given assignments not based on her politics, before he was appointed to various positions in the changing winds of Republicans being in charge or Democrats being in charge.

I'm not getting on the "everybody should hate Bill Barr" bandwagon. The man rules as he sees fit. And if I were him, although I am likely right of every Republican or conservative here, I would not mercilessly throw an American hero who was at the peril of both sides of the aisle, any more than I would judge an attorney general for not letting politics rule his decisions, but the raw facts. And the raw facts show that McCabe is in a lot of trouble for obeying orders in the paramilitary group known as the FBI, and he has served with distinction under heavy fire from the real enemies of all
Americans. He has been victimized by both aisles for acting on orders from above. He's sitting on the fence all through his career, and I'm not surprised to see a nonpolitical man being used as a pawn by either side.

And may the good Lord correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[mudwhistle]

Andrew McCabe was the first FBI man to shed light on the Benghazi investigation that Hillary Clinton will never live down. Bill Barr looks at the facts, not the momentary fragments of political theories about any given person. Yes, he was the second in charge, but he also put his life on the line for the American people when he was on the FBI swat team for several years, and he acted out heroic things while there. I can't favor punishing a man who risked his life in the behalf of all Americans, not just the ones he picked. He was chosen to be second in command because he declared neutrality when his wife ran for high office in their state but lost her bid back when. He did not try to hide behind his wife's being a
Democrat, and openly declared he would act as given assignments not based on her politics, before he was appointed to various positions in the changing winds of Republicans being in charge or Democrats being in charge.

I'm not getting on the "everybody should hate Bill Barr" bandwagon. The man rules as he sees fit. And if I were him, although I am likely right of every Republican or conservative here, I would not mercilessly throw an American hero who was at the peril of both sides of the aisle, any more than I would judge an attorney general for not letting politics rule his decisions, but the raw facts. And the raw facts show that McCabe is in a lot of trouble for obeying orders in the paramilitary group known as the FBI, and he has served with distinction under heavy fire from the real enemies of all
Americans. He has been victimized by both aisles for acting on orders from above. He's sitting on the fence all through his career, and I'm not surprised to see a nonpolitical man being used as a pawn by either side.

And may the good Lord correct me if I am mistaken.

Clearly....it's an uphill struggle fighting through the courts in Washington.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[mudwhistle]

Exactly.
Barr needs to get off of Trump's case and clean up his own house first.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Andrew McCabe is out doing high-fives on CNN because the corrupt DoJ decided to drop all of the charges against him....literally begging Trump to say something about it. This is Nancy Pelosi's next opportunity to impeach Trump....set up by the DoJ.

McCabe was fired by Jeff Sessions for the following:

• Lying to investigators
• Leaking information to the media
• Perjury

To illustrate the two-tiered justice system we have in America today.....if you're a member of the establishment you can get away with murder....but if you're a Trump insider or a friend of Trump...forgetting if you ever received an email from somebody can possibly result in several years in prison.

The problem isn't just that the DoJ is corrupt....but the judges (and the jury pool) in Washington D.C. are corrupt as well. The Establishment is so firmly rooted in Washington that it's impossible to convene a jury without biased jurors somehow lying their way onto juries. Rodger Stone's jury foreman turned out to be a Democrat who actually ran for political office, a glaring red-flag.

Hello.....can you say massive conflict of interest!!!!!!!!!!!!!


An anti-Trumper that posted negative Trump Administration information on Twitter somehow got on his jury. The hand-picked, Democrat friendly judge, saw fit to allow this woman to somehow be placed on the jury and in a bold move, she was somehow miraculously even given the position as foreman so she could control the debate during deliberations. You see, they aren't even attempting to hide their corruption these days. The discovery of this fact should have resulted in a mistrial....but I don't think they care about it. The only hope Stone has is that he will win on appeal or the president pardons him....setting up another opportunity for Nancy Pelosi to tear up the Constitution and impeach Trump again.

Democrats are getting to be pretty damned bold about their corruption these days. But why would they be so bold? Well....most of the liberals here on this forum see no problem with this overt corruption...this highly charged political climate in Democrat strongholds like Washington D.C. and New York City. Nothing to see here. They don't care if innocent people are going to prison while the guilty are allowed to walk the streets and make millions spreading fake news on CNN and MSNBC. Wherever the Democrats control the city....nothing that happens there can be trusted. It's like the State of California on a smaller scale. Rigged elections and padded electoral counts thanks to their heavy illegal immigrant populations.

The frightening thing is this: If this is the brand of justice that Democrats are going to practice....what's to stop them from stealing elections in November? Image what will happen once the Democrats get their communists in total control of the government.

We were led to believe that charges were going to be filed against the perpetrators of the FISA abuse scandal....but it appears that nothing is going to happen to the guilty parties. So now is the time for the degenerates on the left to cheer. They're getting away with murder...because the system is so corrupt that our laws mean nothing anymore. Congratulations.....America is now a Banana Republic.

Links

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/has_the_deep_state_beaten_bill_barr.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/02/democrats_aiming_for_more_impeachments.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/is_the_doj_the_us_department_of_injustice.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...e_roger_stone_case_step_into_a_barr_trap.html

Yup. All part of James Q Comey's "Plan"

They have each others back, they all walk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Andrew McCabe was the first FBI man to shed light on the Benghazi investigation that Hillary Clinton will never live down. Bill Barr looks at the facts, not the momentary fragments of political theories about any given person. Yes, he was the second in charge, but he also put his life on the line for the American people when he was on the FBI swat team for several years, and he acted out heroic things while there. I can't favor punishing a man who risked his life in the behalf of all Americans, not just the ones he picked. He was chosen to be second in command because he declared neutrality when his wife ran for high office in their state but lost her bid back when. He did not try to hide behind his wife's being a
Democrat, and openly declared he would act as given assignments not based on her politics, before he was appointed to various positions in the changing winds of Republicans being in charge or Democrats being in charge.

I'm not getting on the "everybody should hate Bill Barr" bandwagon. The man rules as he sees fit. And if I were him, although I am likely right of every Republican or conservative here, I would not mercilessly throw an American hero who was at the peril of both sides of the aisle, any more than I would judge an attorney general for not letting politics rule his decisions, but the raw facts. And the raw facts show that McCabe is in a lot of trouble for obeying orders in the paramilitary group known as the FBI, and he has served with distinction under heavy fire from the real enemies of all
Americans. He has been victimized by both aisles for acting on orders from above. He's sitting on the fence all through his career, and I'm not surprised to see a nonpolitical man being used as a pawn by either side.

And may the good Lord correct me if I am mistaken.

Just look at all the Coup plotters already brought to justice! Why there's, um, er...well

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[playtime]

lenny lenny lenny...........

American Thinker
Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.

American Thinker - Media Bias/Fact Check

Nice try...but no cigar.

Liberal blogs are hardly a good source for factchecking.

learn what a blog is, lenny, cause that ain't one.

they go by this:

IFCN Code of Principles

Methodology - Media Bias/Fact Check

That's your opinion....and opinions are like assholes.

so international standards are my opinion? silly silly you.

so............ they are wrong about this too?
MSNBC
Share:

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Wall Street Journal

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

Just because your leftist site agrees with the fake news published on leftist stations....it doesn't mean it's even remotely a fact.

the WSJ - is rupert murdoch's paper, dummy. you know - the same dude that owns your precious FOX.

either you are that poorly educated - or you know that & hope that other deplorables ARE that poorly educated & will believe you.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nice try...but no cigar.

Liberal blogs are hardly a good source for factchecking.

learn what a blog is, lenny, cause that ain't one.

they go by this:

IFCN Code of Principles

Methodology - Media Bias/Fact Check

That's your opinion....and opinions are like assholes.

so international standards are my opinion? silly silly you.

so............ they are wrong about this too?
MSNBC
Share:

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Wall Street Journal

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

Just because your leftist site agrees with the fake news published on leftist stations....it doesn't mean it's even remotely a fact.

the WSJ - is rupert murdoch's paper, dummy. you know - the same dude that owns your precious FOX.

either you are that poorly educated - or you know that & hope that other deplorables ARE that poorly educated & will believe you.

Rupert Murdoch is a foreigner.....and a Socialist.

Throwing him into my face to prove your point is like an AOC supporter throwing Nancy Pelosi into my face to prove your worthless point.

 

[playtime]

learn what a blog is, lenny, cause that ain't one.

they go by this:

IFCN Code of Principles

Methodology - Media Bias/Fact Check

That's your opinion....and opinions are like assholes.

so international standards are my opinion? silly silly you.

so............ they are wrong about this too?
MSNBC
Share:

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Wall Street Journal

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

Just because your leftist site agrees with the fake news published on leftist stations....it doesn't mean it's even remotely a fact.

the WSJ - is rupert murdoch's paper, dummy. you know - the same dude that owns your precious FOX.

either you are that poorly educated - or you know that & hope that other deplorables ARE that poorly educated & will believe you.

Rupert Murdoch is a foreigner.....

Throwing him into my face to prove your point is like an AOC supporter throwing Nancy Pelosi into my face to prove your worthless point.

rupert murdoch, owner of the the NY post, the WSJ, & FOX is a naturalized american citizen.

3 strikes lenny.... 3 strikes.

 

[mudwhistle]

That's your opinion....and opinions are like assholes.

so international standards are my opinion? silly silly you.

so............ they are wrong about this too?
MSNBC
Share:

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Wall Street Journal

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

Just because your leftist site agrees with the fake news published on leftist stations....it doesn't mean it's even remotely a fact.

the WSJ - is rupert murdoch's paper, dummy. you know - the same dude that owns your precious FOX.

either you are that poorly educated - or you know that & hope that other deplorables ARE that poorly educated & will believe you.

Rupert Murdoch is a foreigner.....

Throwing him into my face to prove your point is like an AOC supporter throwing Nancy Pelosi into my face to prove your worthless point.

rupert murdoch, owner of the the NY post, the WSJ, & FOX is a naturalized american citizen.

3 strikes lenny.... 3 strikes.

You're out.
I told you he was a foreigner.
If you're a naturalized citizen that means you're from a foreign country, shitforbrains.

 

[playtime]

so international standards are my opinion? silly silly you.

so............ they are wrong about this too?
MSNBC
Share:

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Wall Street Journal

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

Just because your leftist site agrees with the fake news published on leftist stations....it doesn't mean it's even remotely a fact.

the WSJ - is rupert murdoch's paper, dummy. you know - the same dude that owns your precious FOX.

either you are that poorly educated - or you know that & hope that other deplorables ARE that poorly educated & will believe you.

Rupert Murdoch is a foreigner.....

Throwing him into my face to prove your point is like an AOC supporter throwing Nancy Pelosi into my face to prove your worthless point.

rupert murdoch, owner of the the NY post, the WSJ, & FOX is a naturalized american citizen.

3 strikes lenny.... 3 strikes.

You're out.
I told you he was a foreigner.
If you're a naturalized citizen that means you're from a foreign country, shitforbrains.

oh bullshit. you didn't mean it that way & we both know it.

that means donny's first & third trophy wives aren't really americans then....

right leonard?

 

[mudwhistle]

Just because your leftist site agrees with the fake news published on leftist stations....it doesn't mean it's even remotely a fact.

the WSJ - is rupert murdoch's paper, dummy. you know - the same dude that owns your precious FOX.

either you are that poorly educated - or you know that & hope that other deplorables ARE that poorly educated & will believe you.

Rupert Murdoch is a foreigner.....

Throwing him into my face to prove your point is like an AOC supporter throwing Nancy Pelosi into my face to prove your worthless point.

rupert murdoch, owner of the the NY post, the WSJ, & FOX is a naturalized american citizen.

3 strikes lenny.... 3 strikes.

You're out.
I told you he was a foreigner.
If you're a naturalized citizen that means you're from a foreign country, shitforbrains.

oh bullshit. you didn't mean it that way & we both know it.

that means donny's first & third trophy wives aren't really americans then....

right leonard?

Oh....so you're a mind reader too?

I've read Murdoch's bio you friggen tool.