Mueller Report Next Week?

[Sparko]

Barr has the last word whether he consults with anyone or not. He didn't even consult with Mueller himself when drafting his phony summary of the report, and now that he has you all thinking Trump innocent he will do whatever he can get away with in order to hide the facts from the american people and Congress in order to cover for his corrupt boss, president Trump.

You forgot to mention that Barr works for Putin.

[Zymologist]

You forgot to mention that Barr works for Putin.

Why restate the obvious? You guys and your outlandish conspiracy theories.

[Mountain Man]

desperate_search-1024x721.jpg

[JimL]

You forgot to mention that Barr works for Putin.

He is supposed to be working for the american people but he has now made it quite obvious that he is working for Trump, so he might as well be said to be working for Putin.

[Mountain Man]

He is supposed to be working for the american people but he has now made it quite obvious that he is working for Trump, so he might as well be said to be working for Putin.

you seem upset.jpg

[Sparko]

He is supposed to be working for the american people but he has now made it quite obvious that he is working for Trump, so he might as well be said to be working for Putin.

There ya go. I knew it was in ya.

[Cow Poke]

He is supposed to be working for the american people but he has now made it quite obvious that he is working for Trump, so he might as well be said to be working for Putin.

Jim, did you ever notice that our National Anthem has a phrase in it "the rockets' red glare"? Communism! Putin! We were doomed from the start!

Fort-McHenry-VC-open32rdA.jpg

[rogue06]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/u...er-report.html

This is a story from The NYTimes (and The Washington Post) which are both credible news outlets.

You might try actually reading the story.

[Cow Poke]

You might try actually reading the story.

You such a funny funny guy -- Tass actually READ something before yammering away?

[rogue06]

You such a funny funny guy -- Tass actually READ something before yammering away?

First time for anything

[Cow Poke]

First time for anything

When Horace the Bull......

[rogue06]

When Horace the Bull......

Or Sparko willingly bathe.

[Tassman]

The NY Times and Washington Post are both reputable media outlets with a long history of reliable reporting. They stand by their story. We will no doubt get it "fleshed out" in due course, as we did re the Washington Post's "Deep Throat", which brought down the Nixon government.

Right... "credible".

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

[tabibito]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

From the same source, General comments about:

New York Times, Washington Post

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal 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 liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

Which is to say that the actual information is (often) accurate, but the paper acts positively to influence opinion based on that information. What they print needs to be read with care. That need is demonstrated by headlines which conflict with or misrepresent the facts of the story. They are also selective with regard to coverage: don't expect any positive stories to be printed unless those stories reflect their political aims or ideology. Don't expect them to print stories where the facts conflict with their agenda.

Breitbart

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.
nuff said.

CNN

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.

FOX (deemed further from centre than CNN.)

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative 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 conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

There is no cause for confidence in any of them.

[rogue06]

From the same source, General comments about:

New York Times, Washington Post

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal 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 liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

Which is to say that the actual information is (often) accurate, but the paper acts positively to influence opinion based on that information. What they print needs to be read with care. That need is demonstrated by headlines which conflict with or misrepresent the facts of the story. They are also selective with regard to coverage: don't expect any positive stories to be printed unless those stories reflect their political aims or ideology. Don't expect them to print stories where the facts conflict with their agenda.

Wrt the New York Times this might be a bit outdated. They have thrown all pretenses into the winds during the 2016 election and their hiring of a blatantly unabashed racist for an editorial position last year was the icing on the cake.

As for the "loaded words" I really noticed that while looking for stories concerning the migrant caravans coming from Central America refusing amnesty in Mexico (thus putting the lie to the claim that they were just fleeing persecution and violence). For instance, both papers likened Mexico's offer as a "scheme."