New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Judge Rules Rachel Maddow is Fake News -and Not a Journalist

Mick

The Right is always right
Nope. It wasn’t a “hoax,” and it was an allegation/subject of investigation. And as I have shown you many times, it was a well-founded allegation. See Volume I of the Mueller report. Not a sentence fragment of your choosing. The whole volume.
Mueller report you just cited:

“The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with [Russia’s] interference operation.”


Look, it doesn't matter how many times you scream, bawl, freak out, go insane. The underlying fact that no "U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated" with Russia doesn't change. It was a hoax. And you are just dumb enough to be one of the last holdouts on it. Madcow lied to the world. She's a fraud, a phony, a liar. And you lap it up. Be proud.
 
Last edited:

Bugsy McGurk

President
Mueller report you just cited:

“The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with [Russia’s] interference operation.”


Look, it doesn't matter how many times you scream, bawl, freak out, go insane. The underlying fact that no "U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated" with Russia changes. It was a hoax. And you are just dumb enough to be one of the last holdouts on it. Madcow lied to the world. She's a fraud, a phony, a liar. And you lap it up. Be proud.
Yup, hopelessly brainwashed into thinking a huge report consists of one sentence fragment.

Your mind is completely shot.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
"Opinions" don't cover lies. You know, things like Russian collusion, Ukraine, and the myriad of other hoaxes he....I mean she...err... it pushed.
On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.

Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the company’s requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment.

In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”


 

Mick

The Right is always right
I wonder why Trump and Rudy were associating a couple Russian Mobsters like these two? Why would a couple crooks like them be over in Ukraine doing Trumps bidding? Seems pretty f*cken shady, don’t you think....
No. Because there was nothing of substance in Ukraine for you to cry over. Complete conspiracy and that's why the Senate threw it out so convincingly. Yovanovitch has proven herself a fraud and a liar by telling Congress she knew very little about Burisma when, in fact, she knew plenty. That is what is "pretty f*cken shady". She should have been gone long before she was finally tossed out.

Now Parnut and Fruitman were friends of Giuliani's. Not the President. Fruitman and Parnut were charged with illegal campaign donations. Once again, has ZERO to do with the President.....or even Giuliani for that matter. There is absolutely ZERO accusation that anyone else was involved in any wrongdoing. Your puny brain cannot let conspiracies go, however. The Parnut and Fruitman hoax has been a humiliating experience for you. You insist on continuing to step in the shit, however. Chump.
 
Last edited:

Mick

The Right is always right
On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.

Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the company’s requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment.

In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”


Good God. The year 2000? Really? ROFL
 

Mick

The Right is always right
Yup, hopelessly brainwashed into thinking a huge report consists of one sentence fragment.

Your mind is completely shot.
You obviously don't know what a "sentence fragment" is. That was a COMPLETE sentence. And that is the bottom line finding. Feel free to post an underlying finding that says they did coordinate. You can' because it doesn't exist. And you are dumb enough to wonder why? If it did it would invalidate the entire report because it would straight up contradict itself. Continuing to push a debunked hoax only makes you look more insane.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
Yup, the year Fox news said that they are permitted by the first amendment to broadcast false information.
What does something someone said 20 years ago have to do with Madcow's nightly lies and hoaxes today? Good for the year 2000. Most of the station's staff has been turned over. That was 4 Presidents ago for chrissakes. ROFL. Now going to accept that Madcow is a fraud? That she willl still lie to you TONIGHT over and over and you will still lap it up like a fool?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
You obviously don't know what a "sentence fragment" is. That was a COMPLETE sentence. And that is the bottom line finding. Feel free to post an underlying finding that says they did coordinate. You can' because it doesn't exist. And you are dumb enough to wonder why? If it did it would invalidate the entire report because it would straight up contradict itself. Continuing to push a debunked hoax only makes you look more insane.
Here was the fragment you focused on:

"U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated"

The part you skipped over

The investigation did not identify evidence

This is also in the report:
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," the report says.
The evidence "about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred," Mueller adds.
Furthermore, Mueller makes it clear his investigators would have said there was no obstruction if they could demonstrate it: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
 

Jack4freedom

Governor
No. Because there was nothing of substance in Ukraine for you to cry over. Complete conspiracy and that's why the Senate threw it out so convincingly. Yovanovitch has proven herself a fraud and a liar by telling Congress she knew very little about Burisma when, in fact, she knew plenty. That is what is "pretty f*cken shady". She should have been gone long before she was finally tossed out.

Now Parnut and Fruitman were friends of Giuliani's. Not the President. Fruitman and Parnut were charged with illegal campaign donations. Once again, has ZERO to do with the President.....or even Giuliani for that matter. There is absolutely ZERO accusation that anyone else was involved in any wrongdoing. Your puny brain cannot let conspiracies go, however. The Parnut and Fruitman hoax has been a humiliating experience for you. You insist on continuing to step in the shit, however. Chump.
Trump was caught on video tape telling Parnas to “take Yovonavich out”. Why would the POTUS be ordering a Russian Mobster to “take out” a US Ambassador? These are the kind of questions I look forward to hearing Parnas answer under oath this October. I know that it doesn’t seem to bother Trumps dupes that several of his close associates are now convicted felons and several are already in Federal prison. However it certainly is fair game for discussion in a political campaign. I am glad to see that you are taking such an interest in this fascinating case. Good for you.

Cheers
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
What does something someone said 20 years ago have to do with Madcow's nightly lies and hoaxes today? Good for the year 2000. Most of the station's staff has been turned over. That was 4 Presidents ago for chrissakes. ROFL. Now going to accept that Madcow is a fraud? That she willl still lie to you TONIGHT over and over and you will still lap it up like a fool?


Mic Drop. They will still lap it up because she's a snarky leftist :(


ef9efeb287d3b7534ba8138dc91e46e6_hip-hop-mic-drop-instrumental-by-johny-reedickulos-on-_500-500.jpeg
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.

Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the company’s requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment.

In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”


2000 ? 20 years ago ?

This is about the entertainer Maddow
 

Mick

The Right is always right
Here was the fragment you focused on:

"U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated"

The part you skipped over

The investigation did not identify evidence


And? There was no evidence of collusion. Never was. It was a hoax.

This is also in the report:
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," the report says.
The evidence "about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred," Mueller adds.
Furthermore, Mueller makes it clear his investigators would have said there was no obstruction if they could demonstrate it: "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
Yes, the section on obstruction where Mueller pussied out and was too scared to accuse because he knew he was full of shit. The fact is the entire investigation was a fraud. Therefore, anything the President might have done was entirely justified. This is why the DOJ threw obstruction out.

Facts matter. Russian collusion was a hoax. Any effort to investigate was illegitimate and inherently corrupt because they knew such.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
Trump was caught on video tape telling Parnas to “take Yovonavich out”. Why would the POTUS be ordering a Russian Mobster to “take out” a US Ambassador? These are the kind of questions I look forward to hearing Parnas answer under oath this October. I know that it doesn’t seem to bother Trumps dupes that several of his close associates are now convicted felons and several are already in Federal prison. However it certainly is fair game for discussion in a political campaign. I am glad to see that you are taking such an interest in this fascinating case. Good for you.

Cheers
After looking dumb while peddling long debunked conspiracy theories what does lefty do? He DOUBLES down! ROFL!
 
Top