Who is fact checking the left wing media?

[SimplyTrying]

@sikofit

@WildRose

What you are saying is gibberish and not supported by any fact.

He was empowered to prosecute any crimes he uncovered during the investigation

@WildRose

I don’t need to be an expert I read the letter that charged him with his duties.

That’s quite the change from your previous position.

@WildRose

Mueller has gone so far beyond his constitutional authority he should be sued in court and shut down.

Yeah, when I read that I went ■■■? Completely did a 180 on his position. When I see this I suspect that the arguments are just to be contradictory and not genuine.

[JayJay]

@Rye

@JayJay

I don’t watch talking heads.

I tell everyone I know to do their own fact checking and don’t just listen to anyone else.

So why would I waste time and energy on talking heads?

To paraphrase Red Dawn…all that hate’s gonna burn you up…and it’s NOT gonna keep you warm.

A few clarifications:

• How do you deiced where you get you facts from are the best starting point
• Where should one go to go do the best fact checking.
• Why aren’t talking heads of different political persuasions as good as any other reference point as one fact check method.
• In the end don’t all ‘‘fact checking’’ sources have a bias

Yes…all sources have a bias.

How do you think you would overcome that?

[NuffSaid]

Who fact checks the President?

[NuffSaid]

So now we are supposed to believe Mueller? I thought he was Democrat trying his hardest to undermine this President?

[zonulet]

@NuffSaid

So now we are supposed to believe Mueller? I thought he was Democrat trying his hardest to undermine this President?

Democrats :
2016 : “It’s Mueller Time!” “Mueller is God”
2019 : “Mueller and Barr compromised,…we must investigate!”

[NuffSaid]

That’s because Mueller did not find any crimes against their King.

Now Mueller is a patriot.

[NuffSaid]

@zonulet

@NuffSaid

So now we are supposed to believe Mueller? I thought he was Democrat trying his hardest to undermine this President?

Democrats :
2016 : “It’s Mueller Time!” “Mueller is God”
2019 : “Mueller and Barr compromised,…we must investigate!”

Mueller wasn’t involved until 2017.

[coolidge]

I am just glad all this liberal fantasies are coming to a close.

[NuffSaid]

What’s next for President Trump? What agenda is he tackling next?

Anything you want him to focus on?

[lessright]

So now we know why deep state Rosenstein stayed.

[lessright]

The premise of the investigation was…

“…a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election…”

…which included whether or not there were connections or corroberation with the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign was not the ‘entire premise’ of the investigation.

[GrandWazoo]

I tuned into MSNBC shortly after it was announced that the letter had been released. From the get-go they were saying that it said that it does not conclude that the President committed a crime. And they basically said it that way over the hour that I watched.

[Tguns]

After more than two years of expecting this report was going to lay out the goods on the treasonous traitor in the white house, only to have that fever dream fall flat, it’s really no wonder they’re clinging to what ever string of hope that may remain for their tattered reputation.

[Blackwolf]

I don’t watch either CNN or Fox but I suspect if you do you’ll get the first part of the quote from the latter. So just match them up.

[WildRose]

The entire premise for launching the investigation was the accusations of Trump/Russia collusion.

[lessright]

I quoted the premise from Rosenstein’s instructions to Mueller.

[WildRose]

The investigation began long before Mueller’s appointment. No where in that appointment letter is he instructed to look for crimes blindly without any evidence of a crime being committed to start with.

[Paul_Thomson]

A "not ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ " verdict is by default exhoneration. “Innocent until PROVEN guilty.”

[kingarthur65]

@WildRose

Three other very important words from the report. “No Evidence OF”.

This is a much higher bar than what federal prosecutors usually apply which is “would any prosecutor reasonably think based on the facts they can get a conviction?”.

The former is “no evidence period” of a crime being committed, the second questions whether the evidence is sufficient to get a conviction.

Where are those words? I don’t see them in Barr’s report.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WildRose

This is a much higher bar than what federal prosecutors usually apply which is “would any prosecutor reasonably think based on the facts they can get a conviction?”.

It’s funny that you mention this - because it’s essentially what Barr said regarding a charge of Obstruction against Trump.