https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/
Reasoning: Numerous Failed Fact Checks, Poor Sourcing, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History
Launched in 1982, The Washington Times is a daily newspaper concentrating on politics and news. Based in Washington, D.C., The Washington Times was founded by a self-professed messiah, Korean Sun Myung Moon. According to its parent company, during Washington Times’ 20th anniversary, Moon said: “The Washington Times is responsible for letting the American people know about God” and “The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.”
And also, presumably, because there were no crimes.
None that he committed, anyway.
What his adult kid may or may not have done isn’t the legal (or even moral) responsibility of the parents.
Isn’t this the clown who Bernie Sanders chastised for wanting to have a physical fight with someone who was testifying to a Congressional committee?
Yes and he should always be remembered for the time Bernie Sanders saved him from an ass-whooping that would literally go down in history.
I honestly kind of wanted to see that fight. You know how much good PR the UAW would have gotten regardless of the outcome.
"Union president takes punch to the face for workers rights*
That is a headline that sells all day long.
I don’t know about you all but I’m never voting for Hunter Biden.
Well, I’ve been voting for Hunter Biden for years now.
The optimist in me wants to say: “yeah, you go girl!”
But the pessimist in me is saying: “cool, so if they’re so bad, who ARE you voting for?”
Out of the options, the lesser of two evils is easier to fight against.
Edit: I don’t actively support Biden. But between the guys who promise to either: A) have made it their purpose to impoverish and delegitimacize everyone but themselves, and the people that, B) are trying to do so without getting caught
I’ll go for the people that don’t want to get caught. They’re at least minimizing the damage they do to the world. 🙄
Extra edit for the dipshits that can’t read properly: I was saying that between the Bidens and the big orange blob and his fanatical cohorts, I’d rather have the Bidens. Y’all think I’m talking shit about the wrong person, and that reading comprehension (or lack thereof) is why I don’t actively support EITHER side because they’re BOTH full of fanatical retards.
I love how you just read whatever you wanted to, and then wrote this scree like we give a fuck what you think, and you’re not even intelligent enough to catch the joke that’s literally one sentence long.
The Washington Times is a garbage conservative conspiracy generator. If we’re not linking to Newsmax or FoxNews, we shouldn’t be linking to it.
True that!
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/
Reasoning: Numerous Failed Fact Checks, Poor Sourcing, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
They’re so gross. One doesn’t fail multiple fact checks by accident!
I don’t think they actually need a valid reason for impeachment.
They could have impeached Obama for wearing his brown suit. Or Jaywalking when he went to the restaurant and put ketchup on his burger or whatever the heck that was about.
He would also have to have actually done any of the accused actions.
No, if they have the votes they can do a sham impeachment for any reason they want. They can vote to impeach just because they don’t like his stupid ugly face. But I doubt they actually have the votes. This is just revenge for daring to impeach Trump. It won’t succeed but they get to do “investigations”. They hope that will hurt Biden next November.
“Well you see, the Dems did TWO sham impeachments so it’s only fair we get to do it too.”
They hope that will hurt Biden next November.
Like when one badmouthes someone then publicly renounces but everyone will only remember the first part and not the second?
I’m pretty sure the stuff the Rs were actually going after Clinton over didn’t happen in office either, Lewinsky just presented a big target they could attach it all to.
Well yes and no. Special console ken starr was appointed over possible tax evasion. He found out about Monica. Then Clinton got in trouble over that AND lying about it. Bill narrowly avoided purjery charges.
Bill narrowly avoided purjery charges.
This is why he asked questions like what the definition of “is” is. He wanted to be absolutely certain what he could get away with without committing perjury.
He did not have sexual relations with that woman because he had them define what they meant by sexual relations, and they said intercourse. So a blowjob literally didn’t count. He asked for the definition of is because whether that just meant currently or at any time in the past was central to his answer.
In my opinion it would be a disaster if you could receive compensation for future policy input, act on that input in office, and be immune simply because you were not in office when you received it.
Just prove he did or did not do it instead of whatever this nonsense take is.
lol. Here is how this is going to play out. Nothing will happen officially on this until next fall, within 30 days of the election. Then, there will be “leaks” to the media about details of Biden guilt, which will be complete bullshit but an attempt to swing independent voters.
Source: Hillary Clinton in 2016. Buttery males.
I don’t think that that is the case here though. I agree what you’re saying in terms of a presidential candidate for example. But let’s be real, it’s already happening there. Candidates accepting campaign donations in return for implied favorable consideration if they win.
In my mind though, what you’re taking about still pertains directly to the presidency and would be fair game for impeachment. To me, it isn’t so much important whether the person is in office, but whether the prior action impacts their ability to preside (mostly) free from undue external influence.
Having no evidence except “payback for Trump, baby” might be a larger problem
that’s embarrassing how does anyone vote for these people
Because the one party state rigged it to be this way. They make sure the Dems aren’t a meaningful improvement ever, to sow apathy.
To be impeached- wouldn’t one need to have done something worthy of impeachment?
So one of them has a half a brain cell
The best part is their Orange Leader is trying to get Courts (at the Supreme Court now) to rule that the President has some kind of ultimate immunity. This would of course put Presidents above the law and out of reach of even the Supreme Court. It would also of course make it so Biden could do whatever he wanted (not that he actually would) - negating their whole farce.
I wouldn’t put it past the Republican judges to rule that only Trump specifically has immunity.
But since they put having power above party/country/the law, the chance they would put an aspiring dictator into power that wants to take the Supreme Courts power away, seems slim to nil.
Hmm, good point.
