Why did Crooks shoot Trump?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wow, you are as bad as he is.

I posted why anonymous sources can't be relied on to give us accurate news or reporting. . . . .

AND SECOND, that his OWN SOURCE, the content of the article was claiming that a campaign operative said it. NOT TRUMP.

campaign operative “responded, ‘Make them riot!’ and ‘Do it!'”

All nonsense.

You selectively applied doubt to this.

And you're full of shit anyway. That quote is from sworn testimony and made public in a court filing.

 

[MisterBeale]

All nonsense.

You selectively applied doubt to this.

And you're full of shit anyway. That quote is from sworn testimony and made public in a court filing.

BUT IT DOES NOT SAY;

trump was told his words in J6 may cause violence, he responded...."Let them riot."

Trump never responded that way, only P5 did!

It only refers to "P5." That isn't Trump!

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.252.0.pdf

We Identified the Key Unnamed Figures in Jack Smith’s New Trump Brief​

We Identified the Key Unnamed Figures in Jack Smith’s New Trump Brief

Jack Smith’s latest brief redacts almost every name. We undid that for you.

theintercept.com

https://archive.ph/6Jixu#selection-615.9-615.84

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

campaign operative “responded, ‘Make them riot!’ and ‘Do it!'”

Can't keep up with the lane changes.

And don't have to do so.

 

[JimH52]

Damn, you will believe anything if it confirms your bias, won't you?

I TOLD YOU THAT THIS WAS THE CASE! I KNEW IT. . . folks telling these stories don't even want to be identified.



". . . On the other hand, the use of anonymous sources can also be seen as a way to skirt the truth or manipulate the public. This can be particularly true when the anonymous source is providing information that is unsubstantiated or biased.

In such cases, the use of an anonymous source can be seen as unethical and potentially damaging to the credibility of the journalist.

Ultimately, the decision to use anonymous sources should be based on careful consideration of the potential risks and rewards.. . . "

What Are The Ethics Of Using Anonymous Sources And How Do Journalists Decide When To Use Them? - CPI Journalism - All About Journalism

As an experienced journalist, I've spent many years exploring the complex and often contentious ethical considerations of utilizing anonymous sources.

cpijournalism.org

View attachment 1023795

Telling the Story | The Associated Press

www.ap.org

On top of that. . . your source did not even say it was Trump that said, "let them riot," IT WAS A “campaign operative!”

Can't you even critically read your own damn source?

". . . In another instance, an unidentified Trump aide, described only as a “campaign operative,” was told by a colleague at a Detroit, MI vote counting center that they thought a batch of ballots would be in Biden’s favor, the operative said to “find a reason it isn’t.” “When the colleague suggested that there was about to be unrest reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers riot, a violent effort to stop the vote count in Florida after the 2000 presidential election,” the campaign operative “responded, ‘Make them riot!’ and ‘Do it!'”

wtf. The only liar here, is YOU.

Blah Blah Blah....I will believe a court document over a convicted felon.

 

[MisterBeale]

Blah Blah Blah....I will believe a court document over a convicted felon.

I posted the court document moron. It proved yoar allegations false.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.252.0.pdf

 

[MisterBeale]

Trump also said "let them riot".

Nope.

That wasn't what the indictment claims.

No one says this but folks that can't understand and read media correctly.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nope.

That wasn't what the indictment claims.

No one says this but folks that can't understand and read media correctly.

I see. Doesn't much matter. Let them riot for 187 minutes is what he did. As the jury shall see.

 

[MisterBeale]

I see. Doesn't much matter. Let them riot for 187 minutes is what he did. As the jury shall see.

I guess Pelosi and Muriel Bowser should have released the NG like they were authorized to do, huh?

FAFO

 

[j-mac]

Oh yeah? What is the substantive difference between GOP violent rhetoric and DNC violent rhetoric. You need to clarify please.

Why?

Because the evidence is that this is the same for both.

View attachment 1022854

'Rise in violent rhetoric': Lawmakers in both parties report spike in death threats - Roll Call

Two-thirds of lawmakers who responded to a CQ Roll Call survey reported experiencing death threats as America's politics grow more heated.

rollcall.com

". . CQ Roll Call asked every member of Congress whether they had received a death threat since 2020. Of the 147 who responded, 110 — or about 75 percent — said yes. While more Democrats replied to our inquiry than Republicans, 95 to 52, death threats were pervasive among both parties: 74 percent of Democrats said they had received one, compared with 77 percent of GOP respondents. . . "

False Equivalence​

False Equivalence: Definition & Helpful Examples of False Equivalence Fallacy • 7ESL

What is false equivalence fallacy? When thinking about logical fallacies in the English language, there are many different types and this can be confusing

7esl.com

What Is False Equivalence Fallacy?​

"The false equivalence fallacy is one where the speaker or writer compares one thing to another to try to draw a logical conclusion, when in fact no such similarity exists meaning that no such conclusion can be drawn. To look at it in even more simple terms, you might say that ‘that is not equal to this’ in essence disproving a claim containing a false equivalence fallacy. In many cases, upon first hearing a false equivalence fallacy, one might automatically assume that the opposing arguments are in fact, logically equal but upon closer inspection, it becomes obvious that they are not.

This type of fallacy shows a cognitive bias in which ideas, situations, objects or events are compared to one another by the writer or speaker who claims that they are the same as each other when in reality there are many differences between the two. The differences within a false equivalence fallacy can be made up of anything such as quantity, appearance, and many others. It is very easy for this type of fallacy to make its way into the conversation and it quite often makes an appearance in the media. . . "

Read your own definition dummy…

 

[MisterBeale]

Read your own definition dummy…

I did. And that is the point. There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties when it comes to this issue.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I guess Pelosi and Muriel Bowser should have released the NG like they were authorized to do, huh?

FAFO

Has no bearing on Trump's guilt.

Just as our response on the day of 9/11 has no bearing on the guilt of the hijackers.

You got sucked in to false, irrelevant talking points. Out of desperation.

 

[j-mac]

I did. And that is the point. There's not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties when it comes to this issue.

That’s your opinion…Probably to make you feel better.