What I'm saying is that they jumped at the chance to declare the capitol police's involvement in the riot as false.
They did not wait for evidence.
There was no reason for them to fact check it without any contradictory evidence but they did.
They called a claim false because they couldn't prove the claim; not because there was any evidence whatsoever to dispute said claim.
In fact, they claim there is no evidence that police removed barriers and allowed rioters to enter at a time when there were multiple videos of exactly that all over the internet.
They ignored supporting evidence. Now we know that 35 officers are being investigated BECAUSE of there involvement in the capitol riots.
Lmao nope, sorry are you used to not have anything you say questioned here? Was what I said wrong?
Usually there's a lot of bullshit in these "fact checks", and while the article you linked to presented totally one-sided and selective facts, they didn't stick their necks out with clickbait results on that one.
They lied about the tapes. We've all seen them and watched/heard the officers move the barricades and invited them in. So they lied when they said "there is no proof" because there plainly was but they chose to misrepresent the evidence in their article.
Anyone can pick apart the BS ones, it's a little more difficult to PAY ATTENTION to the little details.
What I'm saying is that they jumped at the chance to declare the capitol police's involvement in the riot as false.
They did not wait for evidence.
There was no reason for them to fact check it without any contradictory evidence but they did.
They called a claim false because they couldn't prove the claim; not because there was any evidence whatsoever to dispute said claim.
In fact, they claim there is no evidence that police removed barriers and allowed rioters to enter at a time when there were multiple videos of exactly that all over the internet.
They ignored supporting evidence. Now we know that 35 officers are being investigated BECAUSE of there involvement in the capitol riots.
The fact checkers lied is what I'm saying.
I don't see the word "false" anywhere in the article you linked to.
Do you work for Snopes or Politifact?
Lmao nope, sorry are you used to not have anything you say questioned here? Was what I said wrong?
Usually there's a lot of bullshit in these "fact checks", and while the article you linked to presented totally one-sided and selective facts, they didn't stick their necks out with clickbait results on that one.
..... As I explained earlier
They lied about the tapes. We've all seen them and watched/heard the officers move the barricades and invited them in. So they lied when they said "there is no proof" because there plainly was but they chose to misrepresent the evidence in their article.
Anyone can pick apart the BS ones, it's a little more difficult to PAY ATTENTION to the little details.