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.
Did you read past the summary? They did address that. I consider the person who shot the video to be a solid source
But the viral, 14-second video clip that some are using to claim that officers willingly let rioters past barricades and into the Capitol is being misrepresented online, said journalist Marcus Diapola, who shot the video.
"They definitely didn't just open the barriers," Diapola told PolitiFact. "The pro-Trump rioters made a fist like they were going to punch the cops, which is why I started recording. Then (police) backed off the barricades.
"They were completely outnumbered," Diapola said. "There wouldn't have been any point in fighting."
Diapola said the video was taken around 2 p.m. near the northeast entrance of the Capitol and estimated that the officers were outnumbered "100 to 1," with only around 30 officers spread out between three entrances on that side of the Capitol, compared with thousands of protesters.
Another video, taken on the west end of the Capitol, shows rioters quickly overwhelming police barricades and eventually forcing the officers to retreat.
While we found no evidence that officers allowed the mob in willingly, the security breakdown that enabled rioters to breach the building is under intense scrutiny, and officials have said an investigation is imminent.
Yes I have, and to my untrained eye and my inherent bias, it looked damning, though I recognized how much they were outnumbered, and the fact that there were already protesters behind them.
It doesn't sound like you could be convinced by anything they say no matter what they say, probably not their target audience :)
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.
Did you read past the summary? They did address that. I consider the person who shot the video to be a solid source
You saw the tapes. What did you see?
Just because their cohorts cosigned their bullshit doesn't mean it's true.
Yes I have, and to my untrained eye and my inherent bias, it looked damning, though I recognized how much they were outnumbered, and the fact that there were already protesters behind them.
It doesn't sound like you could be convinced by anything they say no matter what they say, probably not their target audience :)