Durham limited in presenting evidence that collusion claims were untrue, judge says
(www.msn.com)
🚔 Crime & Corruption 💸
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (12)
sorted by:
Fren, you posted a link to MSN.
Sure did. Same article no matter the link.
Just a rule of thumb. Whenever you post a direct link to any MSM news just add your analysis, or else post a better link. MSM is called fake news for a reason. It doesnt mean they lie outright, but they lie by omission, out of context, and a million other ways that we have learnt over the past two years.
Even if a particular article is the epitome of journalistic standards, it still useless to people here since no one will take a word from it at face value.
So...what is fake news about this Washington Examiner article?
When you read this article it gives you the feeling that this was a setback for Durham. However you might like to compare it with a much more detailed analysis by an Anon here.
So in reality this is not so much a limitation on Durham as it is a limitation on Sussman. This is a good example of why we avoid fake news like plague. Even the framing of the subject can be turned on its head without any outright lying.
And yeah, Washington Examiner has been good sometimes, but it does not mean they are on the side of the truth.