AP fact checks on The Lying Conman Last week

[TS FAN]

Which Swamp the old swamp or the new swamp we have?

You really have gone over the Trump hater edge. That is about as dumb reply as anyone who claims the know something about Washington can make. I am not even going to dignify your inane remark.
LOLOLLOL

[ss12]

More facts on the IMPOTUS.

https://apnews.com/a79178f3676982531c104e11d6041f42

[Barbecueboy]

You left out the most important fact that drives you the most batty......He is and will be your president for another 5 years.

ENJOY.

[Stefan2k4]

More facts on the IMPOTUS.

https://apnews.com/a79178f3676982531c104e11d6041f42

You can't "fact check" opinions. Anyone who purports to do so, is showing their own bias. This entire so called "impeachment" that isn't even officially an impeachment yet, because the speaker has gotten cold feet, is based on opinions, and not facts. There are no fact witnesses, only those who have opinions about what they think maybe the president might have meant.

[Clayton_Wetters]

Crooked opinions with a political cause, I will add.

[ss12]

Sounds like a bunch of poster on here that their butts are hurting. If you want bias opinion go watch Hannity and Tucker.

[ZERO25]

Sounds like a bunch of poster on here that their butts are hurting. If you want bias opinion go watch Hannity and Tucker.

Only ones butthurting are the Don Lemon, A Cooper, B Shepherd nuthuggers! Just don't drop the soap around them 3......but you've most likely already experienced that!....js

[Clayton_Wetters]

Bias to the truth though. Not lies and corrupt agendas.

[Stefan2k4]

If you want bias opinion go watch Hannity and Tucker.

Are Tucker and Hannity biased? Sure! But they don't hide behind pretense. You know their show is opinion, They don't try to present opinion as fact. That's the problem with the so called "news" today presented by the mainstream media. It's all opinion presented as if it were fact.

It's also what this whole so called "impeachment" is about. There is no fact evidence, only opinion. How do you define 'abuse of power"? It's entirely subjective and simply a matter of opinion. Opinions are settled by elections, not prosecution or impeachment. That's what democracy means! Anyone who truly believes in democracy would want this settle in the 2020 election by the ultimate jury, the American people, not by a sham political process disguised as an "tmpeachment".

[fastford]

your right stefan , just like it was an opinion that trump was gone with hold funds to Ukraine for personal gain , which he did not , unlike biden who actually , factually directly told the Ukraine pres he was , and sumb!tch , his actually worked and his son got the job , all trump was trying to do was expose the corruption for all of US , DRAIN THE SWAMP.......and i also blame obumer for letting his " CONMAN " get by with it.....

[ss12]

Are Tucker and Hannity biased? Sure! But they don't hide behind pretense. You know their show is opinion, They don't try to present opinion as fact. That's the problem with the so called "news" today presented by the mainstream media. It's all opinion presented as if it were fact.

It's also what this whole so called "impeachment" is about. There is no fact evidence, only opinion. How do you define 'abuse of power"? It's entirely subjective and simply a matter of opinion. Opinions are settled by elections, not prosecution or impeachment. That's what democracy means! Anyone who truly believes in democracy would want this settle in the 2020 election by the ultimate jury, the American people, not by a sham political process disguised as an "tmpeachment".

Hannity is the has the Number one show on cable TV. He is just there to manipulate the conservatives followers. Which he does everyday and the follower take it as fact not known that they are being mislead. Now that is sad and this is why other countries do not allow Fox in their countries. Not all media are misleading and there are some that are reporting facts.

The impeachment is in the constitution for a reason. To say there is no factual evidence is bull. There is plenty of factual evidence including the best evidence when the IMPOTUS released the phone call. I'm sure they have more evidence that they are aware of but the IMPOTUS is not cooperating allowing them to verify the evidence. In your theory you would be right let the citizens vote on it. There is only one problem we have a republic. Since you don't seem to have the knowledge of the type of government we have. I will provide you with a couple of videos explaining the differences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgUs5wtXgL4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ0wNXzcZls

[fastford]

SS, please give a example of an nonfactual thing hannity has said , be sure to state the actual fact he mislead us on , also look up the word FACT before you answer....

[Stefan2k4]

Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson are opinion shows. They make no bones about it. They both openly disclose the fact they consider themselves conservatives. Their audience knows this and watch because they are like minded people. The "news" reporters on some other networks maintain a pretense they are "unbiased" and pretend they are just reporting the "facts" but their so called "facts" are often not facts at all, but opinions. The "reverand" Al Sharpton on CNN, stating that christians who support Trump are putting Trump above God, is NOT a fact! It's an opinion and while the reverand Al may certainly be entitled to that opinion, there are many who strongly disagree with that opinion. Those people could tell rev Al their opinion of him, but if they did he'd simply scream "racism".

The impeachment is in the constitution for a reason.

Indeed, it is, for "high crimes and misdemeanors" like "bribery" or "treason". To attempt to use it for purely political reasons, is an abuse of the process.

To say there is no factual evidence is bull.

The evidence presented in the house was all entirely subjective and broadly open to interpretation, a smile on a dog! Like the "smile on a dog" you interpret it based on the opinions of your own mind's eye.

There is plenty of factual evidence including the best evidence when the IMPOTUS released the phone call.

then why the need to call more witnesses who will only give their personal opinion of what the presidents words in that transcript perhaps maybe might have meant?

There is only one problem we have a republic.

No! We have a democratic republic. We all vote for president and those votes are translated into electoral college votes which elects our president. We may not vote directly but our votes still count. And unlike congressmen, everybody in the country votes for president. Adam Schiff, Nancy pelosi, and Jerry Nadler only have to answer to the voters in a small gerrymandered congressional district. The president is accountable to all voters. For them to try to remove a dully elected president flies completely in the face of democracy in every way possible.

[STRONGERTHANDIRT]

Just read the dems are considering additional articles of impeachment.

[kidrock]

Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson are opinion shows. They make no bones about it. They both openly disclose the fact they consider themselves conservatives. Their audience knows this and watch because they are like minded people. The "news" reporters on some other networks maintain a pretense they are "unbiased" and pretend they are just reporting the "facts" but their so called "facts" are often not facts at all, but opinions. The "reverand" Al Sharpton on CNN, stating that christians who support Trump are putting Trump above God, is NOT a fact! It's an opinion and while the reverand Al may certainly be entitled to that opinion, there are many who strongly disagree with that opinion. Those people could tell rev Al their opinion of him, but if they did he'd simply scream "racism".



Indeed, it is, for "high crimes and misdemeanors" like "bribery" or "treason". To attempt to use it for purely political reasons, is an abuse of the process.



The evidence presented in the house was all entirely subjective and broadly open to interpretation, a smile on a dog! Like the "smile on a dog" you interpret it based on the opinions of your own mind's eye.



then why the need to call more witnesses who will only give their personal opinion of what the presidents words in that transcript perhaps maybe might have meant?



No! We have a democratic republic. We all vote for president and those votes are translated into electoral college votes which elects our president. We may not vote directly but our votes still count. And unlike congressmen, everybody in the country votes for president. Adam Schiff, Nancy pelosi, and Jerry Nadler only have to answer to the voters in a small gerrymandered congressional district. The president is accountable to all voters. For them to try to remove a dully elected president flies completely in the face of democracy in every way possible.

Yes it does come down to interpretations of the Constitution and some law professors believe that Abuse of power is a clear violation and comes under the High Crimes and misdemeanor. Now some may not agree that it rises to those standards but, others do so where does that really leave us. They sure thought in Bill Clinton's case lying to congress rose to that level and rightly so and in my opinion this rises to that level as well. That's why I'm for hearing from all witness at this trial and that could change my opinion or solidify it. Time will tell how the Republicans are going to play their hand but, now it's their turn to have a fair trial and I know that the guys here on 4m want a fair trial with witnesses because, they sure where crying loudly on how the house ran their hearings. How about it guys you'll for all the witnesses to testify so, it will be a fair trial don't you?