Keystone was opposed for a few good reasons that had nothing to do with a simpleminded "gubmint is too big!".
A single source complaint from a group with a solid track record in selective bullshit? We shall see. Judicial Watch has made multiple claims over the years that have been misleading, exaggerated, or outright false. Here are some notable examples: 1. False Claims About Voter Fraud (2020 Electio Judicial Watch repeatedly claimed there were "millions of illegal voters" on U.S. voter rolls and suggested widespread voter fraud in the 2020 electio However, numerous fact-checking organizations (AP, Reuters, PolitiFact) and courts found no evidence of widespread fraud that could have affected the election outcom Their claims contributed to misinformation about the election and were cited by Trump supporters challenging the result 2. Obama Administration ‘Spying’ on Trump (20 They pushed the narrative that the Obama administration directly ordered surveillance on Donald Trump during the 2016 campaig The Department of Justice's inspector general later found no evidence of improper surveillance directed by Obam The claims were misleading and fueled conspiracy theories about the "Deep State 3. Hillary Clinton’s Health (20 In 2016, Judicial Watch heavily promoted claims that Hillary Clinton had severe undisclosed health issues, suggesting she was physically unfit for offic These claims were based on selective videos and unverified medical opinions rather than medical record Independent medical experts debunked the theory, and Clinton’s doctor confirmed she was in good healt 4. COVID-19 and Hydroxychloroquine Misinformat In 2020, they spread claims that health agencies were withholding hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment for political reason Medical studies later showed that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective and could even be harmful in some case Their claims contributed to the politicization of pandemic response 5. Benghazi Scandal and Clinton Ema While Judicial Watch was involved in uncovering Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, they often exaggerated the implication They claimed Clinton’s emails contained classified information that directly led to American deaths in Benghaz Multiple investigations, including by the Republican-led House committees, found no evidence linking her emails to the attac Conclus Judicial Watch is effective at using FOIA requests to uncover government documents, but they also engage in selective reporting and push politically charged narratives. Their claims should always be cross-checked with independent fact-checkers before being taken aa truth. h.ionk.i.s.ilss.s.s.ionh.s.e.16)."a.n.17)s.e.n.n)
Its different because executive branch criminal convictions by Republicans leaves Democrats in the dust BEFORE Trump. If you're in a space where people reflexively excuse their own side while condemning the other, it skews perceptions of what’s actually happening. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...nd-Convictions-A-Warning-for-Trump-Appointees
"criminal convictions" from a democrat engaged and empowered/weaponized DoJ. Whether or not the republicans are guilty of said crimes is not the point, but that the standards aren't equally applied to both sides, creating a false equivilance. Oh, sure, you'll write some response about Trump, and fascism, or how I'm brainwashed, etc. I honestly don't care. And you can't give me a source that mediabiasfactcheck.org ranks as: to support your left narrative.
I never read Kos so was unaware that was their score but the senior admin conviction disproportion is accurate and not dismissable as "narritive" fiction. Your best argument is that democrats are too smart to get caught. If I remember correctly your biological father was a cop? You have to know that criminals are not too bright as a rule. Look at your fellow posters here.
First, my argument isn't that democrats are too smart to get caught. It's that it is extremely rare that they prosecute their own, and if the Republicans don't weaponize the DoJ on them, and they do on the Republicans, all you're going to have is a much higher conviction rate on Republicans than Democrats. Your conclusion on this is that Democrats are somehow cleaner, which is naive at best, disingenuous at worst. Second, I don't know if you're trying to build a personal file on me by going through all my old posts in some attempt at trying to psychoanalyze me or if you're just obsessed. I'd advise you to stop worrying so much about me and get a life.