what about FOX news now ?

Fox News' Sean Hannity says he knew all along Trump lost the election


Fox News star Sean Hannity – one of former President Donald Trump's strongest allies on the air and one of his closest advisers off it – admitted under oath that he never believed the lie that Trump was cheated of victory in the 2020 presidential election by a voting tech company.

That stands in contrast to what played out on some of Fox's biggest shows – including Hannity's. On television, Fox News hosts, stars and guests amplified and embraced such wild and false claims, made by Trump, his campaign lawyers and surrogates, presenting them to millions of viewers.

"I did not believe it for one second," Hannity testified.

Meade Cooper, Fox News' executive vice president, "confirmed under oath she never believed the lies about Dominion," the Dominion attorney, Stephen Shackelford, Jr., also said.

"Tucker Carlson, he tried to squirm out of it at his deposition," Shackelford added, and then alluded to the Fox News star's texts from November and December 2020.


Those sworn interviews took place during the discovery phase of the case, in preparation for trial, which is scheduled for April.

Nothing about your post is accurate. They were reporting what Trumps side said, asked for proof. Everyone else was saying nothing to it.


It was all of the other news sites that misrepresented what Fox News was reporting.

Let's see

Nothing about your post is accurate. They were reporting what Trumps side said, asked for proof. Everyone else was saying nothing to it.


It was all of the other news sites that misrepresented what Fox News was reporting. Originally Posted by farmstud60

Bullshit




Fox News is still total bullshit......ask any intelligent person.

Let's see Originally Posted by VitaMan

Dominion CEO John Poulos previously said in an interview with 60 Minutes that executives and hosts at the network were aware the voter fraud claims were false, but continued to promote them anyway

Gee, I wonder if we could apply that to any stories covered by CNN and MSNBC like Russia collusion hoax, Hunter Biden, Mexico border is closed and secure and on and on and on.....


I have no problem prosecuting Fox News IF we are going to apply the same standards to other news outlets but obviously we are not, are we.


Once again and again and again, I have no problem with this but I have a very big problem with "selective prosecution". Either every network gets prosecuted for slander or liable or nobody does and we allow free speech and we allow prosecution if you have a worthy case.


You are going to see a similar process when House Republicans call so called Intelligence experts and agents of the FBI to tell us why they knew Hunters laptop was not Russian disinformation but promoted it that way to this day after the NYT's and WAPO said they verified the story 6 years to late.

Isn't it sworn testimony, given during the discovery phase of a trial.......or not ?
A simple yes or no will suffice.



Aboutism is real old.

Isn't it sworn testimony, given during the discovery phase of a trial.......or not ?
A simple yes or no will suffice.



Aboutism is real old. So is your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word. Originally Posted by VitaMan

It is. Isn't it customary to wait for a verdict before passing guilt? Ever heard "sworn testimony" that did not result in a guilty verdict? Didn't Bobulinski give sworn testimony to the FBI investigating Hunter's laptop? Wasn't it ignored?


And as to your continuing misunderstanding of the meaning of "whataboutism" I'll explain it once again.


If one address the topic which I did

I have no problem prosecuting Fox News IF we are going to apply the same standards to other news outlets

THEN make a comparison of a similar story, it is not "whataboutism". "Whataboutism" only happens when one makes a comparison without addressing/ ignoring the original topic


whataboutism

: the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

comparison

: the act or process of comparing: such as

a: the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another

So how exactly does one make a valid comparison without it being called "whataboutism"? Simple, you address the first before making a comparison since the argument is usually "you didn't address what I said, you just made a comparison". Are we to now be forbidden from making comparisons? When exactly is it appropriate to make a comparison?


I have no doubt you are tired of seeing comparisons proving once again that anything a Democrat accuses a Republican of doing, they have already done and don't like people pointing it out.

Anybody remember who it was that first insinuated that there were problems with Dominion voting machines?


https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversi...private-equity


Election security experts have noted for years that our nation's election systems and infrastructure are under serious threat, but voting machines reportedly continue to fail and breakdown across the country, as vendors fail to innovate, improve, and protect voting systems, putting U.S. elections at avoidable and increased risk.


The three vendors -- Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart InterCivic -- collectively distribute voting machines and software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all eligible voters in the United States. Private equity firms reportedly own or control each of these vendors, which "have long skimped on security in favor of convenience," leaving voting systems across the country "prone to security problems."


https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/pub...ulnerabilities


Four senior senators have called on the largest U.S. voting machine makers to explain why they continue to sell devices with “known vulnerabilities,” ahead of upcoming critical elections.

The letter, sent Wednesday, calls on election equipment makers ES&S, Dominion Voting and Hart InterCivic to explain why they continue to sell decades-old machines, which the senators say contain security flaws that could undermine the results of elections if exploited.


Is/ was this true? Did Dominion ever sue over these allegations?

Nothing about your post is accurate. They were reporting what Trumps side said, asked for proof. Everyone else was saying nothing to it.


It was all of the other news sites that misrepresented what Fox News was reporting. Originally Posted by farmstud60

Seems about right, NONE of the other news media get or report anything right especially if it’s about Trump lol please.

Anybody remember who it was that first insinuated that there were problems with Dominion voting machines?


https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversi...private-equity


Election security experts have noted for years that our nation's election systems and infrastructure are under serious threat, but voting machines reportedly continue to fail and breakdown across the country, as vendors fail to innovate, improve, and protect voting systems, putting U.S. elections at avoidable and increased risk.


The three vendors -- Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart InterCivic -- collectively distribute voting machines and software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all eligible voters in the United States. Private equity firms reportedly own or control each of these vendors, which "have long skimped on security in favor of convenience," leaving voting systems across the country "prone to security problems."


https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/pub...ulnerabilities


Four senior senators have called on the largest U.S. voting machine makers to explain why they continue to sell devices with “known vulnerabilities,” ahead of upcoming critical elections.

The letter, sent Wednesday, calls on election equipment makers ES&S, Dominion Voting and Hart InterCivic to explain why they continue to sell decades-old machines, which the senators say contain security flaws that could undermine the results of elections if exploited.


Is/ was this true? Did Dominion ever sue over these allegations?




Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Do you know the difference between reporting about potential security issues and reporting that in fact the machines are actually casting votes for Biden that were cast for Trump.

Sean lost any credibility (if he had any) as a talking head when he was implicated paying off mistress all the while blasting courts about donny being named doing so. He was exposed for his hypocrisy when the Judge let the names be public who a lawyer was the middle man for.

At least Dan Rather excused himself for reporting on air of W National Guard faked records even though he didn't have anything to do with the actual reporting of the story. Only announced it on air.

Ol' sean has no such screwples (sp)

"Whataboutism"the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar Originally Posted by HedonistForever

You left out your 1st paragraph.

"Gee, I wonder if we could apply that to any stories covered by CNN and MSNBC like Russia collusion hoax, Hunter Biden, Mexico border is closed and secure and on and on and on....."

Looks like what you have said is your high priests like Hannity and Fox news have come down to the level of these other organizations....or even lower.

You left out your 1st paragraph.

"Gee, I wonder if we could apply that to any stories covered by CNN and MSNBC like Russia collusion hoax, Hunter Biden, Mexico border is closed and secure and on and on and on....."


A comparison SMH


Looks like what you have said is your high priests like Hannity and Fox news have come down to the level of these other organizations....or even lower. Originally Posted by VitaMan

I don't watch Hannity and as I said, I have no problem with Fox being sued for promoting what they knew or should have known was false ( not proven yet ) as long as it is applied evenly. It's called "equal justice under the law" and if we lose that than yeah, we have lost Democracy and that's exactly where this Democrat party is taking us.


I'd still like to hear you spell out the difference between "whataboutism" and "comparison" because it sure sounds like you are afraid of making comparison's when it is the basis of our Democracy, free to compare and free to choose after making that comparison.


Some people think they can stifle free speech by throwing around words like racist and whataboutism but the only think that will shut me up is a better argument and so far, I haven't seen one.

Your 1st paragraph exactly fits the definition you provided of "whataboutism".

That's all, folks.

Your 1st paragraph exactly fits the definition you provided of "whataboutism".

That's all, folks. Originally Posted by VitaMan

if you say so