Say It Ain’t So, Joe: CBS Reporter Draws Ire Of Biden For Asking Substantive Question

Erickson asked Biden a question on the way out of the room where Biden was meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: “Mr Biden, the COVID task force said it’s safe for children to be back in class.”

That would be an important and reasonable question. The CDC is not recommending the closure of schools since studies show an exceptionally low risk for such children. There are serious costs to such closures for both children and their parents ranging from the loss of educational advancement, depression, employment problems, and other issues.

Yet, for the public and press corp, the appearance of a reporter asking an actual substantive question of Biden was like watching Big Foot riding the Lock Ness Monster through conference room. The only evidence that it was real and not a mirage was Biden’s swift rebuke.

It is the type of question that you would expect the president-elect to answer when he is holding forth on his plan for dealing with Covid-19. Biden however again attacked Erickson personally for breaking the unwritten rule against substantive questions: “Why are you the only guy that always shouts out questions?”

That question sums up the situation perfectly. We should all want to know why Erickson is the only guy (other than Peter Doocy) who is asking such questions. Most of the media was openly in the bag for Biden during the campaign. The hope however was that, once he was elected, the media would rediscover a modicum of independence and integrity in their approach to Biden. That will not happen so long as Biden can accurately ask why the Erickson is “the only guy” asking questions.

159 thoughts on “Say It Ain’t So, Joe: CBS Reporter Draws Ire Of Biden For Asking Substantive Question”

  1. Hope from who, Professor? As I stated in my last comment, ‘classical liberals’ seem to be hardwired to not accept that their party is now a National Front with the full support of corporate America – it’s over. There will be no return to ‘normal’, there is zero risk of accountability, and a great many are doing every corrupt thing in their power to ensure it stays that way. Spit in one hand. . .

    Once again: some of us warned of big tech, corporate socialism and tyranny, bad parenting trends (cracks me up that a single one of those kids believe they are ‘anti’ corporation. Boy are they going to love their new and improved corporate government 😉 et. al. years ago. Few thought it was important.

  2. Turley wrote, “Most of the media was openly in the bag for Biden during the campaign. The hope however was that, once he was elected, the media would rediscover a modicum of independence and integrity in their approach to Biden.”

    Come on Jonathan, after what’s taken place in the media over the last twelve years and you haven’t understood how the hive minded left leaning totalitarian multi-media operates? Personally I think you’re throwing softballs at the media instead of telling everyone what you really think about it; are you too afraid of your comrades in the political left?

    “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X

    The political left has taken that Malcom X quote and pushed it to absurdity. The left leaning media had turned into the United States version of Pravda propaganda, they are 100% part of the left’s hive mind and in the tank for all things left and anti all things that opposes that hive mind, any lefty that veers outside the in the tank acceptable behaviors of the hive mind is attacked. Bo Erickson is about to be canceled, he’ll have to become another one Fox News’ lefty pundits to help maintain their stated balance “news”.

    1. False. Harvard study of the 2016 election;

      Pre-general campaign Key findings:

      During 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in an unusual way given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in polls.

      – Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press,” largely in the context of the “horserace,” centering on his growing crowds and momentum. The coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.

      – The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race, partly as a result of journalists’ focus on Trump.
      Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as he began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic.

      – Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to her increasingly unfavorable poll ratings in 2015…..

      General campaign
      Key findings:

      – Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump received coverage that was overwhelmingly negative in tone and extremely light on policy.

      – On topics relating to the candidates’ fitness for office, Clinton and Trump’s coverage was virtually identical in terms of its negative tone.

      – This negativity was not unique to the 2016 election cycle but instead part of a pattern in place since the 1980s and one that is not limited to election coverage.

      https://shorensteincenter.org/research-media-coverage-2016-election/

      1. Speaking of a comparative study of the 2016 election, versus the 2020 election.

        “Statistical anomalies in the 2020 Presidential Election”

        https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/11/statistical_anomalies_in_the_2020_presidential_election.html

        Number 6 on its own is a gigantic red flag:

        “6 – Thousands of precincts all reporting significant over vote in Michigan. Russell Ramsland of Allied Security Group, LLC of Dallas, TX swore an affidavit concerning a detailed audit his company did on voting machines in Texas in 2018. He wrote in detail of the many serious security inadequacies of the software and then examined the 2020 Presidential vote count in a number of counties in Michigan. He reported that over 3,000 precincts in the state of Michigan reported a vote count between 80 and 350% of registered voters. He lists a number of precincts in his report and in some cases a massive over vote. The vast majority of the precincts on the list were on or about 100%.”

        Statistical anomalies that massive are like Toto pulling back the curtain to reveal that the Great Wizard of Oz is really just Professor Marvel.

        If you’re going to cheat, do it like a Pro. This cheating was amateurish.

        1. Rhodes wrote, “Speaking of a comparative study of the 2016 election, versus the 2020 election.”

          I’ll take a piece of that action.

          The political left had a plan in 2016 and it backfired.

          Here’s what I consider to be a fact of the 2016 election that the political left will never ever acknowledge; the political left’s in-the-tank hive minded media and politicians were actually responsible for Donald Trump’s rise and success in national politics. Without the left’s relentless coverage of the unethical Donald Trump cad the candidate would never have risen to such heights, the political left made his name a household word. The political left are the ones that gave him all sorts of airtime and wanted him as the GOP nomination in anticipation that Hillary Clinton could easily beat such a obvious unethical cad.

          “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X

          The political left’s 2016 unethical political plan of manipulating the public had unforeseen consequences.

          Now look to 2020; the political left’s plan from the moment that President Trump was elected was to incite endless hate towards President Trump and that was their entire campaign strategy for the 2020 election. They aimed 100% of their four year plan of uninterrupted anti-Trump and anti-Conservative propaganda at the people of the United States and that political plan seems to have worked. Knowing that this has been their primary tactic for four years and that their tactic worked, what exactly do you think their plan will be for the next four years, will it be to work together with Conservatives as Biden has publicly stated or to continue with their relentless hate tactics, take names of those that oppose them, and destroy anything they consider to be Conservative?

          Conservatives are in for a rough four years in this cancel culture, totalitarian minded, brown-shirt intimidation wielding society. Read your history; this is how things started to go down hill for the Jews in the 1930’s.

      2. Joe Friday wrote, “False.”

        What did I write that’s false you foreign troll?

        NOTICE TO EVERYONE ON THIS BLOG!

        FYI: Read this.

        Joe Friday, your gig is up and you have been exposed.

        You all can choose to openly engage with this Joe Friday, who is likely a foreign agent, if you like; as for me there will be no conversations just a rhetorical hammer beating down a foreign agent troll.

  3. What do you expect-Big Guy BIDEN!!Biden, just “wanted the office”-he hasn,t a clue or the intent of “operating a truly functional office” he see,s himself as some kind of :general- he has “advisory puppets” to do the work” he doesn,t answer questions because “HE HAS NO ANSWERS”!! This entire election debacle ensued as a result of the “demonic democrats”- fixing the vote count; If you watch BIDEN,S pre-election speech- he basically told the world he “implemented a security system into the election”-“DOMINION &SMARTEC software; Biden, had the fix in from the start- “that,s why he stayed in his basement!! the fix was set!! All he had to do was “NOT MAKE A COMPLETE AND UTTER ASS OUT OF HIMSELF”; which he still managed to do; The american people “KNOW HE,S A SLEAZY CORRUPT-SWAMP DWELLER; who quite possibly “DESTROY THIS GREAT NATION;I shudder everytime I think this clown will have access to “NUCLEAR OPTION”!! Not to mention the “BILLIONS OF DOLLARS “he &his administration will waste; and the ” millions of dollars the BIDED,S WILL STEAL FOR FAVORS&INFLUENCE-WATCH HIS FAMILIES BANK ACCOUNTS FLOURISH;ONCE A THIEF ALWAYS A THIEF” The saddest part is as AMERICANS WE ALL LOSE”!!!

  4. Eagerly awaiting Turley to comment on Trump’s attorney Sidney Powell condemning Georgia’s Republican Governor & Republican Secretary of State for certifying Georgia’s vote. Powell accused Kemp & Raffensperger of being “in on the Dominion scam with their last minute reward of a contract to Dominion of $100 million.” She said “The state bureau for Georgia ought to be looking into financial benefits received by Mr. Kemp & the Secretary of State’s family about that time.”

    Turley attacked Democrats & the media for dismissing Trump attorney’s claims as “conspiracy theories.” So Turley has a golden opportunity to defend Sidney Powell’s allegations that Kemp & Raffensperger were bribed by a voting machine company which she said is a front for Hugo Chavez & Venezuela to rig the election for Biden.

    JT, here’s your chance to tee off on Democrats & the media again. Go for it.

  5. “Time has blurred our memories, words have stilled our feelings, but we remember the man, and the day, and feel a muted sorrow”

  6. “Biden’s response was a personal attack on the reporter.” (JT)

    “Let this grim era of demonization in America begin to end — here and now.” (Joe Biden, aka Caligula’s horse)

    Still waiting.

  7. Biden should respectfully answer hard questions.
    Trump should also respectfully answer hard questions.

    It’s strange that Turley says “Biden’s response was a personal attack on the reporter. This is simply not done and will not be tolerated,” when he knows that Trump has personally attacked many individual reporters over the last four years (especially women of color) and has also repeatedly called the press “the enemy of the people” and walked out of press conferences to avoid answering questions he doesn’t like. Turley has written about some of this previously. Here are a few examples:
    https://jonathanturley.org/2018/11/10/trump-attacks-reporter-for-merely-asking-about-reining-in-mueller/
    https://jonathanturley.org/2018/11/08/white-house-pulls-suspends-access-for-cnns-jim-acosta/
    jonathanturley.org/2020/09/06/162397/

    Usually, Turley links to previous columns he’s written that are relevant. I wonder why he isn’t doing that here.

    1. You are correct that Trump lashes out at reporters, but he doesn’t “especially [do so to] women of color”. Trump was/is an equal opportunity employer of the lash out. It might offend you personally that he doesn’t treat women, or people of color, different, but that’s on you. As for Biden, I think it’s obvious that he’s not accustomed to tough questions, which is a failing on both Biden’s part and the part of the journalists, and I think there will be consequences for both branches (if the media chooses to play its role as the proverbial fourth branch in this administration).

  8. Frankly, whether it is Biden or ready on day one Harris, the “journalists” are not going to play hardball. The media will continue its practice of selecting the news for our consumption. The news media has become an arm of Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth”. Sadly “1984” is evolving right in front of us.

  9. Joe Biden can’t handle one ‘hard’ question (that was respectfully asked, not shouted, btw.) Joe Biden wouldn’t last one day (or even one hour) if he had to face the hostile press questioning Trump has for the past four years.

    1. Maybe Joe didn’t participate in Moot Court when he was a student at SU Law School. He has spent way too long is public service which, by the way, has been a disservice to taxpayers.

  10. During WWII it was claimed that the United States was the last bastion of Democracy, now it’s down to Georgia.

    1. Georgia has already certified the vote, and the hand count in GA shows that Trump’s legal team is lying about the Dominion voting machines.

      Stephen Fowler, responding to Sidney Powell saying Powell “Georgia is probably going to be the first state I’m going to blow up…”:
      “These are lies and conspiracies with dangerous consequences.
      “Top election officials in Georgia are under police protection because a growing number of people believe this utter crock. Also, there’s been no lawsuit with any iota of evidence – and results are already certified!”
      https://twitter.com/stphnfwlr/status/1330502522302308359 — embedded video of Powell

      Fowler’s thread also embeds a tweet from Gabriel Sterling, Voting System Implementation Manager for GA, who said ” So this is fun…multiple attempted hacks of my emails, police protection around my home, the threats. But all is well…following the the law, following the process…doing our jobs.” and one from reporter Amy Gardner, who noted: “The hand counted audit in GA disproves definitively that the Dominion machines were hacked or undercounted Trump votes. The audit FOUND votes favoring Trump that had not been counted at all. It matched the machine count exactly in some counties and within single digits in others.”

      Those threats to Sterling are some of the “dangerous consequences” of Powell’s and Giuliani’s lies.

      1. “Georgia has already certified the vote, and the hand count in GA shows that Trump’s legal team is lying about the Dominion voting machines.”

        What is the lie?

        1. “What is the lie?”

          The fiction he’s perpetuating — namely that the GA recount had anything to do with investigating how the DVS machines were programmed or operated. He’s using “recount” as a magic wand to vanquish all claims of voting mistakes or fraud.

          1. Who is the “he”? I am assuming Commit but cannot be sure. Commit has a tendency to omit pertinent data when he provides proof. Then he gets stuck because the rebuttals have information he cannot dispel. That leads to non-answers, but doesn’t stop the repetition of the claims, and use of previous unfounded claims as proof. Commit is reliant on circular reasoning.

            1. Mel: “. . . omit pertinent data . . .”

              Mel, you are being misled about what a hand recount does and does *not* do. Here, by way of analogy, is that distinction:

              You count the number of tires on your car: “Four.”

              Then you take your car to a mechanic, and ask him to recount the number of tires: “Four.”

              To which you respond: “So, my tires are good?”

              To which he replies (if he’s polite): “Uh, that’s not what you asked me to check.”

              Incidentally, in the early fall, there were well-known, widely recognized problems (“glitches”) with the Dominion systems in Georgia. Those problems were, in fact, the subject of a federal lawsuit.

              Further, there are very good reasons why Texas rejected Dominion on three separate occasions.

              1. “Mel, you are being misled…”

                Sam, thank you, even though I am not being mislead. There are so many details we don’t know along with so many details that are in question along with officials that do not follow the law and judges that are biased one doesn’t have the time or the knowledge to adequately respond to a lot of issues that reflect a desire by some that everyone believe this election was proper.

                This election drowned in fraud and corruption. The time span to correct the errors is years. Therefore we will rely on the courts or the SC for a decision that likely will not make me happy. However, If I was happy with the decision the left would riot, burn cities, kill people, destroy businesses, etc. which also would not make me happy.

                The Durham investigation did not put criminals behind bars so we can expect more of that type of problem.

            2. Mel,

              How about you link to an example of me doing what you claim? If you cannot, then you should retract the claim.

                1. That isn’t evidence for your claim. It’s an attempt to shift the burden onto me. Your claim, your burden of proof.

                  You claimed “Commit has a tendency to omit pertinent data when he provides proof. Then he gets stuck because the rebuttals have information he cannot dispel. That leads to non-answers, but doesn’t stop the repetition of the claims, and use of previous unfounded claims as proof. Commit is reliant on circular reasoning.”

                  Can you substantiate your claim by linking to evidence for it?

                  1. “You claimed “Commit has a tendency to omit pertinent data when he provides proof. Then he gets stuck because the rebuttals have information he cannot dispel. That leads to non-answers, but doesn’t stop the repetition of the claims, and use of previous unfounded claims as proof. Commit is reliant on circular reasoning.”

                    It’s all true.

                    1. Perhaps it’s all true. Perhaps it isn’t. Provide evidence and then we’ll be able to see whether or not you can substantiate your claim.

                      Right now, it’s just an allegation on your end.

        2. For example, Powell said that the software used by Dominion “can set and run an algorithm that probably ran all over the country to take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden.”

          GA used Dominion machines. The hand count didn’t show evidence of the machines having flipped votes.

          1. You call it a lie. Do you know what a lie is? Not based on what you said.

            Powell believes she has evidence that is true. She has affidavits and other proof that what she claims, happened. We can only guess whether she is right or wrong. We cannot accuse her of lying because she is not intent on deceiving which is an integral part of lying. She believes her claim.

            As far as the hand count matching the machine count. A lot of things could have occurred in the interim. Neither of us know what occurred. Until you can detail it minute by minute you cannot prove your case.

            That is why all these claims will end up in court and some will end up in front of the SC. The SC will render a decision but that decision will not prove how much cheating occurred or didn’t occur.

            We have the Democrats to blame because they were unwilling to secure the voting process and at the same time broke the voting laws in their own states.

            In the end Powell did not lie. You misunderstand what the word means. That you are wrong about the meaning of the word doesn’t mean you are lying.

            1. I do know what a lie is: a knowingly false statement made with intent to deceive.

              I have no problem admitting that while the evidence in GA shows her statement to be false, I don’t know for certain that Powell is lying. It’s certainly possible that she believes her claim to be true and she is simply mistaken. But it’s also possible that she doesn’t believe it to be true, and she is lying for her cause. I believe that to be the case, though I could be wrong about that, just as you could be wrong when you say “She believes her claim.”

              “Until you can detail it minute by minute you cannot prove your case.”

              On the contrary, she is claiming — among other things — that “One of (the software’s) most characteristic features is its ability to flip votes. It can set and run an algorithm that probably ran all over the country to take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden.”

              The hand count demonstrates that the Dominion machines in GA did **not** “take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden.” It’s a simple mathematical issue: if the machine count says that Biden got X votes and the hand count says that Biden got Y votes, does X = Y? If X doesn’t equal Y, which one is greater, and how much do they differ by? Do the same for the Trump votes. Do this for each county. There’s sometimes a small discrepancy due to human or machine error (e.g., a creased ballot), so that’s not unexpected, but Powell’s claim was that Dominion machines were doing this consistently all over the country, and either the numerical results show that for the GA counties using Dominion voting machines or they don’t. Here’s one discussion of the results: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/georgia-hand-recount-confirms-biden-winner.html As is clear from that, the comparison of the hand count and machine count do **not** show any consistent discrepancy in Biden’s favor.

              1. “I do know what a lie is: a knowingly false statement made with intent to deceive.”

                Now we are getting somewhere. Now, we no longer have to deal with the continuous lies distraction.

                “I have no problem admitting that while the evidence in GA shows her statement to be false”

                Now we have to deal with the word false.

                Powell’s claims can be true, partially true, or false. Since the claims are considered to be under litigation the word is possibly or likely false, not false.

                Likely her claims will be not lead to a change in leadership. That doesn’t mean there isn’t substance behind her claims. I believe based on comments we have heard on both sides of the aisle before this election that this type of voting machine should not be used.

                It would make no sense for her to be lying. I think she is on to something but will not prevail. No matter. Dominion machines should not be used and that is something we all should learn from this fiasco.

                Stop calling everyone liars and stop saying that their complaints are false. I don’t believe Trump will prevail and his hopes dim every day.

                This problem was created years ago mostly by Democrats. To prevent this type of occurrence we need secure voting ID’s which means paper ballots and limited mail-in voting. We live in a cyclical world so whatever appears good for you today will likely bite you tomorrow.

                1. “Since the claims are considered to be under litigation the word is possibly or likely false, not false.”

                  Where are they under litigation? AFAIK, she has yet to file any lawsuit alleging this.

                  Either way, I don’t see why litigation affects whether a claim is “possibly or likely false” vs. “false.” The difference between “possibly or likely false” and “false” is a matter of evidence. The evidence from the hand count in GA shows that the Dominion machines in GA did not “take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden.” Can you agree with that?

                  “Dominion machines should not be used”

                  Why? What is your evidence that they should not be used?

                  “Stop calling everyone liars and stop saying that their complaints are false.”

                  I don’t call everyone liars. I call a small number of people liars, generally because there’s good evidence that their claims are false and I believe an honest person would admit a mistake if the false claim were a mistake rather than a lie. I say statements are false if there’s evidence that they’re false, and I see no reason to stop doing so, nor have you presented an argument for why I should stop.

                  1. “Where are they under litigation? AFAIK, she has yet to file any lawsuit alleging this.”

                    Where is the substance in this remark? I’ll change the word to pending or considered by many to be pending litigation. I don’t think that comment was worth the time since all we have been discussing is the litigation and potential litigation of election fraud and other things.

                    “Can you agree with that?”

                    No, because I don’t have a clear picture of what happened to the machines or the ballots during the intervening period. Democrats created this doubt.

                    “Why? What is your evidence that they should not be used?”

                    They add uncertainty to the process.

                    “argument for why I should stop…”

                    It doesn’t enhance discussion and creates tremendous questions about your truthfulness.

                    1. “Where is the substance in this remark?”

                      The substance is in the fact that since there is no litigation so far, no brief has been filed with evidence. Evidence matters. Until she actually files in court, we don’t know for certain that she *will* file, and we don’t know what she will actually allege, and we don’t know what evidence (if any) will be presented for the various allegations.

                      “I don’t have a clear picture of what happened to the machines or the ballots during the intervening period. Democrats created this doubt.”

                      How did you try to look up an answer for what you’re wondering about?

                      Also, I’m not sure why you think Democrats created your uncertainty, when GA has a Republican Governor, a Republican Secretary of State, a Republican majority in both chambers of the GA state legislature, and many counties in GA have Republican officials. Would you explain why you’re blaming Democrats?

                      What is your evidence that the Dominion voting machines “add uncertainty to the process”? I’m not asking about your personal opinion or anyone else’s personal opinion, I’m asking for evidence.

                      I’m also puzzled why you think that my noting some things as false “doesn’t enhance discussion and creates tremendous questions about your truthfulness.” Can you agree that some statements *are* false? I think it’s important to distinguish between what’s false, what’s true, what has an uncertain truth-value, and what things are opinions rather than T/F.

                    2. “The substance is in the fact that since there is no litigation so far,”

                      Cases have gone before judges, and more will do the same. It could end up in front of the SC. Your statement was a waste of time and is a diversion from the discussion.

                      “How did you try to look up an answer for what you’re wondering about?”

                      More diversion.

                      “Also, I’m not sure why you think Democrats created your uncertainty, when GA has a Republican Governor, a Republican Secretary of State, a Republican majority in both chambers of the GA state legislature, and many counties in GA have Republican officials. Would you explain why you’re blaming Democrats?”

                      Georgia is one state out of 49. Political parties do not necessarily matter in these issues.

                      “What is your evidence that the Dominion voting machines “add uncertainty to the process”? I’m not asking about your personal opinion or anyone else’s personal opinion, I’m asking for evidence.”

                      It is empirical. The more complicated and hidden the process, the more open to cheating.

                      “I’m also puzzled why you think that my noting some things as false “doesn’t enhance discussion and creates tremendous questions about your truthfulness.”

                      Ordinarily, things of this nature would not come up. You are not ordinary. You have a substantial record of calling people liars when they may be telling the truth as they see it and even when they are accurate. You use the word false as a fact when it is your opinion. I have no problem when you separate facts from opinion.

                    3. AFAIK, there hasn’t been any case so far involving Powell’s allegation about Dominion, and other cases that don’t introduce those allegations aren’t going to tell us about it.

                      I find it ironic that you claim “Democrats created this doubt,” and then when I challenged you on it, you respond “Political parties do not necessarily matter in these issues.” You introduced political parties into it.

                      “You have a substantial record of calling people liars when they may be telling the truth as they see it and even when they are accurate. You use the word false as a fact when it is your opinion.”

                      More claims from you that you haven’t substantiated with evidence. I accept that you believe what you’ve written, but is it true, or is it false? How about you link to a couple of examples from this “substantial record” you refer to?

                    4. Powell has a very complex claim along with affidavits, mathematicians etc. Whether she will prevail is another story. She will present her evidence when the time comes.

                      When Democrats wanted voting without appropriate protection from fraud they created this problem, Yes.

                      You want examples always when the lawyers hold most of the examples, but there have been affidavits published in the news and as some poster recently pointed out there is video evidence of some of the illegal activities. Then there are inappropriate judicial decisions before voting that created constitutional questions

                    5. Mel, earlier, when you asked someone else for evidence and s/he didn’t provide it, you responded “In other words there is no evidence or you would have presented what you have.”

                      Should I say the same to you, since you are refusing to provide evidence for your claims about me?

                      As for the rest of your comment, you say “Democrats wanted voting without appropriate protection from fraud,” but you present no evidence that that’s what they want. I’m a Democrat, and I want appropriate protection from fraud. Perhaps people have different opinions about what constitutes appropriate protection. Just as you questioned me earlier about whether it was correct to call Powell a liar because that relies on her intent, your claim here also relies on intent.

                      “there have been affidavits published”

                      Many of which alleged things that aren’t illegal or involved hearsay. The mere existence of an affidavit — without looking at the content — doesn’t guarantee wrongdoing. Did you read the analyses of the affidavits? This thread is an example:
                      https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1326635961556611072

                      “some poster recently pointed out there is video evidence of some of the illegal activities”

                      I saw someone refer to video, but they presented no evidence that what was shown in the video was illegal.

                      If Powell eventually files a brief, I’ll be curious to read it and see what allegations she actually includes and what evidence she presents for them.

                    6. “Should I say the same to you, since you are refusing to provide evidence for your claims about me?”

                      In your last posting it appeared you had obtained a bit of humility so I didn’t respond and let it go. I don’t like to pursue when the person is already down.

                      Then you got up again which is fine so I will deal with the present not the past.

                      I don’t need to provide evidence about you It is evident to anyone with reasonable thinking skills to understand for themselves.

                    7. “I’m a Democrat, and I want appropriate protection from fraud.”

                      Then you agree the ballots must be secured. To my understanding that means mostly voting in person with ID on a paper ballot. If you believe differently then tell us. Of course explain how your method will keep fraud to the lowest possible level.

                      Affidavits are only as good as their proof and claims. No matter which way the election turns there were so many affidavits one has to question the veracity of the election process.

                      I think a number of videos were provided. One in particular showed a the law being broken and hundreds of ballots being transported by that man. That number was against the law. I think the left wing media condemned the video and said what was being done wasn’t illegal. The particular media site later had to retract what it’s article said

                      This is just one example to demonstrate that what I have said has been documented.

                      The courts will have to decide the level of corruption and whether the corruption was so great that the state has to lose its electors or redo the vote in certain cities.

                    8. Powell’s claims are very interesting. Win or lose we should take note of the claims because they demonstrate a danger to a fair election in this country.

                    9. OK, should you ever ask me for evidence in the future, I’ll know that I can just respond “I don’t need to provide evidence about you It is evident to anyone with reasonable thinking skills to understand for themselves.”

                    10. It depends whether it is evident or not. What I stated about you was clearly evident based on your written word.

                    11. It’s your opinion that it’s “clearly evident.” I don’t agree. You are refusing to provide evidence despite the difference of opinion and even though it should be exceptionally easy for you to provide actual evidence of something you believe to be so clear.

                      Since that is your standard, either (1) you believe that everyone should be able to do the same thing, claiming that it’s “clearly evident” and refusing to provide evidence as long as they think that, regardless of whether you agree, or (2) you have double standards.

                      You did the same thing earlier when I asked you to provide evidence for your claim “Commit has a tendency to omit pertinent data when he provides proof. Then he gets stuck because the rebuttals have information he cannot dispel. That leads to non-answers, but doesn’t stop the repetition of the claims, and use of previous unfounded claims as proof. Commit is reliant on circular reasoning.”

                      I think I should assume that “there is no evidence or you would have presented what you have” (quoting you again).

                    12. “It’s your opinion that it’s “clearly evident.” I don’t agree. “

                      Is that surprising? Of course not. It was not unexpected. But we are not here to discuss the way you manage your emotional responses except when they interfere with the discussion. All of your overcharged comments continue to exist on the blog. They are clearly evident to anyone who wants to waste time looking.

  11. BIDEN HAS NO IDEA WHERE HE IS AND WHAT HE IS SAYING. Just look at his public so called speeches/press conferences or just comments. He is a STOOGE for the Global Elite who want to due a restart so they can control and make $$$$$. Joe may be evicted by the 25 the amendment within the fist 6 months put Harris in or get rid of both with a hand picK Globalist Elite.

    But there is one thing, the Biden Family is already trying to get rich off Biden as they have for the last 45 years, along with 10% to the Big guy???

    The Globalist must defeat Trump. But, Trump is being Trump a fighter and we shall see what the Supreme Court Finally rules.If Trump does win watch the Globalist/DEM’s/MSM and etc. really go off the deep end, while the rest of the World will celebrate a defeat of Global Elite and their grand reset plans.

    Don’t bet against Trump.

    1. I’ll bet against Trump. This is like candy from a baby at this point. See you here on 1/21 and loser admits it, OK? You on?

  12. JT: “Most of the media was openly in the bag for Biden during the campaign.”

    After nearly 5 years of chronic and habitual lying, what did you expect? No one likes being lied to their face time and time again. There is only so much falsehood one can take before you turn on that person. Let’s wait for the judgment of history shall we. Then we will learn whether the media was doing its job as the Fourth Estate in protecting the masses from a would-be autocrat.

    1. Jeffrey:

      You can justify and explain why most of the press in the bag for the Dems.

      But recognize that provoked or not, the press has largely abdicated their responsibilities. Many reporters went further and became propagandists.

      Recognize too that a very significant percentage of the country now no longer trusts the press.

      Their choice, but you have the press that you want.

      Just remember that they will lie to you too.

      1. Monument: No one lies as much as Trump. If you don’t believe that, I can’t help you; I can only pity you.

        1. Biden is not as bad a Hitler/Trump so he should get a pass, is that your reasoning? About Hitler/Trump, wasn’t one responsible for 50-100 million deaths and the other the Golden Gollum of Greatness?

        2. Jeffrey:

          1/20/21 is almost here.

          Get your TDS under control.

          It is pathetic that people like you can’t get Trump out of your minds.

          If you choice to let Trump dominate your life, that is your choice; most of us are moving forward.

    2. Biden has dementia, he serves as a Trojan horse for the DNC who chose the Presidential candidate during this year’s Primary, ignoring Democratic voters. Harris will be sworn in the day Joe gets removed under Pelosi’s proposed use of the 25th Amendment. Oh and Biden is the big liar, check his prior runs for POTUS. He’s been a liar all his life but, msm won’t cover this so you’ll need to do your own research.

    3. No one likes being lied to their face time and time again. There is only so much falsehood one can take before you turn on that person. Let’s wait for the judgment of history shall we. Then we will learn whether the media was doing its job as the Fourth Estate in protecting the masses from a would-be autocrat.

      Judgment of history? Democrats and the media ran with the lie that Trump was illegitimate and a Russian stooge for his entire term. I cannot imagine a greater insult. Even your comment here suggests this President might become an autocrat. It’s been non-stop accusations of what he could be, what he wants, what he is. Yet history, facts and evidence have proven those grand accusations all to be lies. The media has a duty to be the people’s eyes and ears into the functioning of our government. They blew it. And we don’t need to wait to judge them for it.

      1. Olly, The jury is still out on whether Trump was a stooge of Putin. I have my suspicious, but I will admit that don’t know for sure, but the whole truth will come out in the fullness of time. Those in the know will reveal what has remain hidden from us as they seek book deals. When Trump is at long last found guilty of some or all of the many civil and criminal state cases pending against him, he will be discredited to those who have long believed in him. I wouldn’t be so sure that none of the allegations against Trump will not be proven by a jury of his peers in the end. I would not be so sure that there is nothing more to be learned about Trump’s association with Russians or Russian money. As the they say in Russia: “Posmotrim”

        1. The jury is still out on whether Trump was a stooge of Putin.

          Jeff,
          You seem to have fallen asleep after each side presented their opening arguments. We’re well beyond the wish-casting stage. The jury has been presented actual facts and evidence to prove which side has a case. Ignoring that evidence in an effort to convict on feelings is as anti-American as one can get.

          1. All the evidence is not in. Let’s see what turns up after Trump is kicked out on his ass. I have a suspicion that we will learn a lot more when Trump no longer has the power he has now, especially after he has been found guilty of state crimes and exposed as the conman that he has always been.

            1. In other words there is no evidence or you would have presented what you have.

              My neighbors cat has more knowledge on the subject than you.

    4. “After nearly 5 years of chronic and habitual lying, what did you expect?”

      In other words, since that guy is a “racist, sexist, Russian plant” (blah, blah, blah), the ends (getting rid of him) justifies the means — which includes: burying stories, making up stories, telling half-stories, destroying their own credibility — selling their souls and violating the basic principles of their own profession.

      1. “T]he ends (getting rid of Trump) justifies the means.”

        For four years, we watched that dishonest mentality attempt to destroy Trump’s presidency. It should come as no surprise that in this election, we smell a rat.

      2. Well, Sam, if you applaud Trump for breaking norms and being unpresidential, then the media can play that game as well.

    5. The Fourth Estate vanished years ago. I like your optimism, Mr. Silberman. I wish that I could be optimistic about the journalism profession, but I’m not. I’m not even sure that the professional standards for journalists are followed at this point.

  13. Rhodes, I’ll frankly admit that Biden could well be suffering early onset dementia or some other cognitive malady if you honestly will concede that Trump is a pathological liar. Is it a deal?

    1. “I’ll frankly admit that Biden could well be suffering early onset dementia”

      I’ll go one further, I’ll frankly admit that today’s date could well be November 22.

  14. Indeed, and we all remember the respect shown by The Loser toward the press and especially Turley’s calling him out on the rare instances when he lost his patience with one.

    What a hack. Is this self parody intentional?

    1. I’m currently looking for an online betting outfit giving odds on how long before Biden is impeached, can anyone help?

    2. I’m currently looking for an online betting outfit giving odds on how long it will be before Biden is impeached, can anyone help?

  15. As far as the globalist elite is concerned, Dementia Joe is just a placeholder for Harris.

    So the presstitutes in the MSM have been instructed to treat Joe like the old dottering grandfather at Thanksgiving dinner, and just nod their heads while he tells stories about rusty straight razors and vicious pool gangstas named Corn Pop.

    Apparently Bo Erickson and Peter Doocy either didn’t get the memo, or they are purposefully ignoring the orders and acting like real journalists.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: