The tweets don't lie (unlike some "journalists"):
we continue to see widespread, coordinated media attempt to whitewash what actually happened w/ atrocious campaign coverage. it's gross— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) November 23, 2016
documents, yet again, how there was virtually no media coverage of Clinton policy--but it wasn't the media's fault!!— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) November 23, 2016
this piece is almost too stupid for words https://t.co/DDKUcbJqCZ— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) November 23, 2016
Boehlert's referring to this "too stupid for words" analysis (with an emphasis on "anal") in the New York Effing Times:
The 2016 Race: This Election Was Not About the Issues. Blame the Candidates. https://t.co/2lmSbrNXrs— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) November 23, 2016
Meanwhile, the transcript of the shitgibbon's meeting yesterday with the intrepid news hounds at the New York Effing Times comes out, so let's see what probing questions they asked:
Cool: If you search the NYT transcript for "Foundation" every mention is why he won't go after Clinton's. Not about him using his illegally. pic.twitter.com/aWOvoYbbkk— Schooley (@Rschooley) November 23, 2016
I mean, think about it, the first question the NYT reporter asks Trump is about the Clinton Foundation and her emails. Then punch yourself.— Schooley (@Rschooley) November 23, 2016
Given that that NYT "reporter" is Trump enabler and "Hamilton" manners arbiter Maggie Haberman, one's expectations must be lowered considerably... oh, and Haberman, he's not the president yet, you slavering, ingratiating ass- kisser.
We all know the answer to that one (see, "Haberman, Maggie" for starters).What is the magic number of laws broken by our President elect before all of the media treats it as an email server level problem?— Schooley (@Rschooley) November 23, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment