I think my favorite presidential debate moment will always be when Reagan said he wouldn't exploit for political purposes Mondale's youth and inexperience. Even Mondale laughed at that line.
Bill O’reilly stated last week that the January 6 committee deleted all the information regarding those hearings. You stated today that that is incorrect. Please verify this with Bill O’reilly.
Bill O'Reilly based that solely on what Pesident Trump said, and he admitted it. He knows full well that President Trump says a lot of things that are untrue, just as O'Reilly does.
Last night he had on a convicted J6 Defendant who claims that he was charged with an enhanced crime because he "egged on" rioters on 1/6/21 but that there was no evidence of this. Further, the J6er blamed making his plea on allegedly unfair DC judges and DC juries.
If there were no evidence of the enhanced crime, the prosecutor would probably not have gotten an indictment for it. And even if an indictment were secured with no evidence, he could have gotten the judge to dismiss the charge in a pre-trial motion - no judge would deny a motion to dismiss the enhanced crime if the prosecution had no admissible evidence for it.. The J6er evaded O'Reilly's question when asked what his attorney's assessment of his case was.
It's common for criminal Defendants, after they're convicted either by a trial or a plea agreement, to spout-off about how they were railroaded by an unjust system. They're not held accountable for what they say. Mr. O'Reilly did not hold the J6er accountable because he obviously had not investigated his case before-hand and because what the J6er said fit O'Reilly's emotion-based narrative. Dollars-to-donuts there was substantial evidence for his enhanced crime and that there was even more evidence of the misdemeanor.
That O'Reilly did not do his "due diligence" and hold that J6 Defendant accountable is irresponsible.
Talk is cheap, REAL cheap, until you enter a courtroom. Then you're accountable.
Our criminal justice system has flaws. Innocent people are sometimes convicted. Guilty people sometimes walk or are not even charged due to lack of admissible evidence. Where warranted, reforms must be addressed in a specific, fact-based manner, keeping in mind unintended consequences. But to paraphrase Winston Churchill, our criminal justice system is the worst on the face of the Earth, except for all the rest of them.
While Bill O'Reilly has some thought provoking stuff on his show, he needs to be fact-checked. He tries to get his listeners to jettison their critical thinking by saying, several times on almost every one of his shows, that everything he says is fact-based and fair.
What would you think if someone you knew repeatedly announces, every time you see him, that he's honest and fair-minded?
Previously on this website I posted numerous examples of O'Reilly's dubious relationship with the truth. O'Reilly might actually believe what he says, but that makes his words even more suspect.
I think my favorite presidential debate moment will always be when Reagan said he wouldn't exploit for political purposes Mondale's youth and inexperience. Even Mondale laughed at that line.
A classic one for sure.
Bill O’reilly stated last week that the January 6 committee deleted all the information regarding those hearings. You stated today that that is incorrect. Please verify this with Bill O’reilly.
Regards
Verify this with Bill O'Reilly?
I literally gave you a link to the allegedly deleted material. The two of you are more than welcome to click on it.
Bill O'Reilly based that solely on what Pesident Trump said, and he admitted it. He knows full well that President Trump says a lot of things that are untrue, just as O'Reilly does.
Last night he had on a convicted J6 Defendant who claims that he was charged with an enhanced crime because he "egged on" rioters on 1/6/21 but that there was no evidence of this. Further, the J6er blamed making his plea on allegedly unfair DC judges and DC juries.
If there were no evidence of the enhanced crime, the prosecutor would probably not have gotten an indictment for it. And even if an indictment were secured with no evidence, he could have gotten the judge to dismiss the charge in a pre-trial motion - no judge would deny a motion to dismiss the enhanced crime if the prosecution had no admissible evidence for it.. The J6er evaded O'Reilly's question when asked what his attorney's assessment of his case was.
It's common for criminal Defendants, after they're convicted either by a trial or a plea agreement, to spout-off about how they were railroaded by an unjust system. They're not held accountable for what they say. Mr. O'Reilly did not hold the J6er accountable because he obviously had not investigated his case before-hand and because what the J6er said fit O'Reilly's emotion-based narrative. Dollars-to-donuts there was substantial evidence for his enhanced crime and that there was even more evidence of the misdemeanor.
That O'Reilly did not do his "due diligence" and hold that J6 Defendant accountable is irresponsible.
Talk is cheap, REAL cheap, until you enter a courtroom. Then you're accountable.
Our criminal justice system has flaws. Innocent people are sometimes convicted. Guilty people sometimes walk or are not even charged due to lack of admissible evidence. Where warranted, reforms must be addressed in a specific, fact-based manner, keeping in mind unintended consequences. But to paraphrase Winston Churchill, our criminal justice system is the worst on the face of the Earth, except for all the rest of them.
While Bill O'Reilly has some thought provoking stuff on his show, he needs to be fact-checked. He tries to get his listeners to jettison their critical thinking by saying, several times on almost every one of his shows, that everything he says is fact-based and fair.
What would you think if someone you knew repeatedly announces, every time you see him, that he's honest and fair-minded?
Previously on this website I posted numerous examples of O'Reilly's dubious relationship with the truth. O'Reilly might actually believe what he says, but that makes his words even more suspect.