Conservative Lawmaker Accuses Trump of 'Selling' U.S. Troops to Saudi Arabia for Cash

Wait, you want to use left leaning sources but you don't want me to use right leaning sources? Really dude? You go to be kidding me. You, of all people, demanding non leaning sources. ROFLMAO

PolitiFact media bias rating is Lean Left.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politifact

PolitiFact Is Guilty of Fact Abuse
https://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/PolitiFact-Fact-Checkers-Bias/2015/03/20/id/631565/

DISHONEST FACT-CHECKERS: How fact-checkers trivialize lies by politicians and undermine truth-seeking
https://capitalresearch.org/article/dishonest-fact-checkers/

About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ
https://www.politifactbias.com/p/about-politifact-bias.html

 

Yes. If you want to argue that a website is biased solely because a differently biased website says the first is biased, then I am going to dismiss your argument.

The closest I see you coming to a neutral disclosure is the rating from allsides.com which is unknown to me, but I'll take them at their face.

Ultimately, if you want to use a different fact check website, that's fine. But the reason I referenced the 2019 Politifact Lie of the Year is because they (as well as others, like NPR) have concluded that nearly every aspect of the Whistleblower Complaint has been proven accurate based on the publicly available record and other witness testimony. The 2019 Politifact Lie of the Year is Trump's claim that the Whistleblower got nearly everything wrong. That is a lie.

 

How about you come up with your own conclusions rather than find someone of spoon feed you what they think you should think?

 

My own conclusion is that Trump lied when he claimed that the Whistleblower Complaint got it all wrong.

 

Are you claiming that the statements from the whistle blower's hearsay testimony are totally correct and accurate?

 

Nearly every aspect of the complaint has been corroborated and verified by other witnesses and documents. That is my claim.

 

There are several contradictions Volker's testimony that directly refutes the hearsay testimony from the whistleblower. From the transcripts:

"I -- the whistleblower report says that i was dispatched
to Ukraine after the President's phone call to meet with
President Zelensky to talk about it. That's not accurate.
I was planning a vi sit to Ukraine to fall after the 21st
of July, which is when the parliamentary election was. I did
not want to show up in Ukraine during an election campaign,
because all they do is ask you, do you like this candidate,
do you like that candidate, did you talk to these so I
just avoid going during election seasons."

"He got some facts wrong, but I thought
that trying to do damage limitation I wouldn't have used
the word "damage what he's talking about."

"And then secondly, helping the Ukrainians "navigate, "
was the word that he used, "requests, " I believe he said from
the President, if I'm not mistaken. There are some mistakes
in this."

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D007.pdf

 

I did not say that every aspect was accurate.

 

Fox News & many other conservative media outlets do EXACTLY the same thing. So, how do you propose we find news that can be trusted?

 

The most ridiculous post of the month. Do you think it costs taxpayers nothing to send troops a half a world away? You must.

 

...Must I?

 

Look at all sides. A news sight is a good place to start but the best place to look is for the raw information such as the web sight of the DOJ or the committee that is in question. CNN, HuffPo, WND, Breitbart or Media Matters sure isn't a good starting point however.

 

Then how much inaccuracy are you willing to accept and what kind? Is an inaccuracy that changes the whole intent of a statement acceptable? A woman says, "I want you to kill yourself." Guy hears, "I want you."

 

That analogy is **** and I'm not going to try and define the hypothetical line for you.

The trump appointed ICIG reviewed the complaint and found it credible and urgent. An impeachment investigation was launched and more than a dozen different witnesses came forward and testified to what they saw. Their testimony and the documents corroborated and confirmed nearly every aspect of the complaint.

And so, trump got impeached with more yes votes than any previous president.

 

I can't derive anything else from your post.

 

Try this derivative then:

We do not sell or seek reimbursement from foreign governments for the deployment of US troops because it turns our troops into Mercenaries and suggests or directly means that our troops are deployed based on factors different from our best national interests.

 

Spare me the BS! PLEASE! If they want our protection then they can pay our expenses.

 

That's called being a mercenary.

 

Mercenaries are "For Profit".

 

What do you call trump sending taxpayer money to his privately owned businesses?

 

WTF are you talking about?