My conscience is clear. If you reflect on my post you will see that I pointed out imbalance of approach and cited specific examples of this. The only direct reply was Sidey’s reference to that wonderful example of unbiased reporting …The New York Times. The truth on all of this will come out in time … and then we’ll all know to what extent we were misled, biased or partisan. Just because Trump has so many unattractive features does not mean that anyone on the opposing side of the spectrum should receive a free pass just as he should not be subjected to relentless and forensic scrutiny by the DOJ. Justice should be ‘blind’ or everything starts to unravel.
Ah, yes, because the news outlet is one you dislike it must be wrong. The argument of all biased ideologues, just as when lefties dismiss the Daily Mail. It has said it was because of him witholding documents of national importance, but I am sure this can be ignored, because in your “balanced” world it means sticking fingers in the ears and pretending that any investigation into Trump has to be biased, because of unfounded nonsense you believe. If you can’t put up evidence, it’s not on us to accept it, and glib dismissals because you dislike the source is not convincing.
