It’s safe to assume that when CNN and Breitbart agree that Eric Greitens is fully exonerated, you can bank on it. [More]But he wasn't.
Apologists tried to do that with Eric Holder too.
[Via Michael G]
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
In the Interests of Consistency
Apologists tried to do that with Eric Holder too.
[Via Michael G]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I’m confused by your comment. The thrust of this article seems to be that he was completely exonerated, and two newspapers printed totally false information that a fine was levied against him. I’m not familiar with the case, but there are zero comments on this article that refute its basic premise. Why do you say he was not exonerated?
There is a world of difference between "fully exonerated" and "no evidence of wrongdoing."
I happen to believe Greitens is innocent. But they're using the same language that was used to give a pass to Holder. I've demonstrated on several occasions that the OIG did not attempt to obtain evidence from key figures Mike and I had reported on like Kevin O'Reilly, and that the squeeze was never placed on other "officials" to get them to rat out others.
Now Google Eric Holder exonerated.
It's simply a matter of consistency.
Post a Comment