Comments by "wily wascal" (@wilywascal2024) on "" video.

  1. ***MEDIA FAIL*** -- WHAT are you hiding, Marc Thiessen? WHY do you want to stay in the dark? WHEN does a supposed journalist NOT hungrily seek out sunlight, truth? HOW come a supposed journalist doesn't know that only RELEVANT witnesses are called in any LEGITIMATE trial proceeding? WHERE are the morals and ethics of a supposed journalist who seeks to obfuscate and deceive the public they serve, placing their own personal tribal partisanship over truth, justice, rule of law, Constitution, and country? WHO do you hope to fool with your ridiculous Russian-Republican Whataboutism propaganda? Shame on you, Marc Thiessen!
    2
  2. ***MEDIA FAIL*** -- WHAT are you hiding, Marc Thiessen? WHY do you want to stay in the dark? WHEN does a supposed journalist NOT hungrily seek out sunlight, truth? HOW come a supposed journalist doesn't know that only RELEVANT witnesses are called in any LEGITIMATE trial proceeding? WHERE are the morals and ethics of a supposed journalist who seeks to obfuscate and deceive the public they serve, placing their own personal tribal partisanship over truth, justice, rule of law, Constitution, and country? WHO do you hope to fool with your ridiculous Russian-Republican Whataboutism propaganda? Shame on you, Marc Thiessen!
    1
  3. ***MEDIA FAIL*** -- WHAT are you hiding, Marc Thiessen? WHY do you want to stay in the dark? WHEN does a supposed journalist NOT hungrily seek out sunlight, truth? HOW come a supposed journalist doesn't know that only RELEVANT witnesses are called in any LEGITIMATE trial proceeding? WHERE are the morals and ethics of a supposed journalist who seeks to obfuscate and deceive the public they serve, placing their own personal tribal partisanship over truth, justice, rule of law, Constitution, and country? WHO do you hope to fool with your ridiculous Russian-Republican Whataboutism propaganda? Shame on you, Marc Thiessen!
    1
  4. You hit the nail on the head. Hadn't seen this comment of yours before posting my own conflicted thoughts--the first above, the second here: This is a right-wing hit piece by Rumsfeld apprentice and later Dubya speechwriter Marc Thiessen, which does not reflect the opinions of the WashPo editorial staff and board. Thiessen is a political hack, not any kind of objective journalist. Promotes illegal, immoral, senseless torture and senseless, costly wars based on fabrications and cherry-picked intelligence. This piece is intellectually dishonest, comparing apples and oranges. Not to defend Schumer's argument against witnesses in Clinton impeachment, but the two situations are so different that any such comparison made with the willful omission of those crucial differences, providing a full understanding of the context, is nothing more than a bald-faced lie. Furthermore, Thiessen is engaging in typical Russian-Republican Whataboutism propaganda, which is more intellectual dishonesty. Doesn't matter if Schumer was right or wrong before. It can't and won't change what is right or wrong with this impeachment trial. Should witnesses be called? Of course, they should. We want the truth, whether it proves innocence or guilt, right? Thiessen is merely throwing up a smoke screen to obfuscate the obvious norms, principles, ethics and mores that one would standardly apply. Thiessen is also being intellectually dishonest in that neither Biden is actually relevant to Trump's impeachment trial. Such irrelevant testimony is not allowed in courts for good reason; it only distracts and disinforms jurors. Thiessen dishonestly omits the fact that Republican Senators have shown little appetite for improperly calling either Biden as a witness, turning a solemn process into a crazy kangaroo circus that degrades them and the Senate, disrespecting and disgracing that institution, the Constitution, our nation, and the American people. Thiessen omits the fact that Chief Justice Roberts would likely rule against allowing either Biden to be called as witnesses because they are not relevant, and that Republican Senators are likely not looking to anger or cross the Chief Justice by ignoring his decisions, or encompassing him in their tawdry cover-up of Trump's drug deals. Normally, would have highlighted these sentiments as a MEDIA FAIL, but this is clearly marked as an opinion piece. May not respect the opinion, but do respect that others can possess ignorant opinions, and even WashPo for airing such diversity of opinion, even while desiring him replaced for more intelligent and honest conservative writers like Jennifer Rubin. It's really not the difference of opinion found fault with, there are often many paths one can take to reach the same destination, with valid disagreements to be had on which is the best path--it's the consistent intellectual dishonesty from many of these conservative pundits that is found simply intolerable.
    1
  5. ***MEDIA FAIL*** -- WHAT are you hiding, Marc Thiessen? WHY do you want to stay in the dark? WHEN does a supposed journalist NOT hungrily seek out sunlight, truth? HOW come a supposed journalist doesn't know that only RELEVANT witnesses are called in any LEGITIMATE trial proceeding? WHERE are the morals and ethics of a supposed journalist who seeks to obfuscate and deceive the public they serve, placing their own personal tribal partisanship over truth, justice, rule of law, Constitution, and country? WHO do you hope to fool with your ridiculous Russian-Republican Whataboutism propaganda? Shame on you, Marc Thiessen!
    1