Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great rebuttal to this idiotic thread:

The self-described “independent, nonprofit newsroom” ProPublica has waged a smear campaign against Supreme Court justices. ProPublica targets only conservative donors and justices, but there’s another tell that its work is a partisan attack rather than a consistent application of ethical principles: In highlighting cases and votes, ProPublica journalists are so selective as to be egregiously slanted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alito-paul-singer-and-obergefell-conflict-same-sex-marriage-propublica-fishing-f2a062bd

You mean like they’re just like Judicial Watch and Project Veritas?

Sure - which you would *immediately* discount if those were the sources. Propublica is a completely biased, left-wing rag. And all of you know it.
DP

You seem cool with your right wing rags, so why the double standards?

That you call a Pulitzer-winning newspaper a "right wing rag" tells us all we need to know about your utter lack of standards.

Dp... I'm confused here... ProPublica is not right wing but is a Pulitzer prize winner. However, Veritas and Judicial Watch are right wing and never won any Pulitzers.

The WSJ - quoted in the above piece - is Pulitzer Prize winning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great rebuttal to this idiotic thread:

The self-described “independent, nonprofit newsroom” ProPublica has waged a smear campaign against Supreme Court justices. ProPublica targets only conservative donors and justices, but there’s another tell that its work is a partisan attack rather than a consistent application of ethical principles: In highlighting cases and votes, ProPublica journalists are so selective as to be egregiously slanted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alito-paul-singer-and-obergefell-conflict-same-sex-marriage-propublica-fishing-f2a062bd

You mean like they’re just like Judicial Watch and Project Veritas?

Sure - which you would *immediately* discount if those were the sources. Propublica is a completely biased, left-wing rag. And all of you know it.
DP

Did Alito deny that any of this occurred?

No, he did not deny any of this occurred - instead, he put it all into the context that Propublica refused to do. What kind of "journalists" are they? Zero credibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great rebuttal to this idiotic thread:

The self-described “independent, nonprofit newsroom” ProPublica has waged a smear campaign against Supreme Court justices. ProPublica targets only conservative donors and justices, but there’s another tell that its work is a partisan attack rather than a consistent application of ethical principles: In highlighting cases and votes, ProPublica journalists are so selective as to be egregiously slanted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alito-paul-singer-and-obergefell-conflict-same-sex-marriage-propublica-fishing-f2a062bd

You mean like they’re just like Judicial Watch and Project Veritas?

Sure - which you would *immediately* discount if those were the sources. Propublica is a completely biased, left-wing rag. And all of you know it.
DP

You seem cool with your right wing rags, so why the double standards?

That you call a Pulitzer-winning newspaper a "right wing rag" tells us all we need to know about your utter lack of standards.

Dp... I'm confused here... ProPublica is not right wing but is a Pulitzer prize winner. However, Veritas and Judicial Watch are right wing and never won any Pulitzers.

The WSJ - quoted in the above piece - is Pulitzer Prize winning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great rebuttal to this idiotic thread:

The self-described “independent, nonprofit newsroom” ProPublica has waged a smear campaign against Supreme Court justices. ProPublica targets only conservative donors and justices, but there’s another tell that its work is a partisan attack rather than a consistent application of ethical principles: In highlighting cases and votes, ProPublica journalists are so selective as to be egregiously slanted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alito-paul-singer-and-obergefell-conflict-same-sex-marriage-propublica-fishing-f2a062bd

You mean like they’re just like Judicial Watch and Project Veritas?

Sure - which you would *immediately* discount if those were the sources. Propublica is a completely biased, left-wing rag. And all of you know it.
DP

Did Alito deny that any of this occurred?

No, he did not deny any of this occurred - instead, he put it all into the context that Propublica refused to do. What kind of "journalists" are they? Zero credibility.

Lol
“Context”. Sure. I’ll have to remember that if I ever decided engage in unethical behavior at work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great rebuttal to this idiotic thread:

The self-described “independent, nonprofit newsroom” ProPublica has waged a smear campaign against Supreme Court justices. ProPublica targets only conservative donors and justices, but there’s another tell that its work is a partisan attack rather than a consistent application of ethical principles: In highlighting cases and votes, ProPublica journalists are so selective as to be egregiously slanted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alito-paul-singer-and-obergefell-conflict-same-sex-marriage-propublica-fishing-f2a062bd

You mean like they’re just like Judicial Watch and Project Veritas?

Sure - which you would *immediately* discount if those were the sources. Propublica is a completely biased, left-wing rag. And all of you know it.
DP

Did Alito deny that any of this occurred?

No, he did not deny any of this occurred - instead, he put it all into the context that Propublica refused to do. What kind of "journalists" are they? Zero credibility.