If, say, Mother Jones gets secret dirt on a Republican, we don't get a round of handwringing about whether MSNBC tells their viewers that the writer has a background in Democratic activism.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Lol ya sure
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Uh, dude, it's because GOP members don't resign even though they have as much evidence against them.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Bob Livingston was exposed on the threshold of being Speaker of the House by a $1M reward from Larry Flynt.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
GOP'ers just ignore any signs of credibility
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There are different rules for each side Dan, just accept it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So because Hill resigned, it is fine that Van Laar didn't initially disclose that she worked for Hill's GOP rivals in her RedState and Daily Mail articles? You're OK with her not noting that she described herself as a campaign manager to one of the candidates?
-
It only matters if we just had an eye-witness he said she said on our hands. Since we have proof of confirmation (by Hill herself), credibility is not a big issue now. The unpersonal evidence is the only thing that matters.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.