The Washington Post ran a story on Friday with the declarative headline: "Four debunked talking points used to discredit the whistleblower complaint." The story then goes on to confirm all four.
"To defend President Trump against the whistleblower allegations, Republicans in Congress are having to dodge or misstate some key facts," writes Amber Phillips.
On "Debunked" talking point No. 1: Phillips begins her debunking by writing: "This is technically true." Then she goes on to write that "The idea of a quid pro quo may be a red herring." In other words, she admits there's no quid pro quo demonstrated in either document, which is what got the recent impeachment frenzy started.
How about "Debunked" talking point No. 2? Phillips writes that "Page 5 of a report about the whistleblower by Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, mentions that the whistleblower has 'arguable political bias in favor of a rival candidate.'" So Phillips just confirmed the first part of this "Debunked" claim.
Ok, well maybe Phillips does a better job debunking talking point No. 3.
There's still one more talking point to debunk.
How about No. 4, that it was a "Secondhand conspiracy built on biased media reports"? Surely she is able to debunk that one.
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/09/28/just-how-far-will-the-press-go-to-defend-the-impeachment-narrative/
"To defend President Trump against the whistleblower allegations, Republicans in Congress are having to dodge or misstate some key facts," writes Amber Phillips.
On "Debunked" talking point No. 1: Phillips begins her debunking by writing: "This is technically true." Then she goes on to write that "The idea of a quid pro quo may be a red herring." In other words, she admits there's no quid pro quo demonstrated in either document, which is what got the recent impeachment frenzy started.
How about "Debunked" talking point No. 2? Phillips writes that "Page 5 of a report about the whistleblower by Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, mentions that the whistleblower has 'arguable political bias in favor of a rival candidate.'" So Phillips just confirmed the first part of this "Debunked" claim.
Ok, well maybe Phillips does a better job debunking talking point No. 3.
There's still one more talking point to debunk.
How about No. 4, that it was a "Secondhand conspiracy built on biased media reports"? Surely she is able to debunk that one.
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/09/28/just-how-far-will-the-press-go-to-defend-the-impeachment-narrative/
No comments:
Post a Comment