That's amazing. An activist reporter who is either outright lying or has his head buried in the sand.

How much did he talk about Bobulinski?

Or here's a juicy story for you:

A member of military intelligence was working with a team monitoring election data, and has claimed in sworn testimony that Dominion executives and DHS officials flat out lied when they said their machines don't connect to the Internet. Dominion machines are all over Georgia and supposedly got a contract after proving how secure they were - while in reality they are sending our votes all around the world.

Or they aren't, and the fact that the Colonel made such a shocking claim is the story. Either way that kind of stuff would get lots of eyeballs and HUGE interest from the public if you aired it on TV. That is a MASSIVE STORY and a scandal no matter what side of the election fraud argument you're on. Any serious reporter would be crazy not to cover it - unless what he said isn't true about journalism today.

Not to mention how reporters shouldn't be on either side of the election fraud argument in the first place. How would he know if the claims of fraud are true or not if he hasn't investigated them?

Considering how stupid somebody would be to rationalize all this away, I'm going to have to assume he's a liar.

That's amazing. An activist reporter who is either outright lying or has his head buried in the sand.

How much did he talk about Bobulinski?

Or here's a juicy story for you:

A member of military intelligence was working with a team monitoring election data, and has claimed in sworn testimony that Dominion executives and DHS officials flat out lied when they said their machines don't connect to the Internet. Dominion machines are all over Georgia and supposedly got a contract after proving how secure they were - while in reality they are sending our votes all around the world.

Or they aren't, and the fact that the Colonel made such a shocking claim is the story. Either way that kind of stuff would get lots of eyeballs and HUGE interest from the public if you aired it on TV. That is a MASSIVE STORY and a scandal no matter what side of the election fraud argument you're on. Any serious reporter would be crazy not to cover it - unless what he said isn't true about journalism today, and the reply is the more correct view of reporters. (not to mention any ulterior motives they or their news division have)

I didn't even go into how reporters shouldn't be on either side of the argument. How would he know if the claims of fraud are true or not if he hasn't investigated them?

Considering how stupid somebody would be to rationalize all this away, I'm going to have to assume he's a liar.

That's amazing. An activist reporter who is either outright lying or has his head buried in the sand.

How much did he talk about Bobulinski?

Or here's a juicy story for you:

A member of military intelligence was working with a team monitoring election data, and has claimed in sworn testimony that Dominion executives and DHS officials flat out lied when they said their machines don't connect to the Internet. Dominion machines are all over Georgia and supposedly got a contract after proving how secure they were - while in reality they are sending our votes all around the world.

Or they aren't, and the fact that the Colonel made such a shocking claim is the story. Either way that kind of stuff would get lots of eyeballs and HUGE interest from the public if you aired it on TV. That is a MASSIVE STORY and a scandal no matter what side of the election fraud argument you're on. Any serious reporter would be crazy not to cover it - unless what he said isn't true about journalism today, and the reply is the more correct view of reporters. (not to mention any ulterior motives they or their news division have)

I didn't even go into how reporters shouldn't be on either side of the argument. How would he know if the claims of fraud are true or not if he hasn't investigated them?

Considering how stupid somebody would be to rationalize all this away, I'm going to have to assume he's a liar.

That's amazing. An activist reporter who is either outright lying or has his head buried in the sand.

How much did he talk about Bobulinski?

Or here's a juicy story for you:

A member of military intelligence was working with a team monitoring election data, and has claimed in sworn testimony that Dominion executives and DHS officials flat out lied when they said their machines don't connect to the Internet. Dominion machines are all over Georgia and supposedly got a contract after proving how secure they were - while in reality they are sending our votes all of the world.

Or they aren't, and the fact that the Colonel made such a shocking claim is the story. Either way that kind of stuff would get lots of eyeballs and HUGE interest from the public if you aired it on TV. That is a MASSIVE STORY and a scandal no matter what side of the election fraud argument you're on. Any serious reporter would be crazy not to cover it - unless what he said isn't true about journalism today, and the reply is the more correct view of reporters. (not to mention any ulterior motives they or their news division have)

I didn't even go into how reporters shouldn't be on either side of the argument. How would he know if the claims of fraud are true or not if he hasn't investigated them?

Considering how stupid somebody would be to rationalize all this away, I'm going to have to assume he's a liar.

That's amazing. An activist reporter who is either outright lying or has his head buried in the sand.