Read the 2nd paragraph in the first exhibit. Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller News Foundation did their own research and concluded "our findings support the ADL study". Apology accepted.
Yes, it does to anyone open to facts. But for most on the right, when confronted by facts, they post laughing emojis/images.
Not dishonest. I mentioned that he continued his response and I had no reason to post the entire transcript since you already read it. Crowdstrike was just the first thing he mentioned. Read on. Anyway, I was simply pointing out where the quid pro quo was.
So moving the goalpost? Impeachment was based on the fact he withheld aid/money to investigate Bidens. Now it's because he asks for a favor to hand over a server because of 2 years of Muller investigations?? You were being dishonest which is why you left out the very next few sentences.
Although this source, a peer reviewed academic paper, doesn't include recent murders (it was published in 2021) the results track those from the ADL. Far-left versus Far-right Fatal Violence: An Empirical Assessment of the Prevalence of Ideologically Motivated Homicides in the United States | Published in Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society
That was part of it, but the impeachment also included the Russia issue, too. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...usg=AOvVaw3aB0_KCl-FGVzJfqoz7QOm&opi=89978449 (1) President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government—corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into— (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden,Jr.; and (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.
lol expect it was the Democrats who lied about Russiagate. Oh funny enough somehow no one was charged for that either. Did anyone charge Hillary or other Democrats for calling Trump an illegitimate president for 4 years? Democrats know no bounds on their hypocrisy.
I responded to your comment saying you couldn't find any quid pro quo. I simply pointed out where in the the phone call transcript it was. All this other stuff is extraneous.
Do you think it's illegal for someone to say a president is illegitimate? If all Trump had done was to say the election was stolen (and not actively plot to overturn it based on that lie) he would not have been indicted. Comparing Hillary grumbling about the 2016 election to what Trump has done is typical right wing false equivalency.
Actually, the indictment actually says Trump is not charged for his free speech. It’s the actual steps he took to try and furtively steal the election
So, as I understand this paper’s conclusion, when antifa clashes with conservatives, antifa gets their ass kicked. Is that a good summary? I think I suggested that in the op. Curious as to why “academia” is not doing any studies on the arson committed by the left versus the right. Why do think that is?