Skip to comments.Snopes Shows Bias, Disproves Woman was Convicted of Laughing, Then rules it "True"
Posted on 05/03/2017 5:39:25 PM PDT by marktwain
Was a woman Prosecuted for Laughing During Jeff Sessions' Confirmation Hearing?Snopes then does one of their famous switcheroos. They change the claim from being prosecuted for laughing, to being prosecuted for disorderly conduct *after* laughing.
Code Pink member Desiree Fairooz was prosecuted for disorderly conduct after she laughed during Attorney General Jeff Sessions's confirmation hearing.Fairooz was prosecuted on two counts. One was disorderly conduct, the other was demonstrating on capital grounds. She was convicted on both counts. Snopes then has this paragraph, which directly contradicts the headline:
Fairooz was found guilty on both counts, the New York Times reported, although jurors who spoke anonymously to Huffington Post said it was her behavior when asked to leave, not her laughter, that resulted in the conviction. She faces up to a year in prison.Clearly, the headline is false. The much easier claim contrived by Snopes, that Fairooz was prosecuted for disorderly conduct after she laughed, is not the claim that shows in the search engines. After all, the laughter had little to nothing to do with her conviction, but it is true that she laughed before she was arrested.
Snopes is skewed to the left. One time I pointed out how they slanted their “False” rating on a story about Hillary and they came back saying that, while what I said was true, that was not the “intent” of what Hillary said so they would not change their rating.
Snopes does this all the time.
Look at the Hillary defends a rapists and laughs about it page at Snopes.
Snopes verifies every detail and yet states “mostly false”.
What is “mostly false”?
It’s another way to say true.
Yup. That’s how Snopes rolls. Debunking without really debunking.
Snopes is a joke. One should never use it to prove or disprove anything. They are paid leftist trolls; nothing more. Well, they are scam artists, if that counts.
I don’t believe anything political from snopes. They admitted that Hank Johnson did indeed ask if Guam would tip over from the extra troops stationed there, but went out of their way to explain away his stupidity.
Just a couple days ago, I was looking up Obamas “57 states” comment.
Snopes claimed it was true, but then went to great lengths explaining that he really meant to say 47. (which the math still doesn’t work, since he was saying only Alaska and Hawaii were left)
FactCheck.org had a very similar version.
Then I tried Politifact. It agreed that he definitely said “57 states” and let the cat out of the bag that the “he meant to say 47” meme some liberals were using was STARTED by Snopes and FactCheck.
Even Obama never made that claim and acknowledged he said 57.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.