SNOPES is declaring that the internet buzz about Sanders, Wasserman-Schultz, and Ellison remaining seated and not clapping during the moving tribute to Ryan Owens and his wife is "FALSE".

The thing with SNOPES, as I have noted before, they will bend over backwards to promote the "liberal narrative".

So let's review NBC's own video of the speech:

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/w...ongress-887055939741

It is already known that wasserman-Schutz and Ellison were sitting at the edge of the group wearing the all-white "protest" dresses. Their position is important in subsequent video analysis.

Note that the rousing applause beins at 49:48.
At 50:04 Sanders is already sitting down only a maximum of 16 seconds after the applause for Ryan/Mrs. Owens has begun.
Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and Keith Ellison were noted sitting in the section that had all the "White-dress" protestors in earlier shots. That section is conspicuously absent from any of NBC's scanning shots of the crowd, until 51:21 when they quickly pan over that section. It is hard to make out individuals in quick pan, but they were ALL CLEARLY NOT STANDING OR APPLAUDING, while the rest of the crowd was persisting in tribute applause and even starting to break out into cheers.

So IF THEY EVER STOOD, it was extremely brief, just like Sanders.

It is absolutely crystal clear, from NBC's own video, that Wasserman-Schultz, Sanders, and Ellison were conspicuously refraining from joining in to the respectful tribute towards Owens and his wife, even if they might have stood for a second and clapped once or twice. That is why Snopes could label the claim that they didn't stand or clap as "false".

The clear video evidence shows us all we need to know about those despicable bastards.

Detailed debunking of the Snopes nonsense in this article with full video and photo backup:

Sorry Liberals, Ellison and DWS Remained Seated During Roughy Two-Minute Standing Ovation Honoring Fallen Navy SEAL's Widow

Part of the problem. Thanks a lot Snopes.

We will tell you what you saw!!!

They have been given enough rope. Now they are hanging themselves.
.

Snopes continues to play a partisan version of 'political autoerotic asphyxia' wherein they strive to avoid publicly hanging themselves completely while increasing their sense of stimulation as close to knotty reality as possible, before issuing denials and clarifications.

Snopes "quibbles." That is, they seize on a minor or extraneous detail and build their argument on it.

As example:

"Claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.

MOSTLY FALSE
WHAT’S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant.

WHAT’S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant’s lawyer, she did not laugh about the the case’s outcome, she did not assert that the complainant “made up the rape story,” she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not “free” the defendant."
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/...oure-dead-to-me-now/

Notice the difference between the claim and snopes judgement.

1. She was appointed to the case. Snopes debunks that she did not "volunteer." A fact that isn't n the claim.

2. The case was ended with a plea bargain. Snopes says she didn't "free" the defendant." Again the claim says nothing about freeing the defendant.

3. The case was settled with the plea bargain. That is the defendant pleaded "guilty." Snopes judgement is that Clinton did not "claim to know the defendant was guilty." Snopes is asking us to believe that Clinton allowed her client to plead guilty in open court when she didn't know he was guilty.

4. Snopes quibbles when it states "she did not laugh about the the case’s outcome." This suggests the laughter was immediately after the case ended. However the claim stated "and later laughed about the case." Did she laugh?

"In 2014, the Washington Free Beacon published the audio of an interview that Arkansas reporter Roy Reed conducted with Clinton in the 1980s. In the interview, Clinton recalls some unusual details of the rape case, and she can be heard laughing in three instances, beginning with a joke she makes about the accuracy of polygraphs.

Clinton: Of course he claimed he didn’t. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs. [laughs]"
http://freebeacon.com/politics...wly-unearthed-tapes/

Return to the claim: "Claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case." What is false about it?

Snopes is run by two hardcore leftists and they will RUSH to debunk ANYTHING that may cast Democrats in a negative light. They've been proven to be wrong over and over.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Snopes is run by two hardcore leftists and they will RUSH to debunk ANYTHING that may cast Democrats in a negative light. They've been proven to be wrong over and over.

Yup. People need to realize this fact!

quote:

It is absolutely crystal clear, from NBC's own video, that Wasserman-Schultz, Sanders, and Ellison were conspicuously refraining from joining in to the respectful tribute towards Owens and his wife, even if they might have stood for a second and clapped once or twice.

What is absolutely crystal clear is that Dems are ignorant self absorbed fuckwits who lack any common sense or patriotism.
I would have more respect for them* if they showed up drunk and took turns puking on the floor throughout the speech.



* just kidding....there's no way I could have any respect for these short bus window lickers.

Snopes is not, and really has never been, the "be-all-and-end-all" of fact checking that people have made it out to be, even to the point of making them an awkward verb (to "snope" it).

Fuc% scopes I watched the bitches sit like a bunch of stooges.
they are in the tank just like cnbc and the lot.

Dont let the real point of this get lost in your indignation, which is that the leftists now feel the need to defend against the actions of their own in this matter. They're on the defensive about it. IOW, they know they made a mistake, and they know that we know it, too.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Dont let the real point of this get lost in your indignation, which is that the leftists now feel the need to defend against the actions of their own in this matter. They're on the defensive about it. IOW, they know they made a mistake, and they know that we know it, too.

Exactly. I saw Erin Burnett on CNN interviewing DWS. Danky barely got to talk because Burnett was breathlessly making the case that the claims against DWS were false. I could just picture the conversation on the phone the night before:

DWS: This looks bad we need need to do something.
CNN: Don't worry. Come on Erin's show and she'll take care of everything.
DWS: Thanks. I knew you'd be there for me.