Sarah Sanders accused of sharing 'doctored' video to justify CNN ban

He proposed to the electorate during the campaign that he would by EO do what the Constitution obviously prevents him from doing on citizenship. That is appalling conduct. But, it sure would have attracted the numb nut voters.

I don't mind sharing, you know.

In any capacity.

Lived an entire life in a cacoon which gave him zero appreciation or understanding of or empathy with the real World in Battle S,treet USA.

 

Yes, he PROPOSED! How is that DOING?

How could I have voted for Trump if I'm not an American?

Well if you're being intellectually honest, you would be saying the exact same thing about Clinton if she was president instead, right?

 

After some time has passed, do you now admit that it was a conspiracy theory?

 

Same thing in a political climate pre an election.

I have no idea. For all I know you might be an Aussie who has US residency and citizenship.

I would never have wanted her to become POTUS.....but......as it turned out, there were but two alternatives....both being ********s. I am very sure I would have voted informally.

 

Which firings are you saying "attest to that agenda?"

 

And she was 100% wrong. I'll take an Acosta anytime before I'd accept anything Huckabee says. It is the very essence of her job to spin sch*it.

 

Every.....one......of.......them.

 

So if he signed an EO tomorrow (actually DOING it) then that would be no different to him merely PROPOSING it during the campaign? Surely you can't be serious.

True. No I'm not. Anyway, I think that I would've been seriously tempted to vote for Trump if I was an American.

Why wouldn't you have just not voted at all?

 

And you are saying that they were all fired unjustly?

 

Yeah, that's why I said "mistakenly." However, I have to leave room the POSSIBILITY that he intentionally put his hands on her, I just think that it isn't clearly shown and can be best explained in a different way.

What the hell do you mean you would "take an Acosta?"

 

Conspiracy theory nothing. In fact, in the recent court hearing, the White House dropped their claims that they used the fraudulent video to claim.

The White House clearly used a doctored video to dupe tRump followers into believing things that never happened.

 

Dropped their claims that they used the fraudulent video to claim what?

What is the proof again that it was doctored? I mean, if there is any at all!

 

Acosta never "put hands" on the intern. This is just another example of conservatives being led to beleive things that aren't true. The White House has moved on, they have changed their lies, because everyone can plainly see that the video was doctored.

 

Why is the White house getting their material from infowars? Creating an animated gif is quite easy and can be done by almost any video editor in a matter of minutes. Why would you trust infowars for official government videos?

 

Just saw on an Aussie News Channel that a Court has handed Acosta that hard card back. Acosta 1.....White House/Trump 0. But it is early in the game. Will Donald appeal it?

 

Probably not. If he is smart, he will just make the rules that benefit him. The fight is not about this single reporter. The fight for Donald is getting all the media to be sycophantic towards him.

 

I see there is a Thread elsewhere on this where the Conservatives are outraged.....one even suggesting a civil war. Really! TrueScotsman must be laughing all the way to the Bank. Well done him. It was a completely predictable initial outcome. Yes....and now....now......Donald has decided to set out some protocols which some here reckoned already existed. Oh dear.....if they did, why did Donald produce that EO today?

 

Animated GIFs are in essence slide shows. One can set the display time of each frame, allowing one to slow down or speed up motions within the clip.

 

The White House, or Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Remember, it the tweet was posted on Sarah's personal account. However, she should still have known better than to re-tweet an Info Wars tweet.

What is your point?

 

Well he obviously did, but the question is if it was intentional. I don't think it was clear that it was intentional, however, I have to leave room for the POSSIBILITY that he intentionally put his hands on her, I just think that it isn't clearly shown and can be best explained in a different way.

Yeah, just like liberals being led to believe things that aren't true, like the conspiracy theory that the video was doctored!

I see that you conveniently didn't respond to this question from my last post: "What is the proof again that it was doctored? I mean, if there is any at all!" Do you want to have another go? Or do you not have anything? If "everyone can PLAINLY SEE that the video was doctored" then it should be easy to explain how it can be plainly seen.

 

What the hell do you mean you would "take an Acosta?"

 

Why would TrueScotsman be laughing? What did he do to deserve a "well done?"

What EO today?

 

Did the story say that it was a final decision?

 

Oh some EO in which he allegedly set out Rules for Pressers....the stuff you said already existed.

 

No, and it may well not be the final decision. However, it is of note that Donald's reaction was not to declare an appeal, instead....he produced that EO today where he set out Rules for Pressers...Rules you said already existed. It seems you were wrong. So.....what Rule did Acosta breach? Answer. There were no Rules. Do you recall me asking that you post these 'protocols' you said Acosta had run foul of?