Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,703
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
Rather sad. Several paragraphs using over 1400 words to show your dislike of Sussmann. Then a tiny blurb at the end saying he was acquitted of all wrong-doing. Shouldn’t the most important facts be placed at the beginning of the article? --[[User:LSimons|LSimons]] ([[User talk:LSimons|talk]]) 16:57, May 31, 2022 (EDT)
Rather sad. Several paragraphs using over 1400 words to show your dislike of Sussmann. Then a tiny blurb at the end saying he was acquitted of all wrong-doing. Shouldn’t the most important facts be placed at the beginning of the article? --[[User:LSimons|LSimons]] ([[User talk:LSimons|talk]]) 16:57, May 31, 2022 (EDT)
:Oh, you mean like the emoluments clause being tossed out against Trump, or any of the other of dozens of bogus lawsuits against Trump shoiuld be in the Intro of his bio?
:And you miss the context - entirely. The 1,400 words do not trash Sussmann - they trash the FBI. It in fact reads,
:'' Andrew McCarthy concluded that if Sussmann was acquitted, that will have a lot more to do with the FBI’s illegal machinations to interfere in the US 2016 presidential election than Sussmann’s innocence.
:''On May 31, 2022, a District of Columbia jury acquitted Sussmann....
:Secondly, CBS is not the best source you could have used here. And why isn't there anythong about Trump;s reaction? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Z]]</sup> 20:18, May 31, 2022 (EDT)