Calling someone who wasn't addressing you is also being a dick.

If he wants to pretend he's an Internet Legal Expert, he's going to get called out. 

Turnabout is fair play, since he's stated more than once that he's on here to call out others' posts as fake news, lies, and incorrect.  He needs a taste of his own medicine, but given the number of doses he's required already, we should have bought the Costco case -- would have been cheaper.   

He never pretended to be a legal expert, he only misused a technical term, and you are bright enough to clearly know what he meant. Instead you turn it into a cheap shot. Just act like an adult, point out the correct use of the word and move on. Its like telling someone they shouldn't talk about cooking because they mistook chop and dice.

Mike Lindell "Absolute Proof" video
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=40001.0

OAN: Mathematician: Election Numbers Don’t Add Up

https://rumble.com/vdc0hb-mathematician-election-numbers-dont-add-up.html

OAN isn't exactly a trustworthy source though, just saying

OAN isn't exactly a trustworthy source though, just saying

Compared to who? The channels calling for drone strikes on Trump supporters?

What about the mathematician?  OAN didn't just make up the information.

So if Huffington Post reports the claims of a mathematician who says Biden won then you will believe it just the same?

If you could come up with actual facts instead of a hypothetical, would you have to agree with me?

I am trying to point out that you are selective in what you pick and choose as evidence. You are finding evidence that supports your belief.

When I posed something from Snopes you never insist on looking at the evidence, you brush it aside based on the alleged bias of Snopes.

Am I saying you shouldn't trust this mathematician just because OAN reported on it? No, of course not. I am only pointing this out so you due the same due diligence when some outlet you don't like reports something.

These are the most fake news sites

Among the news site rankings, there are a few surprises. The top news site,
for example, is not a national newspaper or a computer-security site but has
still managed to draw a record 52 "high risk" domains, according to DomainTools.
The "safest" of the sites also fits the same description.

Here's the list of publishers with the most high-risk domains:

1. Newsday (52 historical high-risk domains)

2. The New York Times (49 historical high-risk domains)

3. The Washington Post (20 historical high-risk domains)

4. The New York Post (16 historical high-risk domains)

5. Los Angeles Times (13 historical high-risk domains)

6. New York Daily News (10 historical high-risk domains)

7. USA Today (9 historical high-risk domains)

8. The Boston Globe (6 historical high-risk domains)

9. CSO (5 historical high-risk domains)

10. Chicago Tribune (5 historical high-risk domains)

You're speaking in generalities, not facts.

Snopes is known for being not only inaccurate, but a liberal-leaning and untruthful site.  There are examples on top of examples where they obfuscated the claims just to be able to state "FALSE" or even worse "UNPROVEN," as if the two are synonymous.  In fact, the claim they debunked was never made by anyone.  They twisted the claim into a false statement in order to push a narrative, not offer evidence and an objective opinion.  So, yes, Snopes is not in and of itself reliable.  That's not just an opinion.  It's supported by facts.

You didn't state "you due [sic] the same due diligence when some outlet you don't like reports something."  You simply poo-pooed OAN as a bad source without explanation.

Stop the shit show.  Say what you mean THE FIRST TIME, or just stop commenting.  You're just trying to stir the pot with unsupported claims of inaccuracies WITHOUT PROOF.

Given the number of times the Main Stream Media has been called out for pushing bald faced lies and unresearched BS, there really are no traditional news outlets that can be trusted.  I'll trust an up-and-comer before CNN until they give me a reason not to.  Bias is not a valid basis to distrust OAN unless their bias has caused them to lie for their cause/affiliates.  I don't see OAN doing that.

So-called fact checkers offer accusations that are subjective at best with no proof of those opinions.  Here's what Forbes has to say about the sources of fake news:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherelliott/2019/02/21/these-are-the-real-fake-news-sites/?sh=53dcc8e93c3e

OAN not in the list.  So, who ya' gonna trust?