Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

Reply Thu 25 May, 2023 03:34 am
The Department of Homeland Security today issued a bulletin warning, “Lone offenders and small groups motivated by a range of ideological beliefs and personal grievances continue to pose a persistent and lethal threat to the Homeland.” Both domestic extremists and foreign terrorists are using online extremist messaging and calls for violence to motivate supporters to launch attacks. Individuals upset about the 2024 election and new laws or court decisions might attack “US critical infrastructure, faith-based institutions, individuals or events associated with the LGBTQIA+ community, schools, racial and ethnic minorities, and government facilities and personnel, including law enforcement.” The advisory is in force for six months.

The announcement warned that a key factor in potential violence is “perceptions of the 2024 general election cycle,” a reference to disinformation suggesting that U.S. elections are rigged. This false allegation is a staple of former president Trump’s political messaging.

That disinformation led to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, of course, although many of those who have stood trial for participating in that attack have expressed regret—at least in front of the judge. But not all of them. Today Judge Christopher Cooper noted that Richard “Bigo” Barnett had “not shown any acceptance of responsibility” for his actions before sentencing him to four and a half years in prison. Barnett is an Arkansas man who was convicted on eight counts for his participation in the attack, during which he was famously photographed with his foot on then–House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre informed reporters about the budget negotiations and averting default, calling it a “manufactured crisis.” She called out members of the far-right Freedom Caucus for referring to the full faith and credit of the United States as a hostage, and reiterated that it is the duty of every member of Congress to avert the default that will cost millions of jobs lost, devastate retirement accounts, and throw the United States—and the world—into a recession.

“Let’s be clear about what Republicans are demanding in exchange for doing their job and preventing a default,” she said. “Earlier this year, they put forward an extreme package of devastating cuts that would slash…support for education, law enforcement, food assistance—the list goes on and on and on and on—by what now would be about 30 percent.”

While Jean-Pierre didn’t say it, the Republicans’ insistence that spending is out of control does not reflect reality. In fact, discretionary spending has fallen more than 40% in the past 50 years as a percentage of gross domestic product, from 11% to 6.3%. What has driven rising deficits are the George W. Bush and Donald Trump tax cuts, which will have added $8 trillion and $1.7 trillion, respectively, to the debt by the end of the 2023 fiscal year.

The U.S. is far below the average of the 37 other nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an intergovernmental forum of democracies with market economies, in our tax levies. According to the Center for American Progress, if we taxed at the average OECD level, over ten years we would have an additional $26 trillion in revenue. If we taxed at the average of European Union nations, we would have an additional $36 trillion.

What Jean-Pierre did say is that the Republicans’ demand for cuts in the name of fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction is belied by their protection of tax breaks skewed for the wealthy and corporations. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said those tax cuts would add $3.5 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

As the credit rating of the United States totters, House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) repeatedly told reporters the debt ceiling crisis is not his fault. Indeed, he cannot corral the votes of members of the right-wing Freedom Caucus, who say they will not agree to raise the debt ceiling unless the Senate passes the extremist bill McCarthy got through the House by assuring party members that it was designed only to increase his bargaining power with Biden and that it would never become law. That passage is a nonstarter for Democrats and also for a number of vulnerable Republicans. And yet without it, McCarthy can’t get the votes he needs from the Freedom Caucus. And yet, the Republicans refuse to work with the Democrats, so the extremists can dictate what the House Republicans do.

We’re right back to the same fight we saw over McCarthy’s speakership, where extremists held the trump cards. “We’re not going to default,” McCarthy insisted.

In contrast, all the House Democrats have backed a discharge petition that would force a bill to increase the debt ceiling to the floor, but they need five Republicans to sign on to it. So far, no Republican has publicly stepped up.

Florida governor Ron DeSantis’s announcement today that he is running for president was awkward. He made the announcement on Twitter, whose owner, Elon Musk, has said he supports DeSantis, but the technology didn’t work and Twitter crashed repeatedly, leaving DeSantis’s audience unimpressed.

The campaign of rival Republican candidate Trump scoffed. A spokesperson said: “Glitchy. Tech issues. Uncomfortable silences. A complete failure to launch. And that’s just the candidate!” His commentary later in the day was even harsher.

President Joe Biden also threw shade. His team tweeted: “This link works.” The link went to the Biden-Harris campaign donation site.

On a more serious note, the president today used the one-year anniversary of the massacre at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and 2 teachers died and 17 more were injured, to call for gun safety measures. Since the Uvalde murders, Biden said, the U.S. has experienced 650 mass shootings and well over 40,000 deaths from gun violence. Guns are the top killers of children in the U.S.

Biden called for a ban on AR-15-type firearms and high-capacity magazines, and for the establishment of universal background checks, national red-flag laws, required safe storage of firearms, and an end to the immunity from liability that gun manufacturers enjoy. He noted that these commonsense measures are popular.

“To the families of the children and to the educators…we know that, one year later, it’s still so raw for you. A year of missed birthdays and holidays, school plays, soccer games, just that smile. A year of everyday joys gone forever. The bend in his smile. The perfect pitch of her laugh.

“God bless those 21 blessed souls lost on this day in Uvalde,” Biden said. “And may God bless their families. We’re thinking of you.”

Reply Thu 25 May, 2023 03:42 am
Roger Stone
Why did John Durham slow roll his investigation until the 5 years statue of limitation's had run out, so that no one will be prosecuted for the CRIMES he documented? #HillaryClinton
8:10 AM · May 17, 2023
0 Replies
Reply Thu 25 May, 2023 03:52 am
Collusion between the Democrats and the FBI, like we were aware of all

Says a right-wing propaganda sheet that only conspiratards pay any attention to.


After Years of Political Hype, the Durham Inquiry Failed to Deliver

A dysfunctional investigation led by a Trump-era special counsel illustrates a dilemma about prosecutorial independence and accountability in politically sensitive matters.

The limping conclusion to John H. Durham’s four-year investigation of the Russia inquiry underscores a recurring dilemma in American government: how to shield sensitive law enforcement investigations from politics without creating prosecutors who can run amok, never to be held to account.

At a time when special counsels are proliferating — there have been four since 2017, two of whom are still at work — the much-hyped investigation by Mr. Durham, a special counsel, into the Russia inquiry ended with a whimper that stood in contrast to the countless hours of political furor that spun off from it.

Mr. Durham delivered a report that scolded the F.B.I. but failed to live up to the expectations of supporters of Donald J. Trump that he would uncover a politically motivated “deep state” conspiracy. He charged no high-level F.B.I. or intelligence official with a crime and acknowledged in a footnote that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign did nothing prosecutable, either.

Predictably, the report’s actual content — it contained no major new revelations, and it accused the F.B.I. of “confirmation bias” rather than making a more explosive conclusion of political bias — made scant difference in parts of the political arena. Mr. Trump and many of his loyalists issued statements treating it as vindication of their claims that the Russia inquiry involved far more extravagant wrongdoing.

“The Durham Report spells out in great detail the Democrat Hoax that was perpetrated upon me and the American people,” Mr. Trump insisted on social media. “This is 2020 Presidential Election Fraud, just like ‘stuffing’ the ballot boxes, only more so. This totally illegal act had a huge impact on the Election.”

Mr. Trump’s comparison was unintentionally striking. Just as his and his supporters’ wild and invented claims of election fraud floundered in court (Fox News also agreed to pay a $787.5 million settlement for amplifying lies about Dominion Voting Systems), the political noise surrounding Mr. Durham’s efforts ultimately ran up against reality.

In that sense, it was less that Mr. Durham failed to deliver and more that Attorney General William P. Barr set him up to fail the moment he assigned Mr. Durham to find evidence proving Mr. Trump’s claims about the Russia investigation.

There were real-world flaws with the Russia investigation, especially how the F.B.I. botched applications to wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser. But the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, found those problems, leaving Mr. Durham with depleted hunting grounds.

Indeed, credit for Mr. Durham’s only courtroom success, a guilty plea by an F.B.I. lawyer who doctored an email during preparations for a wiretap renewal, belongs to Mr. Horowitz, who uncovered the misconduct.

At the same time, Mr. Horowitz kneecapped Mr. Durham’s investigation by finding no evidence that F.B.I. actions were politically motivated. He also concluded that the basis of the Russia inquiry — an Australian diplomat’s tip related to the release of Democratic emails hacked by Russia — was sufficient to open a full investigation.

Before Mr. Horowitz released his December 2019 report, Mr. Durham lobbied him to drop that finding, arguing the F.B.I. should have instead opened a preliminary inquiry. When Mr. Horowitz declined, Mr. Durham issued an extraordinary statement saying he disagreed based on “evidence collected to date” in his inquiry.

But even as Mr. Durham’s report questioned whether the F.B.I. should have opened it as a lower-level investigation, he stopped short of stating that opening a full one violated any rule.

A remaining rationale for the Durham investigation was that Mr. Horowitz lacked jurisdiction to scrutinize spy agencies. But by the spring of 2020, according to officials familiar with the inquiry, Mr. Durham’s effort to find intelligence abuses in the origins of the Russia investigation had come up empty.

Instead of wrapping up, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham shifted to a different rationale, hunting for a basis to blame the Clinton campaign for suspicions surrounding myriad links Trump campaign associates had to Russia.

By keeping the investigation going, Mr. Barr initially appeased Mr. Trump, who, as Mr. Barr recounted in his memoir, was angry about the lack of charges as the 2020 election neared.

But Mr. Barr’s public statements about Mr. Durham’s investigation also helped foster perceptions that he had found something big. In April 2020, for example, he suggested in a Fox News interview that officials could be prosecuted and said: “The evidence shows that we are not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness. There is something far more troubling here.”

Mr. Trump and some of his allies in the news media went further, stoking expectations among his supporters that Mr. Durham would imprison high-level officials. Those include the former directors of the F.B.I. and C.I.A., James B. Comey and John O. Brennan, and Democratic leaders like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joseph R. Biden Jr.

In fact, Mr. Durham only ever developed charges against two outsiders involved in efforts to scrutinize links between Mr. Trump and Russia, accusing them both of making false statements to the F.B.I. and treating the bureau as a victim, not a perpetrator.

While in office, Mr. Barr worked closely with Mr. Durham, regularly meeting with him, sharing Scotch and accompanying him to Europe. When it became clear that Mr. Durham had found no one to charge before the election, Mr. Barr pushed him to draft a potential interim report, prompting Mr. Durham’s No. 2, Nora R. Dannehy, to resign in protest over ethics, The New York Times has reported.

Against that backdrop, the first phase of Mr. Durham’s investigation — when he was a U.S. attorney appointed by Mr. Trump, not a special counsel — illustrates why there is a recurring public policy interest in shielding prosecutors pursuing politically sensitive matters from political appointees.

But the second phase — after Mr. Barr made him a special counsel, entrenching him to remain under the Biden administration with some independence from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland — illustrates how prosecutorial independence itself risks a different kind of dysfunction.

The regulations empowered Mr. Garland to block Mr. Durham from an action, but only if it was “so inappropriate or unwarranted under established departmental practices that it should not be pursued” and required him to tell Congress. Mr. Garland gave Mr. Durham free rein, avoiding Republican accusations of a cover-up.

Mr. Durham continued for another two and a half years, spending millions of dollars to bring the two demonstrably weak cases involving accusations of false statements; in each instance, a jury of 12 unanimously rejected the charges. One of Mr. Durham’s handpicked prosecutors resigned from his team in protest of the first of those indictments, The Times has reported.

But Mr. Durham’s use of his law enforcement powers did achieve something else. He used court filings to insinuate a theory he never found evidence to charge: that the Clinton campaign conspired to frame Mr. Trump for collusion. Those filings provided endless fodder for conservative news media.

Even after Mr. Durham’s cases collapsed, some Trump supporters held out hope that his final report would deliver a bombshell. But it largely consisted of recycled material, interlaced with conclusions like Mr. Durham’s accusation that the F.B.I. had displayed a “lack of analytical rigor."

Mr. Durham’s own analytical rigor was subject to scrutiny. At one point he wrote that he had found “no evidence” that the F.B.I. ever considered whether Clinton campaign efforts to tie Mr. Trump to Russia might affect its investigation.

Yet the same page cited messages by a top F.B.I. official, Peter Strzok, cautioning colleagues about the Steele dossier, a compendium of claims about the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia that, it later became clear, were Clinton campaign-funded opposition research. He wrote that it “should be viewed as intended to influence as well as to inform” and whoever commissioned it was “presumed to be connected to the campaign in some way.”

As Mr. Horowitz uncovered and criticized, the F.B.I. later cited the Steele dossier in wiretap applications, despite learning a reason to doubt its credibility. But Trump supporters often go further, falsely claiming that the F.B.I. opened the entire Russia investigation based on the dossier.

Mr. Durham’s report appeared to nod to that false claim, saying that “information received from politically affiliated persons and entities” in part had “triggered” the inquiry. Yet elsewhere, his report acknowledged that the officials who opened the investigation in July 2016 had not yet seen the dossier, and it was prompted by the Australian diplomat’s tip. He also conceded that there was “no question the F.B.I. had an affirmative obligation to closely examine” that lead.

Tom Fitton, a Trump ally and the leader of the conservative group Judicial Watch, expressed disappointment in the Durham investigation in a statement this week, while insisting that there had been a “conspiracy by Obama, Biden, Clinton and their Deep State allies.”

“Durham let down the American people with few and failed prosecutions,” Mr. Fitton declared. “Never in American history has so much government corruption faced so little accountability.”

But Aitan Goelman, a lawyer for Mr. Strzok, said that while the special counsel accused the F.B.I. of “confirmation bias,” it was Mr. Durham who spent four years trying to find support for a preformed belief about the Russia investigation.

“In fact, it is Mr. Durham’s investigation that was politically motivated, a direct consequence of former President Trump’s weaponization of the Department of Justice, an effort that unanimous juries in each of Mr. Durham’s trials soundly rejected,” he said.



When do the treason trials begin?

Probably when Donald Trump goes on trial for trying to sell stolen presidential documents:

New glimpse into documents case suggests a fateful new reckoning is looming over Trump

Good night, Builder.
Region Philbis
Reply Thu 25 May, 2023 04:04 am

Glitches, echoes and ‘melting the servers’ crash overshadow DeSantis POTUS announcement

0 Replies
Below viewing threshold (view)
Reply Thu 25 May, 2023 04:53 am
Yeah, that was really convincing. Rolling Eyes

Go to bed.
0 Replies
bobsal u1553115
Reply Thu 25 May, 2023 06:00 am
You make it too ******* obvious - you hid the link source envilve.





A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate En Volve extreme right biased and Questionable based on a complete lack of transparency, promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, as well as the use of poor sources, failed fact checks, and sensationalized fake news.

Reasoning: Propaganda, Fake News, Failed Fact Checks, Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy Theories, Lack of Transparency
Factual Reporting: VERY-LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

En Volve is an anonymously run conservative news and opinion website that publishes misinformation. There is a lack of transparency as they do not offer an about page or disclose ownership; however, at the bottom of the page, it is copyrighted to Empire News LLC, which is a satire website. A.M. Smith posts most articles on the website.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership

En Volve does not clearly disclose ownership; however, according to LinkedIn, Aaron Smith (A.M. Smith) is the owner. Revenue is derived through advertising.
Analysis / Bias

From our previous review in 2017, we reported that En Volve is extremely right-biased news and opinion website. En-Volve has also published ridiculous stories such as “Obama Orders Life-Sized Bronze Statue of Himself to Be Permanently Installed in White House?” and this “Colin Kaepernick FIRED From 49ers After Disrespecting Police and National Anthem,” which obviously is not true as he played the entire season with them after this fake news article was published. Since the last review, they have continued to publish similar misinformation. For the most part, they republish articles from Questionable sources such as the Gateway Pundit, True Pundit, and even Infowars.

For example, during the Coronavirus pandemic of 2020-22, they reported conspiracy theories regarding Bill Gates and vaccines such as this Bill Gates Pushes For One-World Government With “Pandemic Fire Squads” To Control The Masses. They also reported debunked election fraud misinformation such as this Bombshell: New Evidence Of Election Fraud In NH As Dominion Machines Found To Have Taken 300 Votes Off EVERY Republican Candidate. According to US intelligence, there is no substantial domestic election fraud evidence. In general, En Volve is Extreme right biased and frequently publishes conspiracy theories, fake news, and has zero credibility.
Failed Fact Checks

President Obama ordered a life-sized bronze statue of himself to be permanently installed at the White House. – False
COVID Vaccines Have Increased ‘Serious Injury’ By Over 2000% In Germany. – False

Overall, we rate En Volve extreme right biased and Questionable based on a complete lack of transparency, promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories, as well as the use of poor sources, failed fact checks, and sensationalized fake news. (3/24/2017) Updated (D. Van Zandt 02/16/2022)

Source: https://en-volve.com/

Last Updated on May 24, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check

Why are you such a jerk about this ****?
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
Reply Thu 25 May, 2023 10:36 am
Since the explosions in the Baltic Sea were mentioned here a couple of times:

The Russian Foreign Ministry summoned the ambassadors of Germany, Sweden and Denmark over allegations of a lack of progress in the investigation of the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines. The ministry in Moscow said it is protesting against a "complete lack of results" in the investigation into the act of sabotage last September.

BND [Bundesnachrichtendienst, "Federal Intelligence Service"] chief Bruno Kahl has dampened hopes for a quick clarification of who caused the explosions at the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea. "There are indications in all possible directions," Kahl said in Berlin at the Federal Academy for Security Policy (Baks). "No country in this world, no intelligence service in this world is currently in a position to attribute this concretely", i.e. to say who the perpetrators were or who could be ruled out.

Russia summons 3 ambassadors over Nord Stream probe
Reply Thu 25 May, 2023 10:40 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I thought it was determined that Russia did this act themselves? This still seems to be the most reasonable explanation to me.
Reply Thu 25 May, 2023 05:14 pm
That's not what I heard

Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say (from the NYT)
bobsal u1553115
Reply Thu 25 May, 2023 05:18 pm
Meh. There's strong evidence for at least three scenarios. I still think it was the Russians.
0 Replies
bobsal u1553115
Reply Thu 25 May, 2023 05:43 pm
0 Replies
Reply Thu 25 May, 2023 09:33 pm
Keep ignoring it, folks. It's gonna bite you on the arse, and that's a given.

Complicit media? Check

Complicit FBI? Check

Every member of the DNC involved? Check


As with every major revelation proving them to be the treacherous, anti-democratic demons they are, the corporate media have instantly gone to work sweeping away the shocking conclusions of Special Counsel John Durham’s report on the FBI’s conduct as it related to its 2016 investigation of Donald Trump and Russia.

Years of work went into this thing, and the media believe all of its heinous discoveries can be set aside with a few news briefs belittling them as minor, unimpressive matters of mistake and “shortcomings.”

That’s not what Durham found. What he found was explicit bias within the world’s most powerful law enforcement agency against a democratically chosen presidential nominee.

The report, released Monday, is more than 300 pages, many of which recount information pieced together by Republicans in Congress and right-leaning journalists. But everything you need to know is in Durham’s summary, which, as tactfully as possible, describes the FBI’s 2016 investigation into Trump as not only without a foundation, but driven by political bias, dishonesty, and an appalling degree of personal animus.

The media won’t relay those facts from the report honestly because, of course, the media were complicit in the absolute con from the start. They hated Trump more than top officials at the FBI did and were more than happy to fan the flames that terrified the nation for years and irreparably crippled Trump’s entire term.
bobsal u1553115
Reply Fri 26 May, 2023 06:32 am
You're not even trying. The Federalists, yet and on a site that requires you to join to read it. That is just plain contemptible.

The Federalist is an American conservative online magazine and podcast that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion, and publishes a newsletter.[1][2][3][4] The site was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis and launched in September 2013.[4]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, The Federalist published many pieces that contained false information, pseudoscience, and contradictions or misrepresentations of the recommendations of public health authorities.[5][6][7] While ballots were being counted in the 2020 United States presidential election, The Federalist made false claims that there had been large-scale election fraud.[8][9]

The Federalist was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis; senior editors include David Harsanyi and Mollie Hemingway.[10][11] Domenech wrote that The Federalist was inspired by the mission and worldview of the original Time magazine's editor, Henry Luce, which he described as, "[leaning] to the political right, with a small-c conservatism equipped with a populist respect for the middle class reader outside of New York and Washington, and an abiding love for America at a time when snark and cynicism were not considered substitutes for smart analysis."[12] Quoted in The Washington Post in 2018, Domenech described The Federalist as having no office and a staff that was "majority female, half millennial, and a quarter minority."[13]

The Federalist has not disclosed its funding sources and critics have asked who is funding the site, since ad revenue alone would not be enough for the publication to sustain its staff of 14.[14] Two sources with knowledge of the publication's finances said that one of the major backers of The Federalist is Dick Uihlein, a packing supply magnate and Trump donor who has a history of supporting hard-right political candidates.[14]

According to BuzzFeed News, the website's funding has prompted "a considerable amount of speculation in the political media world, with the phrase 'Who funds the Federalist?' becoming a recurring meme." In response, the website once sold an "I Fund the Federalist" T-shirt to supporters.[15]

In 2020, The Federalist received at least $200,000 in COVID-19 relief funds from the Paycheck Protection Program.[16][17]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

In late 2014, The Federalist published an article alleging that Neil deGrasse Tyson had used "misstated" quotes in his public presentations, including one attributed to George W. Bush.[18][19][20] Tyson later cited the Bush quote to a speech given after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and apologized to Bush for misremembering the date and context.[21]
Roy Moore

In November 2017, The Federalist came under criticism from both conservatives and liberals for publishing an opinion piece by Tully Borland, Ouachita Baptist University philosopher, defending Roy Moore for dating teenagers while he was in his 30s, and arguing that such behavior was "not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family".[22][14] Noah Rothman of the conservative Commentary magazine stated that the op-ed was "rationalizing away child molestation".[22] Molly Roberts of The Washington Post wrote that the op-ed was "uniquely awful".[23] Ben Domenech defended The Federalist for publishing Borland's op-ed saying the magazine "remains avowedly committed to offering alternative views. For those that have a problem with this, the question is simple: what are you afraid of?"[24]

"Black crime" tag

Until October 2017, The Federalist had a "black crime" tag, which aggregated articles related to criminal activity by African Americans.[25][26] Dan McLaughlin of National Review, a former Federalist contributor, said that the phrasing of the "black crime" tag was "unfortunate", that when he had written for The Federalist he had "never even noticed that there were tags at the bottom of my essays," and that The Federalist "had deleted the tag as soon as it attracted any notice—over a couple of years the tag appeared on only five or six posts."[27]
Andrew McCabe

In May 2018, The Federalist published an article which suggested that former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe had leaked a story to the news channel CNN.[28] The article presented no evidence that this was the case, only that McCabe was aware that CNN would publish a story four days prior to its eventual publication.[28] According to Matt Ford in The New Republic, the more likely explanation was that CNN contacted the FBI Press Office, consistent with journalistic practices, for comment on a forthcoming story.[28] George W. Bush's former press secretary Ari Fleischer agreed that CNN was likely contacting the FBI for comment on a forthcoming story, and said that "Whoever told CNN about the briefing is the problem."[28] The Federalist story was widely disseminated, including a tweet from Donald Trump Jr.[28]

COVID-19 pandemic misinformation

During the COVID-19 pandemic, The Federalist published numerous pieces that contained false information or information that was contrary to the recommendations of public health experts and authorities.[5][29] The Federalist published articles denouncing social distancing, as well as articles claiming that fears over the pandemic had been overhyped by the Democratic Party and the media. The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis said that Democrats were intentionally trying to "destroy the economy" as a "last-ditch 2020 play", and that "All they care about is power. And if they have to destroy your life and business to get power back, they will." The Federalist published articles calling on the government to quickly end social distancing directions, and to open businesses again.[29] Co-founder Domenech attacked a prominent analysis from Imperial College London which estimated the loss of life due to the pandemic; Domenech attacked the analysis for revising its figures downward, but the reason that the analysis did so was that the analysis incorporated the social distancing and shutdown strategies that had increasingly been implemented.[30] Robert Tracinski, a former contributor, wrote in The Bulwark that The Federalist had devolved over time into a "conspiracy-mongering partisan rag that has now become a menace to public health".[30]

It published a piece by a person identified as a physician in Oregon who recommended that people hold chickenpox-style parties for the coronavirus to build herd immunity, but the recommendations were contrary to those of public health experts, and the author in question did not have a medical license and had worked as a businessman for decades.[29][31][32] At the time, experts warned that the number of new infections should be kept down so as to not overburden the health care system.[33] The Federalist was subsequently temporarily suspended from Twitter for promoting fringe ideas that contradicted public health experts and were harmful to public health.[32] Reddit also removed links to The Federalist article on its platform.[34]

The Federalist has published articles opposing COVID-19 vaccine mandates and articles suggesting that pregnant women should not receive COVID-19 vaccines.[35]
Climate change misinformation

In November 2021, a study by the Center for Countering Digital Hate described The Federalist as being among "ten fringe publishers" that together were responsible for nearly 70 percent of Facebook user interactions with content that denied climate change. Facebook disputed the study's methodology.[36][37]

Allegations of labor law violation

In 2019, following staff of other American media companies unionizing, co-founder Domenech tweeted "first one of you tries to unionize I swear I'll send you back to the salt mine".[38] In 2020, an NLRB judge ruled that Domenech had threatened staff illegally and required the company to post notices in its offices and email employees to inform them about their legal rights.[39] Domenech argued unsuccessfully that the tweet was a joke.[39] The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonprofit dedicated to fighting what it says is an excessive administrative state, and which had been representing The Federalist pro bono, announced that they would appeal. Reason and National Review published articles questioning the judge's decision.[40][41] In November 2020 a NLRB panel endorsed the ruling and additionally ordered the company to instruct Domenech to delete the tweet.[42] A U.S. court of appeals found the NLRB's action "unlawful", and vacated the NLRB's orders because the tweet was not an unlawful labor practice and because the tweet was protected first amendment speech.[43][44]

Google Ads

In June 2020, Google Ads warned The Federalist that it was considering demonetizing the website because of racism in its comment section; The Federalist removed the comment section entirely, and Google announced that "no action will be taken".[45][46][47] In response, Domenech said: "We are really learning the degree to which Big Tech can be weaponized by woke mobs, or woke journalists in this case, to try to shut down places who disagree with their leftist agenda."[48] Tech journalist Mike Masnick called these accusations baseless, pointing out that many different websites were routinely receiving such notices from Google (quoting nine recent examples from his own news site, Techdirt): "It's not anti-conservative bias, but just yet another example of how difficult it is to do any form of content moderation at scale".[49]

Falsehoods during the 2020 election

While ballots were being counted in the 2020 election, The Federalist made false claims of large-scale fraud.[8][9] One of The Federalist's tweets said, "Yes, Democrats Are Trying To Steal The Election In Michigan, Wisconsin, And Pennsylvania."[8] The website falsely insinuated that fraud was occurring in Michigan.[50] Other news outlets quickly showed that the purported fraud was a clerical error that was quickly corrected; The Federalist did not delete the story, which had gone viral.[51] Co-founder Sean Davis shared the misleading story, leading Twitter to tag his post as containing disputed information.[52]

Republican congressman Cliff Bentz of Oregon referenced Federalist articles as the source of his allegation during a town hall in La Grande that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg "bought" the 2020 election for Joe Biden by financing a 503c non-profit to expand poll worker training and security.[53]

According to The New York Times, The Federalist "leans hard into the culture wars", with pieces that question the Me Too movement and characterize recognition of transgender identity as a "war on women".[14]

Writing for Politico in 2014, Reid Cherlin wrote about The Federalist in an article about the rise in right-wing media online, describing the site as "seek[ing] to go deep on the issues and sway the conversation in Washington."[54] Matt K. Lewis wrote in The Week that conservative online media was divided between "staid, august publications" and "a new generation of irreverent sites," and that "sites like The Federalist try to bridge the gap by providing serious commentary that is typically written by young, pop culture–savvy writers."[55] In May 2018, Damon Linker of The Week described The Federalist as "a leading disseminator of pro-Trump conspiracies and up-is-down, funhouse-mirror distortions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election meddling and potential Trump involvement."[56]

David Weigel from Bloomberg Politics stated that The Federalist frequently criticizes left-leaning publications, but was founded with the intention of being "a source of original interviews and real-time arguments between conservatives and libertarians."[11] During the 2016 US presidential election, conservative pundit and Trump critic Matt K. Lewis, writing for The Daily Beast, believed there had been a shift in The Federalist's coverage of Donald Trump, first criticizing the presidential candidate, and then, after Trump won the presidency, criticizing Trump's liberal critics in the mainstream establishment media and casting Trump as a victim.[57] In 2020, former employee Robert Tracinski particularly blamed the publication's reputation for inaccuracy on co-founder Davis, who he said had a destructive "always be trolling" mindset.[58]





A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

The Federalist is an English-language online magazine that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion. The Federalist has been described as influential in conservative and libertarian circles. The site was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis and launched in September 2013. The current editors are David Harsanyi and Mollie Hemingway

On March 26th, 2020, Twitter locked the site’s account for violating its rules against spreading misinformation about the coronavirus.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership

According to the website, The Federalist is a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media. The website is funded through online advertising and paid subscriptions to newsletters.

The Federalist is a news and opinion website that reports with a right-wing bias that typically favors the right and denigrates the left. There is the frequent use of loaded emotional language: The New York Times Hit Piece On Mike Pence Is Anti-Christian Bigotry, Plain And Simple. In general, The Federalist sources all of their information from credible mainstream outlets; however, they sometimes use sources that we have rated mixed for factual reporting, such as the Daily Caller.

According to an article from the left-leaning Daily Beast, The Federalist was openly critical of Donald Trump before he won the election but has become a strong supporter of his Presidency and agenda. Further, In November 2017, The Federalist came under criticism from both conservatives and liberals for publishing an opinion piece by Ouachita Baptist University philosopher Tully Borland defending Roy Moore’s dating of teenagers while he was in his 30s and arguing that such behavior was “not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.”

Regarding reporting on scientific issues, The Federalist often does not align with experts’ consensus in the field. For example, in this article, the author claims that “I am a skeptic when it comes to climate change. To be clear, I don’t doubt that the climate changes — obviously it does. I don’t doubt that human activity affects this change. What that effect is, and to what extent it influences the entire system, I don’t know. As a scientific concept, I have no opinion on climate change.”

The author does seem to have an opinion on Climate change when he states, “So, simply put, I am a climate change skeptic because the people advocating it do not act as if it were a verified scientific conclusion.” Although the author freely admits he is not an expert and cannot generate an opinion on the scientific concept, he does not need to think because there is a strong scientific consensus on the impact of human-influenced climate change.

The Federalist has also promoted pseudoscience claiming that there is a link between Abortions and Breast Cancer. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, there is “no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.” Finally, as seen in the failed fact checks section they often false and misleading information regarding Covid-19. In general, The Federalist is not a credible source of information.
Failed Fact Checks

Obama twice described Americans as “lazy” during a town hall meeting in Laos. – MOSTLY FALSE
“Longstanding whistleblower rules (changed) just before submittal fake whistleblower report.” – FALSE
“As we have learned, the Intel Inspector General (IG) changed the rule after the complaint was known to allow hearsay complaints, but the IG dishonestly backdated the rule change so that damage could be done to President Trump.” – PANTS on FIRE (cites false Federalist report that was never corrected)
More people who wear masks become sick with COVID-19 compared to non-mask wearers; therefore, masks don’t work or are making us ill – False
“Mask mandates do nothing to stop [the spread of] COVID[-19]”; There is “overwhelming scientific evidence” that masks do not work – Inaccurate
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, tapped as Biden COVID-19 adviser, said those over 75 years old should receive the vaccine last – False
“There’s no science behind masks on kids”. – Inaccurate

Overall, we rate The Federalist as Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks. (8/8/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 12/08/2022)

Source: https://thefederalist.com/

WTF is wrong with you?
Reply Fri 26 May, 2023 06:38 am
They hated Trump more than top officials at the FBI did and were more than happy to fan the flames that terrified the nation for years and irreparably crippled Trump’s entire term.


• Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

Laughing Laughing


Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
bobsal u1553115
Reply Fri 26 May, 2023 06:50 am






0 Replies
Reply Fri 26 May, 2023 07:43 am
In an interview on Newsmax with Eric Bolling (who was previously fired from Fox for sending unsolicited lewd photographs and text messages to three female colleagues) Ron DeSantis again demonstrated his preternatural mastery of the PR game.
You know, I wasn't exactly a pale pastel. I've been bold colors.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 26 May, 2023 07:58 am
@bobsal u1553115,
. . . false information, pseudoscience, and contradictions or misrepresentations . . .

Odd that you would have such a reaction to being fed false information and outright contradictions. Let me explain.

From the covid-test package insert:

10. This device is a qualitative test and does not provide information on the viral load present in the specimen.
11. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for monitoring treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
12. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for the screening of blood or blood products for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
14. Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results.


So, to borrow a phrase, WTF is wrong with you? I know you don't have a problem with the source, so why don't you believe them??
bobsal u1553115
Reply Fri 26 May, 2023 12:01 pm
Glennnnnn, Glennnnnnnn, Glennnnnnnn,

Maybe you'd like to explain the significance of this:

"From the covid-test package insert:

10. This device is a qualitative test and does not provide information on the viral load present in the specimen.
11. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for monitoring treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
12. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for the screening of blood or blood products for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
14. Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results.


WTF is wrong with you? Can you even follow along with the posting here? What even is your ******* point?
bobsal u1553115
Reply Fri 26 May, 2023 12:03 pm
Jeff Tiedrich
listen up, stupids: Joe Biden found classified documents and returned them. Donald Trump stole classified documents, hid them, lied about them, moved them, sorted through them, showed them to golf buddies and blew off a subpoena, and that's why your guy is super fuuuuucked
9:04 AM · May 26, 2023
Copy link to Tweet
0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 06/09/2023 at 05:54:45