Biden’s Disinformation Nanny: Why Nina Jankowicz is “Practically Perfect in Every Way.”

YouTube Screenshot

Below is a slightly expanded version of my column in The Hill on the appointment of Nina Jankowicz as the new head of the federal government’s announced Disinformation Governance Board. This Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas assured CNN viewers that there is nothing to fear from his new Disinformation Governance Board, which will “gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation.” I think we can guess what the “best practice” might be from one of the most vocal advocates of corporate and state censorship.

Here is the column:

“You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation.” That Twitter intro to a TikTok parody of the song “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” is now indelibly connected to Nina Jankowicz, the new head of the federal government’s announced Disinformation Governance Board.

Given her record of spreading disinformation and advocating censorship, Jankowicz hardly needed the musical-inspired persona. Yet, for the Biden administration, Jankowicz — like Mary Poppins — is “practically perfect in every way” to keep track of whether we all “measure up” in our public statements.

It is still unclear from the administration’s public statements what authority the board will wield, but White House press secretary Jen Psaki described the board as intended “to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities.”

It was no accident that Jankowicz alighted on this Administration. She is the perfect nanny to tidy up the mess of free speech. President Biden already has established himself as arguably the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. During his transition period, Biden appointed outspoken advocates for censorship; as president, he has pushed social media companies to expand censorship, while his administration has been criticized for spying on journalists.

Now, with Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and his pledge to restore free speech values to the platform, panic has set in among Democrats — including Jankowicz, who told National Public Radio, “I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities.”

Jankowicz’s singing voice may be impressive, but her appointment is tone-deaf.

She has been ridiculed for pushing the false “Russian disinformation” claim about the original reporting on Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop, stressing that “we should view it as a Trump campaign product.” She continued to spread that disinformation, including tweeting a link to a news article that she said cast “yet more doubt on the provenance of the NY Post’s Hunter Biden story.” In another related tweet, she added that “emails don’t need to be altered to be part of an influence campaign. Voters deserve that context, not a [fairy] tale about a laptop repair shop.” Conversely, she cited Christopher Steele, author of the discredited “Steele dossier” during the 2016 presidential campaign, as a source on how to stop disinformation.

An even more tone-deaf figure may be Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who appointed Jankowicz to her new role. Mayorkas seemingly follows that other Mary Poppins command — “I would like to make one thing clear: I never explain anything” — as he and President Biden have maintained one of the most disgraceful examples of disinformation: the accusation that U.S. border agents whipped migrants in Texas.

The whipping story is a chilling example of real disinformation that can be devastating for individuals and destructive in politics. The story of white officers whipping Haitian migrants at the southern border was utterly irresistible and eagerly embraced by many media and political figures. It was based largely on a misleading photograph of a mounted border officer, despite an available video that clearly refuted the whipping claim. Even the image’s photographer stated at the time that the story was false and “nobody saw a Border Patrol agent whipping” anyone.

Still, many in the media went into a familiar feeding frenzy, encouraged by key political figures. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) declared that the alleged whipping was just the latest example of “white supremacist behavior.” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said the incident was “worse than what we witnessed in slavery” and decried that “the cowboys who were running down Haitians and using their reins to whip them.” Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) condemned the purported “inhumane treatment of Haitian migrants by Border Patrol — including the use of whips.”

The verdict was in, and President Biden went on every network to announce it at the start of the investigation. He expressed disgust over watching what he termed the “horrible … outrageous” actions of the agents as they “strapped” migrants, and he declared, “I promise you, those people will pay.”

For his part, Mayorkas — the official tasked with investigating the allegation — said that the alleged conduct of the agents “correctly and necessarily were met with our nation’s horror.” He then promised that his department would complete the investigation “with tremendous speed and with tremendous force … thoroughly, but very quickly. It will be completed in days, not weeks.”

That was more than six months ago.

As early declarations of Biden and others quickly fell apart, the White House went into uncharacteristic silence. The promised speedy investigation mysteriously dragged on. The facts supporting or disproving the whipping allegation were evident within 24 hours — but a finding that the agents never whipped any migrants would be embarrassing to Mayorkas and the president. Accordingly, rather than announcing a finding in a matter of days, the agents continue in limbo.

This month, it has been reported that the agents were cleared of criminal assault. Yet the White House has refused to apologize, and Mayorkas has refused to publicly state that the agents were cleared.

Instead, the White House’s Psaki was confronted recently by Ebony McMorris, of American Urban Radio Networks, who asked for the president’s response to the lack of punishment for “patrol agents that were seen whipping Haitian migrants.” Keep in mind there is no video showing agents whipping Haitians but, instead, a video showing the contrary. Yet some in the media are still demanding punishment, and the White House refuses to alter its original condemnation.

What would the Mary Poppins of Disinformation call that?

As Jankowicz sang in her video:

“Information laundering is really quite ferocious.

“It’s when a huckster takes some lies and makes them sound precocious.

“By saying them in Congress or a mainstream outlet so

 “Disinformation’s origins are slightly less atrocious.”

The new Disinformation Governance Board head may have a theme song, but Jankowicz may be quickly losing her credibility. Psaki first admitted she didn’t know who Jankowicz was — and then the following day offered a tepid defense that she was someone with an extensive background, including testimony in both the British Parliament and Congress. (She failed to mention Jankowicz was advocating public and private censorship.) Psaki then stressed twice that Jankowicz was selected by Mayorkas and Homeland Security.

For his part, Mayorkas said he was unaware of the past positions and statements of an appointee he had just praised as uniquely qualified.

In Washington speak, that’s a signal that “wind’s in the east, mist comin’ in” — and it may be time for Janlowicz to grab her the umbrella and blow.

However, even if that happened, it would leave the question of who will appear next to “measure up” an impressionable public. If the east wind blows, two things are certain. Any replacement will have the same anti-free speech sentiments and will not have a TikTok account.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

205 thoughts on “Biden’s Disinformation Nanny: Why Nina Jankowicz is “Practically Perfect in Every Way.””

  1. “This Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas assured CNN viewers that there is nothing to fear from his new Disinformation Governance Board, which will ‘gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation.’”

    Once again, Turley quotes part of a sentence without linking to the source, so we can see the excerpt in context.

    Here’s the video:
    I quoted most of the exchange in my 9:49am comment.

    “I think we can guess what the “best practice” might be from one of the most vocal advocates of corporate and state censorship. … Nina Jankowicz, the new head of the federal government’s announced Disinformation Governance Board.” You can guess, but that doesn’t make your guess correct, especially when youo choose to ignore other relevant info. Jankowicz is not the “head of the federal government’s announced Disinformation Governance Board.” Mayorkas said in his testimony last wee that “Our Under Secretary for Policy, Rob Silvers, is co-chair with our Principal Deputy General Counsel Jennifer Daskal, in leading a just recently constituted misinformation/disinformation governance board.” Jankowicz plays some other role.

    Turley complains about the “age of rage,” but he actively chooses to feed it almost every day.

    1. Anonymous, you say that Nina Jankowicz is not the head of the new Disinformation Board. Her actual title is “Executive Director”. Jankowicz is an American researcher, author, and commentator specializing in disinformation and the executive director of the United States Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board. Wikipedia. It would seem that as the Executive Director she might have some say over what is determined to be disinformation. You try to make it seem that she will not be involved in any of the determinations of the board. I appreciated your presentation of damage control by CNN. I also appreciate your throwing her under the bus by telling us that she’s just a nobody on the board. This action is commonly known as distancing oneself from a decision gone bad.

      1. As correct as you are, you could use fewer words by simply telling the anonymous poster that he is being dishonest.

      2. “Her actual title is “Executive Director.””


        But the Executive Director is not the “head” of the board. The co-chairs — Rob Silvers (the Under Secretary for the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans in DHS) and Jennifer Daskal (DHS Principal Deputy General Counsel) — are the ones who head the board. Both of them have higher positions at DHS than Jankowicz.

        “she might have some say over what is determined to be disinformation.”

        No doubt, but that still doesn’t make her the head of the board.

        “You try to make it seem that she will not be involved in any of the determinations of the board. … I also appreciate your throwing her under the bus by telling us that she’s just a nobody on the board.”

        BS. You once again demonstrate your inclination to lie as a form of trolling.

        1. You have not spent any time in a large corporate, or governmental structure.

          What you are talking about are titles. Not power.

          Titles are just titles. Little significance.

          But all you have left is your little victories on the pedantic battlefield.

          1. No, actually, I’m talking about both.

            Rob Silvers (the Under Secretary for the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans in DHS) and Jennifer Daskal (DHS Deputy General Counsel) both have more **power** at DHS than Jankowicz.

    2. Nina Jankowicz, the Hunter Biden laptop is disinformation. That type of lie is what causes the rage you like to talk about. Turley has been more than honest. He bends over backwards to satisfy the left.

  2. “Psaki: Well, I don’t have any comments on the laptop. But what I can tell you is that it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities. I’m not sure who opposes that effort, and I don’t know who this individual is, so I have no comments on it specifically.”

    Let’s guess which “communities”….BLM, ANTIFA, The Green Party, NAACP, DNC, FBI, Intelligence Community……oops….sorry…..I was looking at it backwards.

    If you think for one second that this is just a way of silencing critics of the Biden Administration, the Democratic Party, the Leftist Agenda, the Global Warming Agenda, and anything else the Left does not want to hear… are part of the problem.

    The attack on Individual Freedom which is based upon Free Speech and the Ownership of Private Property is under attack by the Left….and this is just the latest attack in their crusade.

    When shall we be required to wear Gold Stars on our clothing, not own businesses, and need some sort of final solution…..think I am overstating the case…..look to Russia and Nazi Germany and convince me I am wrong.

    Look at the attack on the Oil Companies…gun ownership….gas fueled vehicles….and go right on down the list of what they are going after in the pursuit of that illustrious Leftist Utopia.

    What they forget….at some point we shall not go meekly into the Earth.

    It is coming count on it.

  3. AG Garland supports the FBI harassing parents; Mayorkas supports censorship; and Levine supports gender grooming in children. And these are the “adults” in the room?

    1. You’re lying about all three. Do you consider yourself an “adult in the room”?

    2. giacon, your list needs a Leftist translator feature for those that have been on a paint chips diet.

      – AG Garland supports the FBI harassing parents; Leftist translation: FBI needs to apply a threat tag to parents that oppose the Leftist indoctrination of their children.
      – Mayorkas supports censorship; Leftist translation: There is no acceptable opinion outside of our opinion. All other opinions are misinformation/disinformation and they will be silenced and/or prosecuted.
      – Levine supports gender grooming in children: Leftist translation: Gender-affirming care (hormone treatments and surgery) is necessary for the mental health of children that put their shoes on the wrong feet, can’t count to 10, eat Elmer’s Glue and who believe they become invisible when they cover their own eyes.

  4. The ailment afflicting – mostly well meaning – bureaucrats of both political parties is “unconstitutional-authoritarianism” – where officials wrongly perceive their authority as a “Nanny State”. They perceive themselves as having authority not granted to them by the U.S. Constitution or their Oath of Office employment contract (and loyalty oath).

    The First Amendment legally “restrains” government authority infringing on free speech. If Congress deputizes or coerces a private company (ie: Facebook, Twitter, etc) that still violates the First Amendment since private companies are acting as “agents of the state”.

    This nanny-state mindset – bypassing constitutional authority by farming it out to private companies – can also be lethally dangerous. Why not farm out assassinations or torture? It makes the entire constitutional “rule of law” system totally meaningless.

    It should be noted that even government “front companies” (masquerading as private entities) take a supreme loyalty oath NOT to violate constitutional rights. It’s not about loyal officials breaking a few laws, it’s about disloyalty to their supreme loyalty oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

    Not a Trump fan myself, but when enough voters lose faith in these government institutions, voters will be supporting policies that carelessly cut or even abolish entire agencies.

    If a newspaper, news show or social media site offends you – stop using it! It’s that simple. Don’t give officials censoring authority that no government official has ever been granted under the First Amendment.

  5. It’s a Lie ! . . No, it’s the truth ! . . . Lie !! . . . . Truth !!! . . . . . So WHO will have the final word in this schoolyard taunt ? Ultimately, nothing will be accomplished w/o DATA ( and I’m not talking about ‘ manufactured ‘ evidence ! )

  6. As if we needed any more confirmation that the Professor has decided that Trump and the right wing fit his philosophy of life. Nanny? I guess if the right wind and Trump continue acting like the spoiled violent children they are a nanny might be appropriate.

    Now tell me Professor did Trump explain anything or did he just lie. Does MCCONNELL explain anything?

    I remember when this was a real law thread.

  7. Turley has been playing up the “anti-free speech” screed for a few days now with columns depicting incidents, over-exaggeration, and points of view out of context for the effect he wants. At the same time, he is ignoring actual anti-free speech being engaged by republicans. From banning CRT discussion in schools and universities to book banning in public libraries, and punishing companies for having the audacity to criticize legislation they see as wrong.

    Turley is not even sure how this disinformation governance board will work, but he is already spreading misinformation about it by making all kinds of assumptions using a myriad of out-of-context incidents and allegations tying it all into one scary-sounding narrative borne out of the rabbit hole of hysterics he created.

    I have yet to see Turley write about real freedom of speech issues like why did Florida repeal the reedy creek act because Disney was critical of a law?

    Nobody has questioned the reason behind the repeal. Clearly this is a retaliatory action over criticism of the Governor’s anti LGBTQ law.

    1. to book banning in public libraries,
      A bit of mal-information we are used to dealing with from loony leftists. Public school libraries. If accuracy is important. Curating content, again if accuracy is a goal.
      But since this particular lie has been corrected for this poster, the lie is yet again repeated. My only conclusion can be, defending an indeffensible positition requres the repeating of falsehoods.

      1. Iowan2,

        Not just public school libraries. Public libraries

        “ Consider the sad case of Llano, Texas, where the public library has been overtaken by ultra-conservatives who have packed the library board and raided the shelves, removing such books as Maurice Sendak’s award-winning “In the Night Kitchen” and a sex education book for parents and children”

        They were not “ curating” content.

        1. Your complaints about the right trying to keep certain books off the library shelves, if true, are minimal. The left is responsible for packing the bookshelves with garbage so that a lot of good reading has to be left out. There are trade-offs, whether because of space or money. When the left (or occasionally the right) packs libraries with garbage, a need exists to remove some to make room for the good stuff.

        1. Turley includes solid evidence while Svelaz tries to figure out what evidence is.

    2. “Turley is not even sure how this disinformation governance board will work . . .”

      Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the history of totalitarianism. Or you are evading it.

  8. Democrats don’t even care about lying and committing crimes…as the DOJ is 100% Corrupt

      1. Why do you think he is biased. Democrats say the border crisis is the result of Trump’s policies when despite Democrat opposition, the border was being sealed so that we could have legal immigration. Under Trump’s leadership, we were oil independent, our economy was moving in the right direction, and the flames of war were being put out. The Biden administration is a disaster. All we hear from Democrats are lies and more lies.

        All we hear from you are lies and more lies.

  9. List of all Constitutional Amendments Democrats are against 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 26

  10. Did someone hand the Democrats the 1920-30’s German Socialist playbook?
    If you don’t vote Republican…you Hate America

  11. “It is still unclear from the administration’s public statements what authority the board will wield”

    It’s also still unclear what the board is tasked with. Despite Turley’s claim that “White House press secretary Jen Psaki described the board as intended ‘to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities,'” she actually said “it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities,” and here’s a fuller excerpt that shows that we don’t know whether she’s saying “it sounds like” that based on the description of the original questioner, or “it sounds like” that based on the very limited public statements by Mayorkas, or “it sounds like” that based on some other unspecified info:

    Q: And then on this new report that the Department of Homeland Security is setting up a Disinformation Governance Board to tackle misinformation ahead of the midterms: Secretary Mayorkas said that part of its intention was to tackle misinformation in Hispanic communities especially. Can you give us an idea of what this board is going to be doing, what their authority would look like?

    Psaki: Sure, Jacqui. I really haven’t dug into this exactly. I mean, we, of course, support this effort [to tackle misinformation], but let me see if I can get more specifics. We know that there has been a range of disinfo out there about a range of topics — I mean, including COVID, for example, and also elections and eligibility. But I will — I will check and see if there’s more specifics.

    Q: There’s been some criticism of the person who’s been chosen to oversee this board. She had previously called the Hunter Biden laptop a “Trump campaign product,” seeming to discredit its validity — or validity of reporting surrounding that. How can you assuage concerns of people who are looking at this person who’s been appointed to this position and wondering if she’s going to be able to accurately judge misinformation now that a lot of that reporting has been proven to be factual in some ways?

    Psaki: Well, I don’t have any comments on the laptop. But what I can tell you is that it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities. I’m not sure who opposes that effort, and I don’t know who this individual is, so I have no comments on it specifically.

    Q: Her name is Nina Jankowicz. She also just recently made some polarizing comments about the Twitter — Elon Musk’s Twitter purchase. It’s just getting some pushback from critics who are saying this person may not be the right choice for a board that is run by the Department of Homeland Security. Can you speak to that at all?

    Psaki: I don’t have any information about this individual. I can check on more information about the board.

    Turley omitted “it sounds like” and her statements indicating that she doesn’t have much info about the board, choosing to pretend that Psaki’s statement was more certain than it was. Turley doesn’t indicate that he’s even asked the WH for a statement with more information.

    But at least it’s an improvement that he linked to the source of the quote, so we could see what Psaki actually said.

    1. she actually said “it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities,”

      Yes we are becoming well versed in the lefts use of weasel words (qualifying language) to make statements, but not be bound by them. “sounds like”…to who? Psaki is off onto some amorphous third person doing the dirty work of stating an opinion.
      You enjoy the double speak, but the wise, hear the lies.

      1. “sounds like” to Psaki, not a “some amorphous third person.”

        If you hear lies, half the time it’s because you’re talking to yourself.

      2. Weasel words? Ha, that’s funny because Trump used them all the time. Especially when he was caught lying.

        Anonymous wasn’t wrong. Turley did omit a critical part of what Psaki said thereby changing the tone of the answer. That’s called being disingenuous with the facts.

      3. Where in the Constitution is the part about protecting me “from” free speech?

        1. Did someone claim that there’s text in the Constitution protecting you from free speech?

          1. The government has created a board to fight misinformation, etc. A power the federal govt does not have in its list of enumerated powers.

            1. disinformation **from foreign adversaries**

              “the board … [will] gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels” and will disseminate that. If you think the Executive Branch doesn’t have the power to gather and disseminate info about foreign disinformation efforts, then you understand less about executive power than I’d realized.

      1. You apparently think that paying attention to what we do know versus what we don’t know makes someone an “apologist.”

        1. “. . . what we don’t know . . .”

          Funny how you invoke “what we don’t know” to excuse Leftist atrocities. Yet another of your sophistical tricks.

        2. “. . . what *we* do know versus what *we* don’t know. . .” (Emphases added.)

          Knowing something is individualistic, not collectivistic. And there are plenty of “I’s” who do know.

  12. So according to JT the answer to bad speech is more speech, unless you are a Democratic administration, then not so much.

    1. How do you know a Democrat is lying? His lips are moving.

      How do you know when Sammy doesn’t make sense? Whenever he responds on this blog.

  13. Has there ever been a more diabolical character at the helm of a major agency than Mayorkas? He and his minions wake up each day with a new idea on how best to assault the integrity of our nation’s sovereignty and now the 1st Amendment. He boasted about his long service to this country during his hearing last week. I am sure Himmler, Goebbels, and Beria, just to name a few could have said the same thing. Mayorkas is literally the worst of the worst in this disgusting Administration

    1. Rachel Levine may be worse. He said recently that “all” paediatricians agree on “affirmative care”. This is manifestly false.

  14. “Best practices”, “prevent”. We know where this is heading. I suggest that the Professor update all his briefs. We and many others should go out and get fresh flints for our flintlocks, stock up our powder horns, swab out our cannons and reinforce the redoubts around our homes, castles and towns, fresh feed for the horses, water also, tighten your cinches, repair your best saddles to make then ready for heavy use. Short of that we may want to heat up the tar and start acquiring bags of feathers, and pick up rails that are suitable for riding, no saddles needed for this event.

  15. Now Psaki wants us to believe they are simply continuing a ‘Trump policy’. I can’t anymore. I just can’t. Never voting dem again.

    1. There is nothing in Turley’s column to confirm your claim that “Now Psaki wants us to believe they are simply continuing a ‘Trump policy’.” What are you basing it on?

      1. Base it on? No brainer. They are
        socialist..Their number one rule is anything said or done for the party IS the party’s truth.If it changes five minutes later that is the partys truth. You just proved it. End of discussion.

        1. Michael, is James a sock account of yours? If not, then you cannot answer the question “What are you [James] basing it on?” for him.

          1. Observing socialist fascists like the for 60 years. Such as how they including you duck the question each and every time. They do make good targets.

      2. There is a bigger world than Turleys column.
        But if you are so uninformed, perhaps you should not comment on stuff you don’t understand.

        “What I will tell you about the board and what the board is doing — this is a continuation of work that began in the DHS in 2020 under former President Trump,” said Psaki.

        1. Thanks!

          That I had not read the Friday press briefing does not imply that I “don’t understand” the topic, and I find it amusing that you frequently comment about things without having every piece of relevant info but want others to be silent in the same situation. It’s also extremely sad that you think people shouldn’t ask for info.

          As for Psaki’s statement, personally, I do not consider the “board” (Psaki’s statement) to be a “policy” (James’s word), but if that’s what James was talking about, then it’s even more surprising that all you Trumpists are complaining about the board.

          Here’s more info from that same press briefing (you know, for people who are actually interested in learning more background instead of trolling):

          “Well, here’s what the board is going to do, which I think is of particular interest — again, a continuation of the work of the former President. So for anyone who’s critical of it, I didn’t hear them being critical of the work under the former President, which is just interesting to note contextually.
          “But in the fact sheet that they put out, what they noted yesterday — what they noted in there is that this is meant to — one, the first bullet was about protecting privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, and the First Amendment. They said the primary mission is to establish best practices to ensure that efforts to understand and respond to disinformation are done in ways that protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.
          “I’d also note that the first example they gave about what they’re going to do is support the Department of Homeland Security’s work — ongoing work, back to the former administration — on -, to address how and understand how misinformation is spread by human smugglers that prey on vulnerable populations attempting to migrate to the United States. There’s no question — everybody — that bipartisan support for that, to address disinformation that’s going — that’s helping smugglers pushing, helping people migrate or providing false information, prompting people to migrate.
          “So — and this is also work that is helping to address unauthorized — terrorism, other threats, and see how disinformation and misinformation is being pushed to lead — to increase those. So that’s all work — we think it’s work that’s been ongoing for some time. This is the form it’s taking. And there’s a fact sheet that details the specifics of it.”

          I’ll have to see if I can find a copy of the fact sheet.

          1. That I had not read the Friday press briefing does not imply that I “don’t understand” the topic,

            A rational person, not knowing, would just move on and not comment. Instead of implying the post was wrong.

            ‘better to keep ones mouth shut and let people think you a fool, than open it and remove all doubt.’

            1. “Instead of implying the post was wrong. ”

              I didn’t imply that it was wrong. I asked where he got the info from.

              Don’t attribute your false inferences to me.

              As for your last sentence, if that’s what you believe, then act on it yourself.

                1. “You spent a whole day denying the disinformation board even existed.”

                  Just like inflation. Then when that lie wears thin, try another one: It’s Putin’s fault. Or in this case: It’s not really censorship.

  16. Covid pulled back the curtain on government censoring speech. From 2 weeks to flatten the curve to efficacy of masks, to debunking the lab leak theory. The govt was always advancing the narrative, and facts were obstacles to overcome.
    It’s been going on for decades, but. hopefully, we have reached the apex of the curve. enough people are paying attention to what is said, what is ignored and listening for the dog that didn’t bark, and seeing all the qualifying language in use, the lies happening in real time.

  17. Mayorkas is slippery and a liar. He describes illegal immigrants released into the country as being “in enforcement proceedings” seemingly because they are asked to show up at a proceeding at some future time. He considers them to be lawfully here because they say the words necessary to raise an asylum claim without regard to the probability that the claim is valid. He acknowledged that about 800,000 migrants plus another about 200,000 unaccompanied minors were released in this way last year. This does not include several hundred thousand “got always.” He has no plan for slowing the rate of release and expects it to increase significantly when/if Title 42 is lifted. He says that he inherited a broken system even though Trump’s policies implemented after the surge in early 2019 largely solved the problem.

    Regarding the DGB, he is now trying to say that it is all about false communications by Russians, Chinese and the smuggling cartels. But he cannot maintain this pretence and in the same interviews goes on to mention Covid, election integrity and other domestic controversies.

    TV interviewers are woefully inadequate in calling out these prevaricating officials on their many obfuscations. It is very frustrating to watch.

    1. “Regarding the DGB, he is now trying to say that it is all about false communications by Russians, Chinese and the smuggling cartels”

      What do you mean “now”? He also indicated that in his testimony last week. If I’m remembering right, it was in response to a question about foreign election interference and human trafficking that Mayorkas mentioned this governance board.

      Here’s an exchange yesterday with more information:

      BASH: Let’s talk about a different topic, which is what you are calling, your department is calling the Disinformation Governance Board. You unveiled that this week. Republicans are calling it Orwellian and comparing it to the Ministry of Truth in the novel “1984.” Can you clarify what exactly is this? What exactly will this Disinformation Governance Board do? Will it monitor American citizens?
      MAYORKAS: Dana, I’m very pleased to do so. It’s clear. I mean, those criticisms are precisely the opposite of what this small working group within the Department of Homeland Security will do. And I think we probably could have done a better job of communicating what it does and does not do. The fact is that disinformation that creates a threat to the security of the homeland is our responsibility to address. And this department has been addressing it for years, throughout the years of the prior administration, on an ongoing basis, disinformation from Russia, China, Iran.
      BASH: Right. We know the problems, but it’s still not clear to me how this Governance Board will act. What will it do?
      MAYORKAS: So, what it does is, it works to ensure that the way in which we address threats, the connectivity between threats and acts of violence are addressed without infringing on free speech, protecting civil rights and civil liberties, the right of privacy. And the board, this working group, internal working group, will draw from best practices and communicate those best practices to the operators, because the board does not have operational authority.
      BASH: Will American citizens be monitored?
      MAYORKAS: No.
      BASH: Guarantee that?
      MAYORKAS: So, what we do — we in the Department of Homeland Security don’t monitor American citizens.
      BASH: You don’t, but will this board change that?
      MAYORKAS: No, no, no, the board does not have any operational authority or capability. What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years.

      1. Wait, wait, wait, wait a minute. Turley is mischaracterizing the whole premise behind the misinformation/disinformation board? I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the case. You certainly provided much more context on what this is about. I can see how the right and those on this blog take that mischaracterization and run away with it cooking up all kinds of assumptions and grievances. Geez Louise. The fact that Turley omitted part of a sentence starting this whole debacle IS engaging in the “age of rage” Turley criticizes. What a hypocrite.

        1. ” Turley is mischaracterizing the whole premise behind the misinformation/disinformation board?”

          What do you think the premise is?

          1. That this board is going to look at ALL misinformation/disinformation from every source. From what I’m getting from anonymous is that this is strictly regarding foreign actors. Countries that are engaged in disinformation/misinformation to commandeer the National dialogue on divisive issues.

            1. Stop thinking so hard. We see smoke coming from your head but nothing of consequence from your mouth or pen.

              How will they define “misinformation/disinformation”?

              “I’m getting from anonymous is that this is strictly regarding foreign actors.”

              It seems you rely on anonymous sources, aka, cr-p. Why not listen to what the major players have said now and in the past.

              The Biden laptop wasn’t Russian misinformation.

              You are very poorly informed.


              1. Doesn’t matter if A or more than one russian high jacked the world. At that time there was No none zero goose egg law against it. If they weren’t in
                russia there is no crime. Published it back then. Socialist under obama did nothing. Remember they are russian but buddies. Still are. No law no crime. End of your stupid nothing non story..

              2. It does not matter how misinformation is defined – it is NOT the business of government to regulate speech. PERIOD.

                Has no one ever read John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” ?

                1. Yes, John.

                  Indeed, the government is not supposed to regulate free speech. That is a recognition none on the left seem to have unless that speech is coming from Donald Trump.

                  Svelaz complicates the free speech issue because he doesn’t know what the words he uses mean. Before dealing with the proper answer, one has to figure out what Svelaz can understand.

                  He is more confused than appears at first sight. His dialogue contains phrases he heard from other persons. Unfortunately, his understanding of many of those phrases is near nil.

                  First, one needs to understand what he means. Then he needs to be corrected.

                  1. Does a handful of socialist fascists constitute government these days? Gag me with a spoon and DISinform this. You just disfined ‘no government.’

                    So whose the real government? Like….the Constitutional one?

                    Can I geta job?

                    1. Our federal government is close to a totalitarian oligarchy. The election was likely stolen, the Supreme Court is being threatened, and people are jailed losing their rights for misdemeanors.

    2. BTW, Daniel, thanks for prompting me to look up what Mayorkas said yesterday (I don’t have a TV, so hadn’t realized that he was on one of the Sunday shows).

      Also, you’d asked yesterday for a copy of the Berenson v Twitter ruling. Not sure if you saw my response with a link to it:

      1. Thanks for the link. Odd that the court considers alleged misinformation about Covid to be captured by the catch-all of Section 230. Many Supreme Court decisions have said that catch-all’s are supposed to be interpreted in the light of the specific words they follow. Alleged misinformation about Covid bears no relation whatsoever to the specific words that precede the catch-all.

        1. Daniel,

          You’re welcome.

          I don’t understand why you find that part of the ruling “odd.” The ruling says “With the exception of the claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, all claims in this action are barred by 47 U.S.C. Section 230(c)(2)(A), which provides, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of — any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” For an internet platform like Twitter, Section 230 precludes liability for removing content and preventing content from being posted that the platform finds would cause its users harm, such as misinformation regarding COVID-19.” There’s a clear relation between “otherwise objectionable” and “misinformation.”

  18. The sheer act of forming such a position should be shocking and alarming to every citizen of this nation and of the world. Whoever thought this up and those who are implementing this should be shamed and run out of town.

    We are witnessing a full scale assault of this nation by a very small subset of radicals.

    I suspect there will be more to come before elections. It is a certainty that those who possess raw power are never keen to relinquish it. Once a bureaucracy is formed it will only grow and take on a life force of its own.

    If this takes hold, it will not end well nor will it bide well for citizens. If anyone should think to defend this action, apply the “shoe on the other foot” principle.

    Why now? Is it because we have a President who is cognitively impaired? AvPresident who wandered around alone like a little kid trying to get the attention of Obama at the WH soirée? Is it because his administration’s policies are hurting Americans who are hammered with exploding inflation that is government inflicted? The suppression of free speech? Weakness and absence of leadership that has caused incalculable misery in a very dangerous world? The free flow of drugs and human trafficking on the southern border? The politicians including the President who have taken CCP money?

    If he is really our President then he should take a cognitive test and prove his capability. Will he not come out for an extended press conference alone and take spontaneous questions? Will he face rank and file citizens unplugged, no notes, no teleprompter and explain his hurtful actions?

    He can’t. Meanwhile real people are hurting. What is his administration’s answer? Create the ministry of truth and deputize the thought police.

    1. “Create the ministry of truth and deputize the thought police.”

      And why?

      Because they know that they cannot win on the battlefield of ideas.

  19. The forecast is near certain, the dems will get destroyed in November. The only question is how will they attempt to derail that inevitability – change course and adopt a popular platform? LOL. No, we are likely in for a crappy summer of manufactured crises and dissent, same old same old. Let’s just hope that they will not kill as many as they did previously when they roused the rabble.

    F’king ghouls.

  20. We are lucky right now, the lefties are combining arrogance with incompetence.

    But it won’t last forever.


    1. Translated, A new Comrade is in charge of fibbing to the public and Citizens on behalf of the Socialist party. Like we didn’t know that already?

    2. I’m not sure it won’t last forever. It has been that way since Woodrow Wilson. The lefties don’t change. What changes is our tolerance level.

      1. To the left, Woodrow Wilson was a hero and today ranked as one of the great Presidents.

        He suppressed dissent
        Imposed racial segregation
        Opposed a woman’s right to vote.

        I can understand why Wilson was and still is a hero of the left.

    3. MonoColo- your right about arrogance and incompetence (outright stupid) but I warn every freedom loving American, they’re not going to allow a fair midterm. They’re going to pull off another stunt to prevent a turnover their that arrogant.

Leave a Reply