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.
It is not just the laptop and whipping
An incomplete list of progressive disinformation found in major “news” outlets
The unvaxed are not responsible for COVID deaths under biden
Border patrol did not whip illegal immigrants
the Saudis did not give money to Jared Kushner
no Russian chemical weapons n Ukraine
Trump did not flush presidential records down the toilet
hunter did help finance Ukrainian Bioweapons labs
hunter’s laptop was not Russian disinformation
no Russian bounties
The 2020 election audits did not fail
Trump did not share classified information with the Russians
Trump did not call the coronavirus a hoax
no insurrection
no collusion
officer Sicknick was not murdered
Hunter’s other missing laptop was stolen by Russian drug dealers
Trump’s server was not a secret backdoor to putin
natural immunity exists
fauci lied about funding gain of function research
lab leak theory was not discredited
fbi heavily relied on hillary’s steele Russian propaganda to spy on trump
first Trump impeachment was because Trump asked Ukraine to assist in an active and still on-going fbi investigation of hunter
the second Trump impeachment was due to him inciting an “insurrection” that was not an insurrection
Excellent list. And the ‘hits’ (on truth and fact) just keep on coming.
Like we’re going to believe anything from a self confessed group o socialist fascists who can’t spell ‘fact.’ Then proves it every day. Worse is boring.
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
_______________________
There is no need for discussion.
The only issue here is the oath to support the Constitution that the Justices of the Supreme Court swore.
Any action abridging the freedom of speech must have been immediately struck down.
The assault on the Constitution must be stopped by the high court, or its members must be impeached and convicted with extreme prejudice.
Clearly and manifestly, the Constitution has been incrementally and inexorably ignored, nullified and voided since 1860.
Justice Taney immediately communicated to the tyrant, Lincoln, that he, Lincoln, had absolutely no power to suspend habeas corpus.
Lincoln’s entire Reign of Terror was unconstitutional and must have been struck down.
Taney may be the last Justice to do his duty and keep his oath to support the Constitution.
To wit,
“On May 26, Taney issued a writ of habeas corpus and ordered General George Cadwalader, Fort McHenry’s commander, to appear in the circuit courtroom along with Merryman and to explain his reasons for detaining Merryman.
“Cadwalader didn’t comply with the writ and instead sent a letter back to Taney on May 27 explaining that Lincoln had authorized military officers to suspend the writ when they felt there were public safety concerns. Taney then tried to notify Cadwalader that he was in contempt of court, but soldiers at Fort McHenry refused the notice.
“On May 28, Taney issued an oral opinion, which was followed by a written opinion a few days later. He stated that the Constitution clearly intended for Congress, and not the President, to have to power to suspend the writ during emergencies.
“’The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department,’ Taney argued. ‘I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power,’ Taney concluded.
“However, Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ in this case because of the nature of the conflict at hand. ‘I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,’ he said. But Taney did order that a copy of his opinion be sent directly to President Lincoln.'”
– Constitution Daily
One man’s Mary Poppins is another’s Fran Drescher. Everyone should call her the “Speech Nanny” or Nina “Nanny” Jankowicz.
Or First Nanny (like First Lady) of the Nanny State.
What did not get much attention is the comment and question that led to Mayorkis revealing the “just constituted mis and disinformation governing board.” Disinformation is being heavily targeted at Spanish-speaking voters, sparking and fueling conspiracy theories. DHS and it’s components play a big role in addressing mis and disinformation in Spanish and other languages. Can you share what steps you’ve taken and what future plans you have to address Spanish-language mis and disinformation through a department-wide approach?
Democrats are hemorrhaging Spanish-speaking voters and the DHS is weaponizing the agency to control the flow of information that demographic receives. Of course it’s not “racist” to believe the government must intervene on behalf of Spanish-speaking voters; that they lack the ability to discern fact from fiction. The irony is that this demographic, especially 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation Americans are likely better equipped to recognize government propaganda than natural-born Americans.
Jen Psaki accidently provides a textbook example of misinformation/disinformation, just in case it wasn’t clear what it looks like.
Well, let me give you a sense of who she is. She’s an expert on online disinformation. She was formerly in the Wilson Center as disinforma– she was formerly a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center. She’s testified before Congress, as well as the United Kingdom and European Parliament, advised a Ukrainian foreign minister, particularly relevant in this moment, under the auspices of a Fulbright Public Policy Fellowship and overseeing Russia and Belarus programs at the National Democratic Institute. Any hiring decisions are up to the Department of Homeland Security, but this is a person with extensive qualifications. What I will tell you about the, um, Board and what the Board is doing, this is a continuation of work that began at the Department of Homeland Security in 2020 under former President Trump.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2022/04/30/heres-your-disinformation-now-psaki-is-claiming-that-trump-started-bidens-thought-police-board-n1594156
Talking about disinformation the left has to be coached regarding their answers to questions in front of a committee.
Solomon says: “Ossoff, a freshman Democrat, fed his planned questions and even suggested an answer to Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristin Clarke ahead of two Senate Judiciary Committee hearings last fall.”
“Please let me know if you think AAG Clarke would have any trouble answering those (as in, whether it’d be hard for her to give a straight ‘yes’ to those and I can redirect them to someone on the second panel),” Ossoff’s general counsel Sara Schaumburg wrote to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Helaine A. Greenfeld
Stage managed: Senate Democrat fed question to DOJ witness, suggested answer ahead of hearings
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/OssofDOJ.pdf
Other fed questions:
OssoffQuestions-HeartburnEmail.pdf
Some people are foolish enough to believe these Democrat-led hearings are to find the truth. They aren’t, and that is why Democrats are being fed questions to make sure they can answer them without embarrassment.
JS writes: “Video of the hearing shows Ossoff asked some of the questions almost exactly as presented in the email, and Clarke’s answer to the poll workers protection question closely followed the script, even endorsing the senator’s legislation while adding some actions her boss, Attorney General Merrick Garland, took.”
All of this is pre-planned and doesn’t represent Congressional oversite.
Under what legitimate authority was this DGB (the similarity to KGB is duly noted) created? Does the Department of “Homeland Security” have the authority to just decide that a certain authority needs to be created and installed under its bailiwick? Will this “board” declare that the statements made by some of those members of Congress were disinformation (another word for “lies”)? And is there a more intellectually compromised member of the Cabinet than Mayorkas?
I still didn’t get to any questions about the Mary Poppins of disinformation.
Why a story of Border Patrol officers “whipping Haitian migrants at the southern border was utterly irresistible and eagerly embraced by many media and political figures” can only be understood if the embracing media and political figures were determined to sow division and to hell with the consequences. There really was no question — given the photographer’s statement about what he witnessed — that anything like a “whipping” had occurred. That the usual publicity-loving haters — Pressley, Schumer, Waters — should spew toxic accusations was not surprising — but the President joining in — and then, after the agents were cleared, refusing to apologize (“and Mayorkas has refused to publicly state that the agents were cleared”) absolutely takes the freakin’ cake. Unfortunately, none of these characters have neither the conscience nor care enough about the nation to be ashamed. But the public should shame them and call them out for what they are: bigots sowing hatred and destroying what little public trust remains in our institutions.
My double dip: yes, exactly. How do you all keep voting for this? I mean seriously, this is cognitive dissonance on a clinical level at this point. Is every left leaning patron of this site really so rich that nothing touches them? Do they realize there are 6 billion others of us at this point? Though i was not personally a fan of George W., Obama was likely the worst thing that has happened to this country since its founding. I struggle to think of a more evil politician since WWII. Except for a handful of folks like the Professor who seem to be hoping for a fairy godmother, the modern DNC is pretty much the old Third Reich, or if you prefer something milder, the USSR. This is not hyperbole or speculation or hearsay now. Come on. And they aren’t going to stop.
The Left’s Ministry of Truth: From Free Speech to Censorship in Two Political Generations
When the democratic party was guided by intellectuals such as Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., it openly embraced the value of free speech. 1A was their touchstone. Those democrat intellectuals routinely derided the attacks on free speech by, for example, multiculturalists and speech code advocates.
Tragically, those free speech intellectuals have been replaced in the democratic party by academics who openly reject free speech, such as Richard Rorty and Stanley Fish. Like Dr. Jekyll in the last stages of becoming Mr. Hyde, the Left’s better premises are dead. The old Left is now the new Fascists — with the oily Obama as the power behind the throne.
Obamas are that smart. The Democrats are controlled by some other quite evil people
Alejandro Mayorkas Said on CNN that the Disinformation Governance Board will not target American citizens. The opinions of American Citizens have already been targeted by the government when government officials have declared that the Hunter Laptop was just Russian disinformation. The Democratic Party stood idly by as the mention of the laptop was prohibited and anyone who mentioned the laptop was by inference deemed to be a traitor to his nation. Right Mayorkas, we all believe that the disinformation board will never be directed at an American citizen. The closest comparison in history that I can compare to Mayorkas is Bagdad Bob. The Iraq Disinformation Board was very successful.
“government officials have declared that the Hunter Laptop was just Russian disinformation”
If you’re referring to this letter — https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 — then it isn’t an example of the government targeting American citizens, as the people who wrote it were all private citizens when they wrote it. They also did not claim “the Hunter Laptop was just Russian disinformation.” They were clear that “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”
If you’re referring to actual government employees, do name them and quote what they said, so we can see if you’re telling the truth.
Eventually, the spin stops working, and people figure out you are twisting the truth along with deemphasizing it. In the process, your spin creates a new narrative that is a lie.
Anonymous, James Clapper and fifty disinformation specialist all said that the Hunter Laptop is Russian disinformation. Nina Jankowicz is a person inside the government who says that the Hunter Laptop is just Russian disinformation. Many Democrat Senators and Congressmen have said that the Hunter Laptop was just Russian disinformation. How much further proof do you need that states that those within the government fomented the idea that the laptop was just Russian disinformation. It was not just private citizens who were fanning the Russian flames. Once again just because you attempt to twist reality it doesn’t mean that you are speaking the truth. Once the government officials were under oath before congress they finally admitted that they could not prove any Russian involvement. Before their congressional testimony they spread the Russian conspiracy far and wide in their every appearance on CNN and MSNBC. As to people inside our government who were pushing the Russian collusion story I offer just one of the many. https://www.politico.eu/article/nancy-pelosi-on-donald-trump-with-him-all-roads-lead-to-russia-vladimir-putin/. I guess according to you Nancy Pelosi is not a person within the federal government. Here’s another Russian conspiracy dealer within the federal government, https://www.c-span.org/video/?473627-1/senator-schumer-intelligence-briefing-russian-bounties-plot. If you want more names of people who were not just citizens spreading the Russian hoax I’ll be more than happy to oblige.
“James Clapper and fifty disinformation specialist all said that the Hunter Laptop is Russian disinformation”
They didn’t.
They said “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”
So either you do not understand the difference, or — what I think it more likely — you’re choosing to lie about it.
“Nina Jankowicz is a person inside the government who says that the Hunter Laptop is just Russian disinformation.”
Yet you don’t quote her or give the date of whatever statement you’re referring to. As with your false claim about the statement made by the former national security experts, I won’t be surprised if your claim is meaningfully different than what she actually said, nor would I be surprised if she wasn’t working for the government when she made whatever statement you’re alluding to.
“How much further proof do you need that states that those within the government fomented the idea that the laptop was just Russian disinformation.”
The proof I need is for you to give their names, quote them, and show that they were employed by the government when they made the statement.
“you attempt to twist reality”
You’re looking in the mirror.
“As to people inside our government who were pushing the Russian collusion story …”
Do your arms ever get tired from moving the goalposts so far? You claimed “government officials have declared that the Hunter Laptop was just Russian disinformation,” and your links about Pelosi and Schumer are unrelated to the laptop.
Again: do you have evidence that “government officials have declared that the Hunter Laptop was just Russian disinformation”?
Once again Anonymous, I reiterate that people in the government fomented the Russian disinformation narrative. They did so many times before they had to admit that they had no proof that the Russians were involved when under oath before the congress. Twice you have stated that they said they had no proof but you leave out what they said before their testimony. Once they were under oath and in fear of the consequences of lying to Congress they finally came clean. You ask me to name names of people in government who are saying the laptop is Russian disinformation. Here are two more. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/mar/30/hunter-biden-laptop-russian-disinformation-democra/. You issued a challenge to me to give the names of people in government who are saying that the laptop is Russian disinformation. I have met your challenge and now I issue a challenge to you to offer your apology. I understand. It takes a big person to apologize.
I have nothing to apologize for.
You claimed “government officials have declared that the Hunter Laptop was just Russian disinformation,” and I asked you: “do you have evidence that ‘government officials have declared that the Hunter Laptop was just Russian disinformation’?”
You made some false claims en route (e.g., “James Clapper and fifty disinformation specialist all said that the Hunter Laptop is Russian disinformation”), but you have finally provided some evidence for your claim. Next time skip the false claims en route.
Think,
Your assessment is valid. Our experience [as citizens knowledgeable of history] is that power is the universal currency of government oppression and free speech is the enemy of that power. Those defending the weaponization of government against the people’s natural right to free speech are unquestionably enemies of the American people.
“We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience [as government intelligence officials] makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”
I wish this were a Babylon Bee story, but unfortunately it’s a thing:
H.R. 350, also known as the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act (DTPA) of 2022, is making its way through the House Judiciary Committee. It would give federal law enforcement agencies the power to classify as “domestic terrorism” whatever the federal government considers a “hate crime.” One of the new “domestic terrorism” agencies the bill would create would focus on “domestic terrorism matters that may also be hate crime incidents.”
These new “domestic terrorism” agencies would also “ensure that such programs include training and resources to assist…law enforcement agencies in understanding, detecting, deterring, and investigating acts of domestic terrorism and White supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of law enforcement and corrections agencies.”
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/02/bill-would-allow-feds-to-purge-u-s-military-and-local-police-using-charges-of-hate-crimes/
Authorities have, over the centuries, “protected” their polulaces from such dangerous sources of disinformation as
Socrates
Jesus Christ
Gallileo
Louis Pasteur
Charles Darwin
Among others.
I eagerly await Nina’s punishments for disinformation.
– She can start with herself for her lie about the LapTop and lie about the dossier
– Then punish JB for the same.
– Then the so called “50 intelligence” specialists who lied.
– Then punish ALMOST EVERY DEMOCRAT (especially Shiffty, Nadler, S Rice, Obama, HRC, Strock, McCabe, Ohr) for the massive fake dossier lie.
– Then every major new organization that spent 4 years lying about collusion, Cov., Catholic, BLM :mostly peaceful”, Covid lab leak, Justice Kavanaugh.
Is she thinking firing squad for all of this treasonous disinformation??? Or how about rounding them all up and putting them into re-education camps??
LGB!
That you believe something to be a lie does not guarantee that it was a lie.
For example, how about you quote the “lie” you claim came from “the so called “50 intelligence” specialists”?
Here’s a copy of what they actually said: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
If they actually lied, it shouldn’t be hard for you to quote the lie(s).
Lies are direct, by omission, falsification, and by insinuation. These people were unprofessional and clearly political operatives with an inane conspiracy theory. They were intent on making Joe Biden president which of course helped Russia as we see Russia and Putin emboldened by the weakness of Joe B. They publicly lied in their statement because they were political actors. Their fake letter was full of logical fallacies and bereft of facts.
Noone with actual national security cred, and with any critical thinking skills, would make a statement FOUR DAYS after the revelations that they are “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case” especially because they acknowledge they “do not have evidence of Russian involvement .” More indication that the 50 were liars and spreaders of disinformation is that these fake experts actually quote USA Today (?!*#@!) as a support of their conspiracy theory.
And as final proof that they political actors who consistently disseminated disinformation intent on influencing elections, they NEVER made claims against the entirely fake, and obviously false, Steele document, that was clear disinformation. NO – the primary signers, Clapper, Brennan, Hayden, Panetta spent four years lying about the Trump administration. So they are not only liars but incompetent liars.
Those are their lies … quoted for you. So should they be part of the punished for their treasonous lies? Firing squad or re-education camp?
“Lies are direct, by omission, falsification, and by insinuation.”
No, only some of that is lying. Lying is knowingly making a false statement with intent to deceive. If the statement omits something that you believe is important, but it wasn’t omitted with intent to deceive, that’s not a lie.
“Noone with actual national security cred, and with any critical thinking skills, would make a statement FOUR DAYS after the revelations that they are ‘deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case’ especially because they acknowledge they ‘do not have evidence of Russian involvement.’”
It’s your opinion, not a fact, that “Noone with actual national security cred, and with any critical thinking skills” would say what they did.
It’s my opinion that they when they said “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case,” they were clearly stating their opinion “our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case,” and forthright about the facts that “we do not know if the emails … are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.”
“Those are their lies … quoted for you.”
No, you didn’t quote any lies. Apparently you cannot.
“No, you didn’t quote any lies. Apparently you cannot.”
One cannot quote lies to a liar because to a liar, lies are the truth.
This was a disinformation operation, by professionals. They admitted to having no evidence but nonetheless framed the laptop story as having all the hallmarks of a Russian plant. They expressly cited their expertise, knowing that would have an impact. They are understood to have continuing access to classified information. Others with access, such as Adam Schiff, repeated the accusations. The mass media ran with it. Biden cited them in the debate. John Ratcliffe, then Director of National Intelligence, as well as the FBI, stated there was no evidence for this, but to no avail.
Without this professional disinformation operation the laptop story might not have been bottled up so effectively.
You can quibble about whether it should be called “lying” or not. That doesn’t much matter. It was a principal part of a professional disinformation campaign to legitimise the silencing of a true story damaging to the candidate they preferred.
Daniel,
Yes, “They admitted to having no evidence but nonetheless framed the laptop story as having all the hallmarks of a Russian plant.”
However, it’s your opinion that “This was a disinformation operation.”
My opinion is: it wasn’t a “disinformation operation.”
We should be able to agree on facts, and we should be able to distinguish between facts and opinions.
You seem to think that they were lying. Is that right?
I assume that they were telling the truth. Certainly you haven’t presented any evidence that what they said was false, much less that they **knew it to be false**.
Only a small fraction of the data that was ostensibly copied from the laptop — per a copy provided by a Giuliani associate — has been authenticated, and a non-zero fraction of that same data shows that it could not have been copied from the laptop prior to the laptop having been turned over to the FBI: https://web.archive.org/web/20220413073629/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/
We still do not know who left the laptop with the store owner.
It’s possible that they’re correct — that “the Russian government played a significant role in this case.” For example, the data that Giuliani passed along could easily be a mix of authentic (e.g., hacked from the cloud) and non-authentic data. I don’t know, and you don’t either. Can you agree that neither of us knows?
“You can quibble about whether it should be called “lying” or not.”
I don’t consider it a “quibble.” At all. My opinion is: it’s very significant whether what they said was false and whether they were attempting to deceive. I guess this is another area where you and I have different opinions, but again: we should be able to distinguish between opinion and fact.
The fact is, what is on the laptop is real until proven otherwise since it has been carefully assessed. The fact is that the laptop links Joe Biden to pay for play schemes and corruption. It links Biden to many of Hunter’s business partners and provides their emails.
It shows us that Biden lied repeatedly and that people assisted him in government. It also shows us why Biden shouldn’t be President and links him to the tens of thousands of deaths in Ukraine.
Finally, it and your own words tell us that you cannot stop lying.
The fact is, the laptop and hard drive are in the possession of the FBI, and you shouldn’t confuse Giuliani’s purported copies with the actual laptop and hard drive.
You’re the one who “cannot stop lying.” You are fond off attributing your own faults to others.
Is that the same FBI that violated FISA and was involved in the Whitmer kidnapping? What makes you think the copies held by others are any different from the originals? Don’t answer. I already know the answer. You attribute to others those wicked things you want to use to push your hateful ideas. You look at your friends, see what they do and then attribute those actions to those you wish to attack.
Tell us what existing on the laptop has been disproven? Has Hunter denied anything on the laptop? No. You are making things up. You are creating excuses without any basis.
Despite all the evidence mounted against you, you continue to lie like you always do because the truth is not on your side.
The trustworthyness of the laptop information was always testable, and it was well verified at the time of the NY Post story.
The contents were corroborated by many of the senders and recipients of the documents on it, and by independent documentation such as the hundreds of documents that John Sullivan and later Rudi Gulliani obtained – most through FOIA request from the State department.
“The portable drive provided to The Post contains 286,000 individual user files, including documents, photos, videos and chat logs.” Their experts were able to verify a minority of those data files, including ~22,000 emails, but “The vast majority of the data — and most of the nearly 129,000 emails it contained — could not be verified by either of the two security experts who reviewed the data for The Post.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20220413073629/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/
Only an ignorant or dishonest person would claim that “the laptop information … was well verified at the time of the NY Post story,” when the vast majority of the data files STILL haven’t been verified.
If you instead meant something like “some but far from all of the laptop information … was verified at the time of the NY Post story,” then learn to write accurately.
So Anonymous, are you now admitting that the Hunter latop is real and some of the content has been verified. Will wonders never cease. Now you’ve gone from saying that there was no proof that the laptop was hunter’s to now saying that only part of the laptop has been confirmed. You have finally come around to agreeing with The New York Times and The Washington post on the laptop being authenticated. Now you try to discredit the laptop by saying that only part of it has been found to be authentic. It may be that in this part of the day your favorite song “Whiskey River Take My Mind” is playing on the Jufebox.
Ti T.
“Now you’ve gone from saying that there was no proof that the laptop was hunter’s to now saying that only part of the laptop has been confirmed. ”
We still don’t have proof that the laptop and hard drive were dropped off by Hunter Biden or belonged to Hunter Biden. We only have proof that some of the files on a copy of Giuliani’s copy of the laptop hard drive have been authenticated. That you either do not understand the difference or are choosing to ignore the difference is unsurprising.
The quote above is accurate. The whole statement was crafted to avoid directly pinning it on Russia (because no proof has ever existed) while pinning it on Russia based on…? The media was only too happy run with it.
Classic WashDC diplo/double-talk.
I make this assertion based upon the declaration of the final sentence “We do not know whether these press reports are accurate, but they do suggest concern within Executive Branch departments and agencies that mirrors ours. It is high time that Russia stops interfering in our democracy.”
So the logic was “We have no proof this is Russian disinformation but they need to stop interfering in our democracy by spreading disinformation on HB’s laptop”. Rich stuff indeed and they’re all going to get away with it.
“No, you didn’t quote any lies. Apparently you cannot.”
Apparently, you refuse to see that the entire piece was a sleazy, dishonest attempt to protect Biden and harm Trump.
Those 50 were good little “political officers.” And you are their Apologist.
Easy. One is an ham’n egger the other is a lawyer or attorney.
The original writer is a racism
The depth of your discipleship and dizzying delusions is truly stunning. Russia helped Trump cheat his way into office so that Trump could help Putin: 1. gain credibility as something other than the sociopathic murderer he is; 2. get Russia back into the G7 by having Trump lobby for this; 3. help damage or destroy NATO and the EU because they support democracy. The proof of these things is well-established. The Mueller investigation and the separate Republican Senate investigation establish that Russia helped Trump cheat by using information provided by Trump’s campaign to spread lies about Hillary Clinton in key districts that if they turned from supporting Hillary to Trump, would overcome the popular vote. That’s known as cheating by collusion with a hostile foreign power, and it worked, which is why Trump will NEVER be legitimate. Trump’s siding with Putin over American intelligence at Helsinki is on video, and is shocking, as is the public knowledge that Trump lobbied to get Russia back into the G-7. Trump has NO credibility with other world leaders, so there was no way he could carry water for Putin, because the rest of the world also knows that Trump is just a loudmouthed, braggadocious narcissist, hungry for power, praise and adulation.
Trump’s trashing of the EU and NATO are also well-established. He supported Brexit. Trump trashed NATO as a prelude to withdrawing the US from NATO if he could have cheated his way back into office a second time, something Putin very much wants, as it would weaken NATO, just like Putin tried to help LePen get elected in France because she promised to withdraw France from NATO. THESE THINGS ARE PROVEN FACTS. Putin was emboldened by the weakness and narcissism of Trump, who was vulnerable to being a Russian pawn because he wanted to borrow money from Russian oligarchs and US banks won’t lend due to his proven record of business failures, plus the fact that Trump can’t stand to lose. Putin took advantage of Trump’s weakness, business failures and narcissism. Putin believed that Trump had trashed the US’s relations with other countries so badly that a coalition could not be pulled together to resist his advances in Ukraine, which would have been true if Trump could have pulled off the coup he attempted after he lost in 2020, but that flopped, too. Boy, was Putin ever wrong! Biden did what Trump couldn’t do: The relations and communications between NATO allies are stronger than ever before, and Finland and Sweden are wanting to join NATO. Even the Vatican is getting involved, something it didn’t do in WW 2. The world’s democracies are helping Ukraine stand up to Putin. Trump would have helped Putin, if he could have cheated his way back into power, but the American people said “NO” to Trump. If you doubt that Trump would have done everything in his power to help Putin, then explain to me why he publicly praised Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “savvy, smart, and genius”.
Natacha, Putin said that he wanted Trump to win. Do you think that his statement helped or hurt Trumps chances. Putin knew that the useful idiots would take his statement to mean that Trump was on the side of the Russians. Then there you were taking the Russian bait. When Putin lays his head on the pillow at night he chuckles at the thought of such useful idiots.
Ti T,
Russia hacked the DNC servers and released data timed to benefit Trump. Roger Stone — who worked with Trump’s campaign — was in touch with Guccifer 2 about that timing, and Trump publicly called for it.
Russia ran troll farms designed to depress Democratic turnout to benefit Trump. Paul Manafort — who worked with Trump’s campaign — provided campaign polling data to help with this.
“there you [Natacha] were taking the Russian bait”
That would be you, Ti T.
Natacha, you wrote earlier that no one in government said that the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. I offered two examples of people in government who said the laptop was Russian disinformation. Here is a direct quote from Adam Schiff. We know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin. That’s been clear for well over a year now that they’ve been pushing this false narrative about this vice president and his son,” said Schiff.
Ti T,
I am not Natacha.
“I offered two examples of people in government who said the laptop was Russian disinformation.”
Prior to now, I don’t see where you quoted anyone — in the government at the time of the quote — about the laptop.
As for your new 2020 quote from Schiff, it was an exchange with Wolf Blitzer, and Blitzer asked Schiff about “this information Rudy Giuliani is peddling.” We already know that the Giuliani has passed along “copies” of the laptop hard drive that contain a mix of authenticated content, content that post-dates when the laptop and hard drive were turned over to the FBI (which means that content was added by some unknown person(s) later), and content whose authenticity is unknown, where file data is corrupted.
Was Schiff lying? I don’t know. My guess is that he believed what he said.
Your not “natacha” – do I detect an an unwillingness to be affiliated with bat$hit crazy.
With respect to the rest of your reply – SO WHAT ?
Knowingly or not Schiff has been pretty much Universally wrong about pretty much everything. He is either is eitehr a moron or a liar.
Further Schiff takes aim at Gulliani and you follow.
I do not know if Gulliani add material to his copies of the laptop – nor do you, nor do I suspect does Schiff.
Regardless, unless Gulliani did that AND represented it as material from the Biden laptop – SO WHAT ?
Oddly you and Schiff are still flogging Gulliani AFTER he has clearly been exonerated of all you stupid claims.
The information from the laptop is real – it was know by all but morons to be real in Oct 2020 – it was corroborated against people who sent or received the correspondence on the laptop.
But more than that – it corroborated and was corroborated by the hundreds of independently acquired documents that Guiliani and John Sullivan before him used to make their claims against the Biden’s. BTW a significant portions of the pre laptop proof of Biden family corruption came from FOIA request to the US State department.
I do not care where the supposed experts claiming the laptop was disinformation came from – they are either liars or morons.
Regardless, they are NOT people who ever should have important roles in our government.
The new head of the “ministry of truth” among them.
The NOW president of the united states was confronted in the presidential debates by the then president with the evidence that he and his family were corrupt, and he responded by LYING, and the press and social media covered that up.
Schiff is STILL part of the coverup – again, he is either a moron or a liar or possibly both.
Your defense does not alter that one iota.
Your not “natacha” – do I detect an an unwillingness to be affiliated with bat$hit crazy.
🤡
Natacha, please provide any proof that you have that Russia hacked the DNC computers. The Democrats have tried to sell the idea that the Russians hacked their computer but they have never offered any definative proof that it was the Russians. Paul Manafort provided internal polling data to the Ukranians not the Russians. Do you think the internal polling data was much different from the polling data that could be found publicly? Then you say that Russia ran troll farms to depress the Democratic vote. You don’t present any evidence of what was said by these troll farms because you have no such evidence. You have no copies of anything that was said by these trolls. The Democrats called on Russians to meet with Trump Jr. I stand by my statement. However, you have not only taken the Russian bait but you have also swallowed the Democratic worm hook line and sinker. Adam Schiff told you that it was Russian disinformation and you dutifully bowed at his feet. The description of useful idiot still applies.
Not the Russia hacked the DNC thing again ?
Bzzt, wrong.
There is very little that is known with certainty regarding the release of DNC emails.
The DNC was hacked – twice. They were also infected with TWO viruses of Russian origen that allowed outside access to their system.
Both of those viruses have been in the wild for a long time – as well as similar tools from china, the US, Israel, and have all been used by a wide variety of hackers who are not Russia to hack systems.
The US was responsible for putting StuxNet on Irainian systems. We know this because of Snowden. The US deliberately made Stuxnet look like it came from Israel.
It has not been possible to trace a virus to its source for a long long time absent a trustworthy leak from the inside.
Guicifer 2.0 has been thoroughly debugged as the source – he provided nothing that was not publicly available before the DNC hack.
Crowdstrike experts – the only people with forensic access to the DNC servers testified in congress that not only was the origen of the hack unknowable – but that it was not even possible to know that the DNC emails were exfiltrated by hack or leak.
VIPS – retired NSA experts analzied the leaked material and established with a very high confidence level that it was released via leak not hack.
Tell you what, John, I’ll provide evidence to you of Russia having hacked the DNC after you present evidence to me of your repeated claim that “One Kavanaugh protestor who took an AXE to a senators door – had the axe returned.” I’ve now asked you for evidence multiple times, and each time you’ve ignored it. If you’re going to ignore my request for evidence, then I will respond in kind.
“I’ll provide evidence to you of Russia having hacked the DNC after you present evidence to me of your repeated claim that “One Kavanaugh protestor …”
We are seeing ATS’s comments evolve into the stupid. He was wrong last time, so his deal is a lie. He has nothing to offer but lies and deceit.
As always, Allan S. Meyer describes himself: “he has nothing to offer but lies and deceit.”
Anonymous the Stupid, I didn’t make the stupid comments, you did.
It’s like clockwork. When you ask Anonymous for evidence to support something she answers with something like, ‘ll present evidence of this or that if you present evidence of this or that”. It would be far easier for Anonymous just to present the evidence to substantiate her claim and by so doing proove that someone else is mistaken. Instead she deflects. Earlier today Anonymous said that no one in the government has said that the laptop was Russian disinformation. I presented links that showed that Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff said that the laptop was Russian disinformation. Crickets make more noise than her response. She makes a knee jerk statement and then spends the rest of the day defending her position. She just waits for the dust to settle and then she just moves on to something else thinking that none off us will remember. When we do remember she just says that she never said any such thing. Why does it matter? Because she is spreading her propaganda to the young people of our nation and she needs to be contested.
Ti T,
You’re lying when you say “Earlier today Anonymous said that no one in the government has said that the laptop was Russian disinformation.” I did not say that.
You claimed “government officials have declared that the Hunter Laptop was just Russian disinformation,” and I asked you: “do you have evidence that ‘government officials have declared that the Hunter Laptop was just Russian disinformation’?”
Asking you for evidence of your claim is not the same as asserting that your claim is false.
“I presented links that showed that Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff said that the laptop was Russian disinformation. Crickets make more noise than her response.”
BS. I responded to your comments about Schumer and Schiff.
It’s your opinion that I’m “spreading propaganda,” and it’s my opinion that you are. People’s opinions often differ.
“If you’re going to ignore my request for evidence, then I will respond in kind.”
This is like the sickness of an addict. Always blame someone else. That is what you do, ATS. You blame everyone else.
No Russia did not run Troll Farms.
The IRA – the supposed russian troll farms spent a miniscule amount of resources, to send out awfully stupid campaign adds – mostly AFTER the election that approximately equally supported Sanders, Trump and Clinton.
They had no impact whatsoever on the election.
If you believe this nonsense – then you should be able to provide the adds, emails, FB posts etc to support your claim – and the evidence regarding how many people actually received them.
Mueller indicted 3 Russian companies related to this – not expecting that they would try and defend themselves – but they did,
And the indictments were dissmissed by courts in New York for failure to present ANY evidence to back up the claims.
i.e. Mueller did not have enough evidence of russian interference to get in the door of a courtroom, much less get a conviction.
You do understand that the Steele Dossier was a HOAX, the Alpha bank nonsense a HOAX ?
Why would you trust the same people who sold you those as truth ?
It is not the responsibility of the rest of us to debunk every single lie that you have chosen to beleive when the sources of your lies are well known liars.
Was not against theaw in Russia at that time before or after. Check and mate.
“We are proud to welcome Hunter to our Ministry of Tr– um, our Disinformation Governance Board,” said Jankowicz. “As the victim of a Russian disinformation campaign that claimed his laptop held evidence of horrific sexual crimes and international corruption resulting in tens of millions of dollars being funneled to the Biden family, he is uniquely equipped to speak to these issues.”
https://babylonbee.com/news/hunter-biden-receives-50k-per-month-salary-for-seat-on-disinformation-governance-board
In other “news”: “One of our disinformation detectors picked up an unusually strong signal coming from a mysterious white building in the National Mall at our nation’s capital,” said Head Disinformation Detective Harry Pomquank. “We’re not sure what’s causing it, so we’ve dispatched an elite squad of Disinformation Investigators to find out.”
Sources say the investigators found a doddering old man shuffling around in his loafers talking about the time he hiked through the Himalayas with President Xi, a Press Secretary claiming inflation is all Putin’s fault, and an HHS Secretary talking about how little girls can become little boys.
“Looks like this was a false alarm. We’ll have to calibrate our disinformation detectors,” said Pomquank.
If they rename the Disinformation Governance Board as the Knowledge Governance Board, they will have a more descriptive agency title, and an acronym everyone would immediately understand: KGB.
The vital U.S. Supreme Court case the nation needs now on the First Amendment censoring would be “Janet Jackson v. FCC”. Pertaining to her 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.
The material points of the case was that the technology of “30 second delay” censoring, by a private company, existed at the time for live broadcasts. So the private company had the tools to censor what American families were viewing.
The FCC, in the 1970’s, since government has no censoring authority under the First Amendment, struck a deal with Hollywood executives that the private companies would label content (PG, R, Violence, Nudity, etc) so that “parents” (not government officials) were empowered with censoring authority.
The results of the 2004 Super Bowl show actually went into a very different direction. The FCC punished Janet Jackson, not the television network who already had the time-delay censoring technology to prevent this from happening. Jackson was also blacklisted by the industry – responsible for it happening. Basically, the least culpable person received the harshest penalty from an agency not allowed to violate the First Amendment.
Jackson today could very easily hire a free constitutional attorney (ie: ACLU, Institute for Justice, etc) for a landmark censoring ruling on First Amendment activity and how far Congress can allow an executive branch agency to censor. Once Jackson easily wins the constitutional lawsuit, she could follow up with a civil case for damages.
Delete the dorky picture.
Not sure if Nina Jankowicz is aware of this TV show: “Girls Gone Wild”
Joe Francis claims he was producing art. A TV series launched in 1997 & made $20 million dollars in 2 years…..And then some.
It was not a TV show. Joe Francis sold DVD’s thru infomercials. Went to jail for various offenses too.