Global Disinformation Index Withholds Information on its Own Operations

Gabe Kaminsky at the Washington Examiner is reporting that two U.S. nonprofit groups tied to the Global Disinformation Index are withholding information on their operations to protect staff and donors. The redactions of names from 2021 IRS tax returns is being justified on the basis that the GDI is being harassed by critics. It is an ironic move since, as discussed in earlier columns, the GDI targeted and blacklisted conservative groups to drain them of revenue and support.

As discussed earlier, the British group ranked sites to warn people about high-risk disinformation sites. The ten most dangerous disinformation sites turned out to be conservative publications or Internet sites like Reason. Conversely, HuffPost made the top list of the most trustworthy for potential advertisers.

The GDI is designed to steer advertisers and subscribers away from certain sites, working with “advertisers and the ad tech industry in assessing the reputational and brand risk when advertising with online media outlets and to help them avoid financially supporting disinformation online.” The State Department partially funded the effort. The Biden Administration gave $330 million to The National Endowment for Democracy, which partially supports the GDI’s budget.

So the GDI actively sought to target other sites to organize opposition among advertisers, but now is withholding information to prevent a similar backlash against its own operations.

The private AN Foundation, also known as the Disinformation Index Foundation, and its affiliated public charity, Disinformation Index Inc., redacted copies of their 2021 IRS tax returns. A lawyer cited a coordinated “harassment campaign” to justify the redactions.

Some of the information was known from prior disclosures. For example, GDI CEO Clare Melford and its executive director, Daniel Rogers, are listed interchangeably in Delaware corporate records and other forms list Jo Jenks as treasurer. Other records reportedly list Melford as secretary, and Rogers as president.

Other information was removed, including the redaction of who gave a $115,000 donation for this work.

GDI also removed the list of its advisory panel members from its site. Again, these individuals were perfectly willing to participate in the blacklisting of conservative groups but appear to insist on anonymity for themselves. The panel reportedly included Finn Heinrich, a division director at the George Soros-funded Open Society Foundations grant-making network, according to his LinkedIn account.

As the recipient of federal funds, the lack of transparency is troubling and is likely to be the focus of inquiries from House committees.


172 thoughts on “Global Disinformation Index Withholds Information on its Own Operations”

  1. not surprising. The sad part, progressives – despite knowing government created, funds, and uses it to spread disinformation – still believe these “independent” organizations.

    1/2 the population is below average in intelligence.

  2. Today, Trump wrote: “My company and overall value is actually far stronger and higher than shown in the so-called Financial Statement.”

    So he’s confessing that he’s guilty of undervaluing his assets, paying less taxes than he legally owed.

    It’s literally the crux of Letitia James’ civil tax fraud case against him.

    Also, “My company and overall value is actually far stronger and higher [but I need money for my legal defense fund so please keep sending me your money you putzes!]

    1. no stupid. There are reporting rules. if you overstate the value, you are guilty of fraud – see the nonsense about overvaluing the properties an bank applications.

      you idiots scream CRIME at everything

      he over values the property – CRIME, he under values the property – CRIME

      both cant be true in the real world

      Nevermind the city/state has an assessment value they use for taxes – not Trump’s value

      try to think. This is just tiresome.

      1. “both cant be true in the real world”

        Sure they can. It’s not a crime to state an accurate value, neither overvaluing nor undervaluing.

        1. No stupid, you can not simultaneously undervalue and overvalue property. Even you should be able to understand that.

          1. You’re moving the goalposts. The claim was “he over values the property – CRIME, he under values the property – CRIME”

            Both overvaluing and undervaluing be crimes.

      2. The value of one’s property is what another is willing to pay for it and you are willing to sell it for. After the transaction we have a selling price but the value to others might be more or less.

  3. Ok the Kid (21yr. old) deliberately and knowingly broke the laws & rules.
    Will he be given the Julian Assange treatment, the Chelsea Manning treatment, the Rosenberg Treatment, ??? – We’ll See

    Russia, Russia, Russia, …
    From the start of 911 (September 11 attacks)and following, TSA Screeners would ‘profile’ Individuals with a particular-profile that would encompass a Middle Eastern profile,
    Name, Olive Complexion, Dress Style, etc… These Individuals would be ‘scrutinized’ closer, with deeper examinations (searches and questioning) as well as being Oogled by fellow Travelers once on the Planes.

    Today I am just amazed that TSA has not stepped up the ‘same treatment’ of People of Russian profile. Name, White Complexion, Dress Style, etc…

    If you were to observe Travelers Today, one would certainly see that there are a great many of possible White Complexioned Russian Terrorist dressed to blend in all over Our Airports. They all need to be ‘Screened’ with closer examinations. Total major security collapse – Right?

    It’s hard not to see how patently bias the U.S. Government is (The Ethnic Prejudice),
    when it comes to pushing an agenda of War policies for their benefit.

    The Russians are coming, The Russians are coming, The Russians are coming, … NOT
    They’re already here. (And Their all over the Airports and Country – O.M.G.)

  4. Just one comment down is an ‘Anonymous’ Russian troll cheering that leaker of Pentagon secrets. And interestingly, said troll sounds just like the Bl0g St00ge.

  5. “The New York Times and Washington Post helped the federal government track down a whistle blower who leaked truthful information about a potential third world harm, this truth telling was deemed was harmful to the regime.
    It’s all “state media,”

    Yup. Also tells us the leaks about Ukraine war and American troop involvement are true. Biden admin is lying…..again.

    1. Whistleblowers go through channels. Whistleblowing is legal.

      This guy leaked classified info. He broke the law.

      1. “Look how fast the federal govt took down a guy who exposed the lies on the Ukraine War but it’s been a year since the Dobbs leak in the middle of an election year and the govt hasn’t done a thing about it

        Are you paying attention yet?”

        1. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who made the choice about the Dobbs leak, not the DOJ or FBI.

        1. “Other members of Teixeira’s server have showed The Post video of Teixeira shouting racist and antisemitic slurs before firing a rifle and said he referenced government raids at Ruby Ridge in Idaho and in Waco, Tex.”

          No wonder you like him.

            1. Anti-semitism comes from both the right and the left. Teixeira is on the right, defended by Marjorie Taylor Greene. You think she’d be lauding someone on the left, LOL.

              1. Your response has nothing to do with the bulk of anti-semitism. Most significant anti-Semitism comes from the left. You can start with Ihlan Omar and move to Farrakhan. Then you can go to the colleges and see how the leftist students are acting.

                You are blind and likely deaf as well.

          1. I am more interested in hearing about what the kid leaked.
            But of course you are seduced (again) by the fake news/state media into focusing on details about the leaker…
            instead of talking about the *actual government crimes, Biden admin lies* that the leaks revealed.

            And yes, the kid is a hero.

      2. “Whistleblowers should remember that internal reporting channels exist to benefit the company, rather than the individual reporting misconduct. Whistleblowers should not make any disclosures internally until after they consult a whistleblower attorney. With the help of a whistleblower attorney, whistleblowers can report to law enforcement.” from “Whistleblowers Should Avoid Internal Reporting Channels”, National Whistleblower Center,

        1. Your site also says “There is a large framework of laws and executive orders that govern whistleblowers in the intelligence community, including Executive Order 12731, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, the Inspector General Act, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Presidential Policy Directive 19 (“Protecting Whistleblowers with Access to Classified Information”), and the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.”

          Teixeira did not act legally.

          1. Excuse me for not accepting your legal opinion. In any event, it is not relevant. Even if he is not officially “a Whistleblower”, he is in fact an actual whistleblower because he has revealed secret information of great moment to the country, esp. the fact that we seem to have troops in Ukraine, thus opening up the door to direct conflict with Russia and even a nuclear war. Instead of facing these facts, our MSM want to malign and silence him, while arguing about legal language.

            1. You’re the one who chose that site. I simply quoted from it and pointed out that Teixeira didn’t abide by those laws.

              And yes, it’s absolutely relevant to whether he broke the law, which is what I was commenting on.

              “the fact that we seem to have troops in Ukraine”

              You seem to assume that the documents have not been modified in any way. I don’t assume that. I’ll wait for independent confirmation.

              1. ” they’re not combat troops”

                What are combat troops? The answer, trained military personal. What does your article say? “U.S. sent military personnel to Ukraine”

                1. Troll,
                  Read the entire sentence: “While the U.S. sent military personnel to Ukraine, those individuals were strictly there to conduct inspections of U.S. weapons deliveries and serve as embassy security, not to fight in the conflict as combatants.”

                  1. Anonymouos – Sending military advisers to South Vietnam led us into the Vietnam War. Sending “volunteers” to China led us into the Second World War. Sending military aid to the UK and France led us into the WW I. It is naive to believe that we can insure that a military presence in Ukraine will not lead to a direct conflict with Russia.

                    1. I didn’t claim that we can ensure that.

                      But it’s a fact that the small number of non-combat troops was already publicly known, so you’re just wrong about “he is in fact an actual whistleblower because he has revealed secret information of great moment to the country, esp. the fact that we seem to have troops in Ukraine.” He’s not the one who revealed THAT, so THAT is not whistleblowing on his part.

                  2. “those individuals were strictly there to conduct inspections of U.S. weapons deliveries “

                    You are calling me a troll, but all you have done is copy the text of an article from Newsweek that has been wrong on major issues more times than it has been correct. The people under question sent were trained military personnel. Why weren’t they private citizens? What did Newsweek say when we sent “advisors” to Vietnam? Were these military personal accountants, or were they trained in using military armaments? You don’t think very deeply, do you, but you draw conclusions continuously without knowing the facts.

      1. how exciting – an arrest warrant. Now we just need a search warrant and an indictment. Later, he can be put in a jail cell with Julian Assange.

        1. No, not “an arrest warrant.” The arrest warrant / criminal complaint affidavit, as is clearly stated on the document.

          This slightly longer doc shows the search warrant #s:
          If you want more, nothing is stopping you from looking it up.

          The criminal complaint identifies the crimes:
          8 U.S.C. §793(b) and (d) – Unauthorized retention and transmission of national defense information
          18 U.S.C. §1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

          1. I wonder what the difference is between him and Hunter Biden.

            Oh wait, I know, Hunter received money and Joe Biden was the 10% guy.

      2. From the arrest warrant: “I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation “

        What does that tell us? Think of Michael Flynn, think of raids on Stone with CNN along for the ride, and think of all the cr-p the FBI is involved in. Think of how the FBI sat on Hunter’s laptop.

        One can no longer trust the FBI or the media that has worked with the FBI. Democrats have made organizations meant to protect our citizens into an organization similar to the special police forces of despotic nations.

    2. Could you imagine the NYT VOLUNTARILY helping the Feds identify and track down Ellsberg for the Pentagon Papers. My, how the leopard has changed it’s spots.

    3. Glenn Greenwald has an interesting discussion of the role of the NYT and WP in outing the whistelblower for the benefit of the FBI — while the NYT and WP were also using the information he revealed! “Servants of Power: WaPo & NYT Hunt Down Ukraine-Docs Leaker—Doing the FBI’s Work for Them” com/ watch?v=PxDp6U29tKc. Despite what may be written by blog commentators, the leak contains new information about the conduct of the government.

      1. The FBI identified Teixeira before the NYT or WP did. Read the documents submitted to the court.

  6. Well, stone-throwing glass house dwellers are good business for the plywood industry.

  7. The redactions are the issue for concerned citizens and the problem for the nonprofit. When federal funds are accepted by a nonprofit to run its operations, transparency ought to be a given. It is why the IRS allows for only “harassment campaigns” and “coordinated efforts to disrupt” a nonprofit’s operations as exceptions. Unless there are numbers of others beside the Washington Examiner seeking information required by law to be revealed, the argument that this is a harassment campaign and/or a coordinated effort to disrupt is tenuous. It is noteworthy as well that IRS rules make no reference to redactions, making it more likely than not that an IRS complaint filed against both nonprofit groups will succeed.

    1. I’m b for reasonable disclosure but when it comes to the left having to disclose things ATS is against that.

      Hypocrisy = ATS.

    2. “A federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to disclose the details of most real estate sales over $1,000. Thomas never disclosed his sale of the Savannah properties. That appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica.”

      1. One can’t trust your analysis because you are so frequently wrong or you lie. Find a better source. I’m interested in the problem but I bet Thomas did not violate the rule.

        1. S Meyer- you are justified in being skeptical. All of the breathless articles I have read from the usual suspects refer to Watergate-era ethics laws that may apply to Thomas. But I have not yet been able to find any law that purports to apply to S. Ct. Justices, The closest I can find is the following in the Code of Federal Regulations: PART 2634 – EXECUTIVE BRANCH FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, QUALIFIED TRUSTS, AND CERTIFICATES OF DIVESTITURE. This regulation does seem to require disclosure of land sales involving over $1000. See Sec. 2634.303 (a), But of course, Justice Thomas is not a member of the Executive Branch. In fact, he is not an “employee” of any branch of the government. This seems to be another hysterical episode from the Left. Thomas is always “guilty”, just as Donald Trump is always “guilty.” Just fill in the blank. I also note in the articles that the house in question was sold by Thomas and his relatives together. It may be the residence of his mother. If so, the sale is execmpted from disclosure under Sec 2634.303(a).

          1. “S Meyer- you are justified in being skeptical.”

            Ed, I generally assume a conclusion that lacks logic is a lie. If a liar like ATS provides the facts, my initial presumption is doubly true.

            “It may be the residence of his mother.”

            That was my initial thought (Thomas was not the title holder). Liars like ATS take some truth and mix it with untruths. ATS does that frequently because he is a liar.

            Thank you for your legal knowledge and the commentary you provide.

          2. Curious – I though a Supreme Court Judge was an employee of… The judicial branch?

            He is subject to the “Watergate era ethics law”

              1. A SCOTUS Justice is not the King of England.

                If Kagan had been caught taking secret yacht vacations and land sales with George Soros, every single Republican in the country would have called for her resignation.

              2. I didn’t realize we had hereditary succession of SCOTUS justices in this country?

                Come on, man. Of course, a Supreme Court Justice is an employee of the federal government subject to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Failing to disclose a sale of real estate of above $1000 was a violation of federal law.

                Whether you think a violation of federal law is significant or not, is an entirely different question and worthy of fair arguments on both sides. But, please don’t keep your head in the sand on the initial question of whether a violation of federal law actually occurred.

            1. A link is not evidence someone else is wrong. It is evidence that the person using just the link doesn’t have sufficient knowledge and understanding to debate the subject.

              That is generally the case with our most prolific linker ATS.

                1. Whether a bot or not the statement was true. ATS doesn’t have sufficient knowledge and understanding to debate the subject.

                  1. The disclosure law is pretty straightforward.
                    – Was there a sale of real property not used as Justice Thomas’s personal residence? Yes.
                    – Was the sale more than $1K? Yes.
                    – Was the sale to someone other than family? Yes.

                    What knowledge would you deem “sufficient” for debating this subject?

                    For reference, the statute (because “links” apparently have special significance):

                    “(5)Transactions.—Except as provided in this paragraph, a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange during the preceding calendar year which exceeds $1,000—
                    (A)in real property, other than property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual’s spouse; or
                    (B)in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other forms of securities.
                    Reporting is not required under this paragraph of any transaction solely by and between the reporting individual, the individual’s spouse, or dependent children.”

                    1. “The disclosure law is pretty straightforward.
                      – Was there a sale of real property not used as Justice Thomas’s personal residence? Yes.”

                      Let’s analyze your point. Firstly, has Thomas or a representative of his stated that he erred regarding disclosure. If he did, we know the answer. If he didn’t we have to assume him innocent or prove him guilty. Not a big deal but you have to end up with a clear cut case. If Ed wishes he can enter with his ideas and knowledge of the law.

                      What is your proof that the real property sold was owned by Thomas or solely by Thomas? What is the date of the rule?. What is the date Thomas entered into the negotiation? What prior contractural agreements, if any, were there involving that property?

                    2. “What is your proof the real property sold was owned by Thomas or solely by Thomas”

                      Did you read the ProPublica article? They have Justice Thomas’s signature on the Warranty Deed, transferring the property to one of Crow’s companies. Crow also responded to journalists, acknowledging the transfer of property.


                      “What is the date of the rule?” By “rule,” I assume you mean the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. 1978.

                      “What is the date Thomas entered into the negotiation?” 2014.

                      “What contractual agreements, if any, were there involving that property?” See above.

                      All of these questions have already been answered. Anything else?

                      This is indeed very straightforward.

                    3. “This is indeed very straightforward.”

                      No, it is not. One of my questions was: “What is your proof that the real property sold was owned by Thomas or solely by Thomas?”

                      It wasn’t owned solely by Thomas, so the question now arises, what was Thomas’s involvement? For all you know, Thomas had no involvement in the sale except for a required signature.. Your data doesn’t even tell us if he received any money. They can all be family, and the land could be a part of a family trust transferring the assets to others. The decision to sell might have been in other hands, and we do not know if any recipients were dependent children.

                      What you think is clear, isn’t. You are a superficial individual.

                2. No, it’s an automatic response from a troll who also posts under the name S Meyer and who used to post under the name Allan. He hates anonymous liberal commenters whom he collectively calls “ATS” and regularly responds with lies and insults.

                  1. Once again, your observations are incorrect Anonymous the Stupid.

                    “He hates anonymous liberal commenters “

                    Untrue. Most of the focus is against one individual, known as ATS. Why? I’ll start with your deception and lies. I’ll add that you are as much of a blood-sucking Stalinist as anyone I have met face to face. Finally, you are stupid though you pretend with links and sea lionizing that you aren’t.

                    On the other hand, I support our liberal host, who leads the discussions with op-eds daily. You perceive your job is to tear him down with your own stupidity. For that abominable behavior, I also don’t like you.

                    As far as the rare mistake in calling another ATS on a few occasions, it doesn’t matter, for when they mimic what you say while being anonymous, they are ATS for the moment. You, on the other hand, are permanently ATS and think that stating others act as stupidly as you do, makes you smart. That perception makes you even dumber.

Leave a Reply