Free Speech

Nina Jankowicz's Faulty Record, Not Her Critics, Doomed the Disinformation Board

And The Washington Post's wildly one-sided account of Jankowicz's fall was an exercise in government PR.

|

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has placed a "pause" on the newly-minted Disinformation Governance Board; its first executive director, Nina Jankowicz, has resigned.

The board's existence, which was announced just three weeks ago, prompted serious concerns from many civil libertarians and inspired Ministry of Truth comparisons. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas tried—and largely failed—to address these concerns by noting that the board would serve in merely an advisory capacity and not have any actual power to police speech. That the Disinformation Governance Board did a bad job of communicating information about itself did not exactly instill confidence, and evidently DHS has now realized that the entire project is a bad idea.

It's unclear whether plans for the board will be un-paused in the future; Jankowicz had initially decided to resign, reconsidered when she was told the pause might be temporary, and then ultimately left anyway.

This news comes from an exclusive report by The Washington Post's Taylor Lorenz, whose scoop is buried underneath layers of pro-government verbiage. Lorenz's story excessively flatters Jankowicz—she is glamorized as "well-known" in the field, having "extensive experience," and "well-regarded" in just the first two paragraphs—while ignoring legitimate criticism of this so-called expert's track record. Indeed, there is zero mention, none whatsoever, of the fact that Jankowicz was flagrantly wrong about the pivotal "disinformation" episode of the 2020 election cycle: the Hunter Biden laptop story.

For WaPo, the story is not that DHS shuttered the Disinformation Governance Board—the real story is that right-wing "coordinated online attacks" achieved this outcome after subjecting Jankowicz to an "unrelenting barrage of harassment."

"Within hours of news of her appointment, Jankowicz was thrust into the spotlight by the very forces she dedicated her career to combating," writes Lorenz.

She concedes that the board's name was "ominous" and details about its specific mission were "scant." But most of the article focuses on the tenor of the criticism of Jankowicz.

"Jankowicz was on the receiving end of the harshest attacks, with her role mischaracterized as she became a primary target on the right-wing Internet," writes Lorenz. "She has been subject to an unrelenting barrage of harassment and abuse while unchecked misrepresentations of her work continue to go viral."

That's not even close to all of it:

Jankowicz's experience is a prime example of how the right-wing Internet apparatus operates, where far-right influencers attempt to identify a target, present a narrative and then repeat mischaracterizations across social media and websites with the aim of discrediting and attacking anyone who seeks to challenge them. It also shows what happens when institutions, when confronted with these attacks, don't respond effectively.

More:

"These smears leveled by bad-faith, right-wing actors against a deeply qualified expert and against efforts to better combat human smuggling and domestic terrorism are disgusting," deputy White House press secretary Andrew Bates told The Post on Tuesday.

Even more:

DHS staffers have also grown frustrated. With the department's suspension of intra-departmental working groups focused on mis-, dis- and mal-information, some officials said it was an overreaction that gave too much credence to bad-faith actors. A 15-year veteran of the department, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly, called the DHS response to the controversy "mind-boggling." "I've never seen the department react like this before," he said.

Yet more still:

Experts say that right-wing disinformation and smear campaigns regularly follow the same playbook and that it's crucial that the public and leaders of institutions, especially in the government, the media and educational bodies, understand more fully how these cycles operate.

The campaigns invariably start with identifying a person to characterize as a villain. Attacking faceless institutions is difficult, so a figurehead (almost always a woman or person of color) is found to serve as its face. Whether that person has actual power within that institution is often immaterial. By discrediting those made to represent institutions they seek to bring down, they discredit the institution itself.

Harassment and reputational harm is core to the attack strategy. Institutions often treat reputational harm and online attacks as a personnel matter, one that unlucky employees should simply endure quietly.

Jankowicz's case is a perfect example of this system at work, said Emerson T. Brooking, a resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab. "They try to define people by these single, decontextualized moments," Brooking said. "In Nina's case it's a few TikTok videos, or one or two comments out of thousands of public appearances. They fixate on these small instances and they define this villain."

That's the explicit message of the article, and it's hammered home over and over again: expressing concerns about Jankowicz and the Disinformation Governance Board is an act of sabotage by bad-faith right-wing harassers against a noble public servant. The Washington Post does not grapple with legitimate criticisms of Jankowicz. The article doesn't even acknowledge that any exist. Bad people oppose Jankowicz, in the Post's framing, and if you oppose Jankowicz, you're probably one of them.

Yet there is good reason to be skeptical of both the Disinformation Governance Board and Jankowicz's fitness to run it. Informal efforts to police disinformation on social media are beset with serious challenges, as moderators and fact-checkers routinely make odious mistakes: Just today, Facebook dubiously censored a recipe for homemade baby formula. The social media site's fact-checkers have previously flagged Reason articles as spreading false information, only to later admit the articles in question were accurate. John Stossel, host of Stossel TV and a contributor to Reason, is currently suing Facebook for characterizing his videos as misleading, even though fact-checkers eventually conceded he was right.

Government disinformation cops are no better; time and time again, public health officials circulated false information about COVID-19, and suppressed perfectly legitimate discussion of the theory that the virus originated from a lab leak. And when The New York Post reported on the salacious contents of Hunter Biden's laptop just weeks before the election, the story was widely dismissed by so-called disinformation experts and government security experts on grounds that they presumed it to be Russian malfeasance. "Hunter Biden Story Is Russian Disinfo, Dozens of Former Intel Officials Say," reported Politico back in October 2020.

Jankowicz repeatedly made public statements indicating that she held this view, too. She shared national security officials' "high confidence" that the Hunter Biden story was part of a Russian influence campaign. She described the idea that the laptop had been left behind at a repair shop as "a fairy tale." This was a critical test of whether disinformation experts could check their innate tendency to ascribe everything unfavorable to the Democratic Party as Russian nefariousness, and they utterly failed. Jankowicz failed as well.

Somewhere in Lorenz's article, amid the repetitive praising of Jankowicz's qualifications, anonymously sourced lamentations that DHS will no longer be able to recruit effectively, and broad characterization of criticism as nothing more than sexist harassment, perhaps that failure deserved a mention. The article reads like it was ghostwritten by Jankowicz herself, which makes the underlying scoop less impressive: It's easy to get a government official to cooperate for a news article when the news article takes the form of PR.

NEXT: Biden's Plan To Link Federal Transportation Spending to Zoning Reform Could Make the Housing Shortage Worse

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So sorry that this is happening to you, chemjeff. Thoughts and prayers.

    1. You moron. I never supported this board. I opposed the bad-faith efforts of right-wing demagogues to paint this board as some type of Orwellian nightmare come to life, rather than what it really was: a useless government bureau that would write reports that no one would read.

      All partisan media, but right-wing partisan media in particular, has a deliberate strategy to write stories and create content with the explicit intent to generate outrage. They do this by deception, primarily by lying by omission. They will only tell you the part of the story that they think will be the most rage-inducing. They will NOT tell you, for instance, that there was a very similar effort by DHS, before the 2020 election, to "combat disinformation" that didn't throw anyone into gulags. They won't tell you that. They will only tell you OMG MINITRUE.

      Do you honestly think that this is a positive development? To have an entire media ecosystem devoted to the premise of lying to its customers in order to provoke outrage? I don't.

      1. Is chemjeff really Taylor Lorenz?

        1. Look at it, the fat totalitarian groomer is seething!

          1. I have actually collected $30,220 merely Four weeks by easily working part-time on my laptop.~ui72~When I have lost my office post, I was troubled & eventually I obtained this best career achieving this I was able to have thousand of dollars just staying at my home. Each individual can start this chance and obtain extra money online.
            .
            By visiting this web-page. https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/

            1. I flagged this, but it's actually more truthful than LyingJeffy.

                1. The “disinformation board” failed because describes a ministry of lies, not truth.

                  Cherry picking some lies while ignoring others isn’t the same advocating truth.

                  1. Like you would do any better in you campaign to outlaw lying, while propagaing some of the most vicious Anti-Semitic lies to come out of human history in general and The Twentieth Century in particular!

                    Fuck Off, Nazi!

                    1. What are you calling lies?

                      I provide evidence of logic and science that nobody has ever refuted. There is no better criteria for truth.

                      Refute the “lies” that exist in your mind. Do it here and now.

                      You can’t. You won’t because you’re a bigot.

                      The following points refute key elements of the holocaust with logic and science. This is because all stories creating the holocaust narrative defy logic and science.

                      There has been no objective forensic analysis at any supposed site. That means that there is no physical evidence. Any activity that demonstrates and shares evidence to refute the holocaust is a crime in every nation where it allegedly occurred.

                      The crucial event of the story is the cyanide gassing of millions of Jews. That never happened.

                      Jews wrote books illustrated with pictures of themselves shirtless dragging gassed bodies from the chambers to cremation ovens.

                      But cyanide is absorbed through the skin and NOBODY could have survived even a single day of such activity much less collecting reparations into their old age reminiscing about it over a game of checkers.

                      And so it goes with every bullshit story. The facts prove otherwise.

                      Let’s not forget another old timey favourite.The story of Babi Yar is a popular lesson in Jewish schools described as the single largest event of the holocaust.

                      The lesson is that between 30,000 and 100,000 Jews were taken to a ravine in Ukraine where they were killed.

                      The story is told by one Jewish
                      survivor, Dina Pronicheva, an actress who testified that she was forced to strip naked and marched to the edge of the ravine. When the firing squad shot, she jumped into the ravine and played dead. After being covered by thousands of bodies and tons of earth she dug herself out, unscathed, when the coast was clear and escaped to tell the story.

                      She is apparently the only person in history to successfully perform a matrix bullet dodge at a firing squad. The soldier aiming point blank at her never noticed her escape. Never walked a few steps to the edge of the ravine to finish her off.

                      They were stripped naked to leave no evidence. Naked she had no tools to dig herself out from under 30,000 bodies and tons of dirt.

                      Only after the deed was done, the nazis realized that so many bullet ridden bodies were evidence. Oops, rookie move. So they brought more Jews and millions of cubic feet of firewood to dig them up, cremate them on gravestones and scatter their ashes in surrounding fields.

                      There has been no forensic investigation at the site. None of the bullets allegedly burned with the bodies have been recovered. Not one shred of physical evidence of this has ever been found.

                      There are aerial photographs of the area at the time but they don’t show any evidence of the narrative, no people, no equipment, no firewood, no moved earth, no tracks of any kind.

                      Simply stating these facts is a crime in Ukraine where the Babi Yar narrative is taught in school

                      Have you ever heard of the Bletchley park decrypts of the famous German enigma machines? It was credited for turning the tide of the war as allies knew what military actions the Germans were planning.

                      Only released in the 1980s those translated messages included prison camp information, deaths, transfers and requests for medicines to treat illnesses. The numbers of dead don’t support the holocaust narrative of which there was also no mention of.

                      Are you willingly performing the mental gymnastics required to believe, as the story goes, that Germans were communicating in code about prison camps while talking plainly about their military actions with their top secret enigma machines?

                      The numbers of dead from German enigma decrypts does align with Red Cross numbers.

                      The Red Cross regularly visited all prison camps. It was their job to report the cause of all deaths. They recorded a grand total of 271,000 among all camps for the entire war. It is a matter of record.

                      Are you performing the feeble mental gymnastics required to believe that the Red Cross were so incompetent that they were completely unaware of 95% or 5,629,000 deaths?

                      Zyklon B is an off the shelf insecticide used among other places in Prison camps to delouse clothing and bedding to save lives by preventing deadly typhus. The system used for years before the war employed heating to release cyanide gas, fans to circulate the gas and more to exhaust the chambers to make the de loused articles safe to handle.

                      Pictures of this equipment and the small de lousing buildings with clothing racks still exist in prison camps. But no evidence of any gas delivery system has ever been found or recorded in the shower houses where the bullshit holocaust allegedly occurred. In fact, the story has changed to that they just threw the heat activated pellets onto the cold wet drainless floors in rooms full of people.

                      Such an inefficient method would have taken too long to kill the required number of Jews. The pellets couldn’t be spread evenly in rooms full of people. The cold wet drainless floors would have delayed the release of cyanide from the pellets that people would have swept away from themselves. Any dead would have released all their bodily fluids and their bodies covering the pellets. Vomit would have been added to the floor prior to entering such a room.

                      According to Martin Gilbert in his book, Holocaust Journey, the gas chambers at Treblinka utilized carbon monoxide from diesel engines. At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi war criminals, the American government charged that the Jews were murdered at Treblinka in “steam chambers,” not gas chambers.

                      Gasoline engine exhaust contains about ten times the carbon monoxide than diesel. Diesel exhaust is relatively safe. Even if the Diesel engines were running at their maximum of 500 ppm, death would take several hours. Far too long to support the narrative.

                      If Germans had used gas engines, death would have been in a few minutes. But in the holocaust narrative for treblinka diesel was used even though they had plenty of gas for their tanks. Nuremberg still recorded that they were “steam chambers”.

                      Which stupid lie is more believable? You have to perform some feeble mental gymnastics to buy that.

                      Jews had been publicly claiming a holocaust of 6 million Jews in various nations no less than 166 times between 1900 and 1945. To raise money and coerce sympathy like the wastes of skin who fake cancer on go fund me pages.

                      The story of gassing Jews began as British propaganda to turn popular opinion against Germany. It was inspired to draw attention away from Jewish Bolshevik war crimes in Russia because that would work against allied propaganda. It also served global Jewish interests to create undeserved sympathy for Jews who had publicly organized boycotts of Germany to drive Germany to war.

                      There is a documented letter from the head of British propaganda to the head of the war office recommending that they cease the “gassing Jews“ propaganda because there was no evidence for it and if found out would work against their propaganda efforts.

                      The only thing the bullshit holocaust narrative has in common with WW2 is that they were both the creation of Jews.

                      These Jewish leaders are admitting it.. Are they lying?

                      “We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany”.
                      David A Brown, national chairman, united Jewish campaign, 1934.

                      “The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany …holy war against Hitlers people”

                      Chaim Weismann, the Zionist leader, 8 September 1939, Jewish chronicle.

                      The Toronto evening telegram of 26 February 1940 quoted rabbi Maurice l. Perlzweig of the world Jewish Congress as telling a Canadian audience that” The world Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years”.

                    2. Bull. Shit. Cysnide is absorbed via inhalation, as documented here under toxicity:

                      Cyanide--Wikipedia
                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide

                      Also, synthetic Diesel using vegetable oil is made from Isopropyl Alcohol and Sodium Hydroxide (kitchen lye,) neither of which are safe to inhale. Natural Diesel, coming from Petroleum, just like Gasoline, isn't any safer. Also, the Germans used gasified and liquified coal to run their vehicles and that damn sure isn't safe to inhale.

                      And if the Holocaust is a "lie," not only would every Jew have to be in on it and not break even under pressure of bribery, but so also every Slav, every Russian, every Romani (formerly Gypsies,) every Homosexual, every business leader, every labor leader, every mentwlly infirm person, and all the disparate political opponents, not just in Germany and Europe, but worldwide if they communicated with these groiups in Germany and Europe.

                      How likely is it that a "lie" like this could be kept by a collection of individuals this damn big and diverse and even disparate? Short answer, the odds are Slim and None and Slim got shot, gassed, and worked to death.

                      Once again, Fuck Off, Nazi!

                    3. You’re a fool.

                      “Toxicokinetics
                      Cyanide is rapidly absorbed from the skin and all mucosal surfaces;”

                      http://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/cyanide

                      Fuckwitness jews are well paid for their complicity even when they are only embellishing their experience. To propagandists and their victims, simply being in a prison camp makes them all “holocaust survivors”.

                      I’ll wager that you are no “holocaust survivor “and like everyone else has ZERO physical evidence to prove that there ever was a holocaust. But that doesn’t stop you and your ilk from jumping on the bandwagon. You believe it just the same and are here advocating it.

                      You just said that cyanide isn’t absorbed through the skin, which I refuted in seconds.

                      That’s how propaganda works and why shitstains need to censor free speech.

                      And why bigots will mute, self censor, evidence that contradicts their myopic perspective.

                    4. Nowhere does your “reference@ suggest that cyanide is not absorbed through the skin.

                      That is your refuted and unsupported claim alone.

                    5. All I’ve heard is bitch whining, certainly no refuting.

                    6. Mucosal surfaces includes lips mouth, lungs bronchial, tubes, esophagus, and stomach.

                      And you are a walking mucosal surface!

                      And why isn't cyanide absorbed trom touching apple seeds, peach pits, and aprocot pits?

                      Fuck off, Nazi!

                    7. And the Science Direct source you cited just said 5hat Cyanide was used in thexNazi gas chambers.

                      Goddamn! Not only are you a Nazi, but a stupid Nazi!

                      Fuck Off, Stupid Nazi!

                    8. Hahaha. Is that how you admit that you lied?

              1. Is there a way to replace his sophist drivel with this bot’s spam?

          2. Like your Putin and Patriarch Kirill are any better than Nina Jankowitz. You, Putin, Kirill, and Jankowitz all want to be giving everybody "arithmatic lessons" in Room 101.

            Well, instead of "2 + 2 = 5," I say "Nothing From Nothing Leaves Nothing." You are all nothings and you'll get nothing from me!

            Fuck Off, You Putineer and Dugin Hooligan!

            Billy Preston - Nothing From Nothing (1974) • TopPop
            https://youtu.be/IX2bE-OBtwk

        2. Damnit. Same post lower lol. Should have continued reading.

      2. Yeah, left leaning media doesn't really subscribe to the outrage and click bait game. No, it's basically right leaning media thing only.

        I'm so tired of tribal hackery. It's so intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

        1. How many times do we get left-wing outrage clickbait posted HERE?

          Around HERE, it is all right-wing garbage that gets posted.

          Of course Team Blue does the same thing with their audience. I even said that above. That is not what we are subjected to here on a daily basis though.

          We will only get better discourse if people demand it.

          1. To quote you: "All partisan media, but right-wing partisan media in particular, has a deliberate strategy to write stories and create content with the explicit intent to generate outrage."

            I don't see where you are limiting that claim to all right-wing partisan media as posted here at Reason. Can you point me to where you were limiting that to Reason posts?

            1. I said all partisan media engages in this outrage-generating clickbait nonsense. Which is true.

              I singled out right-wing clickbait nonsense, since that is the overwhelming majority of the stories that we are confronted with here in the comments section on a daily basis. WHY DON'T YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT LEFTWING OUTRAGE CLICKBAIT SO MUCH? Because we hardly ever see it here!

              And *I* am one of the few people around here willing to call out morons like Jesse when they post this shit time and time again, or paranoid people like soldiermedic who hear about this and immediately concludes YUP THAT SETTLES IT, THE GULAGS HAVE FINALLY ARRIVED.

              Do we want a discourse based on fact and reason? Or do we want a discourse based on outrage and emotion?

              So stop busting my balls about actually doing something to create better discourse and start challenging those who rely on myths and emotion to form their opinions.

              1. Because it is a numbers game.
                Left-wing partisan media = All major media - FOX News

                There's 100 partisan left-wing hack jobs going on with left controlling the House, Senate, and White House, and you're standing there wringing your hands about the 1 right-wing hack job as the real problem.

                Also, you realized you were one-line trolled into all this?

                1. And Fox News is not even that right wing. Especially in it's hard news coverage. They're much more Rockefeller Republicans than Reagan or Trump Republicans. Just barely right of center.

              2. I'm just reading the words that your wrote. That's all I have to go on. When someone says "right-wing partisan media in particular" and nothing more, I have no idea you only mean right-wing partisan media in particular as it is posted at Reason and commented on by Reason commentors.

                In the end, you painted with a giant tribal brush and got called on it. Sorry if that is what you consider "busting your balls."

              3. Or do we want a discourse based on outrage and emotion?

                The left's entire program is scaremongering outrage, yet left wingers still pretend they want debate without emotion and outrage.

                Idiots.

          2. You mean outside of how any questions about the 2020 election --- and ONLY that election --- should be disqualifying? Or how, when it was relevant, Hunter's laptop was false info? Or how the claims of Kavanaugh having MULTIPLE gang rapes of girls in high school was a credible accusation?

        2. And yes, I am very tired of the tribal warfare nonsense as well.

          1. Then stop engaging in it.

            1. Engaging? He's a fucking general in phony outrage while pretending to be non-partisan.

              1. A lot of idiots ended up imitating Jon Stewart's fake "bof sydez" bullshit over the last 20 years.

                1. Stewart used to be funny, though. Very, very few of the new wave are remotely funny unless they are inadvertently making their side look bad.

                  1. Stewarts recent very hard left, self-flagellating white guilt turn he has made is really sad. I always had a soft spot for the guy, but man I cant give the guy the benefit of the doubt anymore. He unfortunately is too far gone now

          2. How much in denial are you?

      3. "All partisan media, but right-wing partisan media in particular, has a deliberate strategy to write stories and create content with the explicit intent to generate outrage"

        Right-wing partisan media in particular?

        Can you define that? And what would you label left-wing partisan media?

        If I'm going to dispute your claim, how you define your terms is nice to know.

        1. Yeah he posts that on a story about the left wing media purposely misrepresenting the facts. And he claims he isn't defending the left or the MoT.

        2. I mean.. how many awards were given to right wing media about Trump russia?

          1. Apparently "Trump = Bad" or "A racism happened" is enough to net you a Pulitzer nowadays

            Institutions have lost almost all credibility, and they deserved it

      4. "They will NOT tell you, for instance, that there was a very similar effort by DHS, before the 2020 election, to "combat disinformation" that didn't throw anyone into gulags. They won't tell you that. They will only tell you OMG MINITRUE."

        We have talked about this before, and there was no such recommendation. The only documents you could provide specifically talked about educational materials, and a central switchboard for reporting international disinformation. That is very different from what this board was meant to do.

        How do I know that? The article above actually tells us this. Here, in their own words, is what the DBG was supposed to do:

        "...Nina’s role was to come up with strategies for the department to counter this type of campaign, and now they’ve just succumbed to it themselves."

        Get that? The purpose of the GOVERNMENT EMPOWERED BOARD was to combat speech by Americans that they disagreed with. Not Russians talking to migrants, but actually stop the "Evil Right Wing" from complaining.

        Now, you can argue all you want that the Right's portrayal of the Board was incorrect. But if it was, a) it is still protected speech that the government should not be trying to silence and b) that quote from the people defending the program seems to completely validate their statements.

        1. Get that? The purpose of the GOVERNMENT EMPOWERED BOARD was to combat speech by Americans that they disagreed with. Not Russians talking to migrants, but actually stop the "Evil Right Wing" from complaining.

          This was just an administrative step from that fake-ass Facebook "whistleblower" bitch, whose main complaint was that Facebook stopped aggressively censoring wrongthink and needed to start doing it again.

        2. "...Nina’s role was to come up with strategies for the department to counter this type of campaign, and now they’ve just succumbed to it themselves."

          So let me get this straight. So your ENTIRE argument, that the right-wing paranoid morons were correct all along in denouncing this board as MINISTRY OF TRUTH, was the vague claim of an anonymous staffer? Is that right?

          So, can you tell me *precisely* what the phrase "come up with strategies" means? You're CERTAIN it means some Orwellian stormtrooper tactics to throw freedom-loving patriots in gulags though. Right? How do you know this? I mean, it COULD mean that the strategies are things like, oh I don't know, "develop educational materials" or "set up a central switchboard". Like the previous manifestation of this board. Which didn't throw anyone into gulags. But no, you are absolutely CERTAIN that it means some horrible awful dystopian nightmare. Why?

          And can you tell me *precisely* what the phrase "this type of campaign" means? I mean, you are absolutely CERTAIN it means SPECIFICALLY right-wing domestic speech. How do you know? Maybe by "this type" it means an online campaign (which this one was). Or a campaign based primarily on personal attacks (which this one was). Or a campaign directed at a government agency (which this one was). No no, you are CERTAIN that this vague phrase "this type of campaign" means SPECIFICALLY "a campaign orchestrated by freedom-loving right-wing Americans". Right?

          Could it be, Overt, that you are right now projecting your own paranoid fears into this article in order to rationalize and try to validate your own past paranoid fears as somehow valid?

          1. "You're CERTAIN it means some Orwellian stormtrooper tactics to throw freedom-loving patriots in gulags though."

            For someone who is endlessly complaining about hyperbole, you are always awfully quick to resort to it in an effort to ascribe to me things I never said.

            To be clear, I think this is enough: "come up with strategies for the department to counter this type of campaign"

            Let's be clear on what that means:
            1) Use government resources
            2) Create strategies
            3) That the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
            4) Will use to counter (aka stop)
            5) speech by americans, and their elected representatives.

            In case it isn't abundantly clear, this is a Very Bad Thing (tm). Even the administration knew that, which is why they insisted publicly that this was all about foreign interference.

            My evidence is not only the unnamed source from the article (who was not adversarial at all, but rather gloating as those idiots gloated about supplying intel to Ukrainians). It is also the fact that they hired a person (Jankowicz) who has repeatedly and expressly insisted that she ought to have the power to edit peoples' tweets and ban 'offensive' information from social media- and has never been concerned with whether or not these are foreign .

            "Maybe by "this type" it means an online campaign (which this one was)....based primarily on personal attacks (which this one was)....directed at a government agency (which this one was)."

            You read that right people. Chemjeff seems to think that criticisms online, or of a specific person, or a government agency are somehow a horse of a different color.

            In case it isn't abundantly obvious, Chemjeff, the government shouldn't be combatting the speech of Americans organizing an online campaign or to attack a specific individual[1], or government agency. Is that clear enough for you? There shouldn't be anyone in the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY whose responsibility is to define an attack on a political appointee as 'disinformation' and then muster the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY to countering it.

            [1] And don't even GET STARTED with this "personal attack" bullshit. People posted her own words and videos of shit SHE was saying. And if you don't believe me, just read those words by Soave at the top of this page. It is the entire thesis of his article.

            "Could it be, Overt, that you are right now projecting your own paranoid fears into this article'

            I can't be 100% certain that this is the case, but I have no problem saying "it's creepy enough that it shouldn't happen." Are you willing to do the same? Even if it has the appearance of being creepy, I am happy strangling it in the crib. We should have done the same when people were screaming "Paranoid fever dreams!!!" about criticism of the Patriot Act. If only those paranoid people had swayed more politicians then, it wouldn't be too late to stop it.

            1. "We should have done the same when people were screaming "Paranoid fever dreams!!!" about criticism of the Patriot Act."

              Absolutely. And it has been telling the same exact arguments used by neocons and warhawks back then were recycled by shitlib SJW's in favor of the DGB. A lot of the "well if you weren't doing X the govt would be doing Y to you" stuff or the "well I mean the govt surely isnt going to do the worst version of Y to you, that is highly unlikely they would commit that abuse of power"

              And we saw what a disastrous overreach the patriot act was.

            2. ""Maybe by "this type" it means an online campaign (which this one was)....based primarily on personal attacks (which this one was)....directed at a government agency (which this one was)."'

              I just want to point out how absurdly ridiculous this weaseling is. Imagine all the types of American speech that fit this definition. If you are a climate activist group looking to shoot down the Keystone Pipeline, and organize your followers to trend "#KeystoneKills" on twitter, you are "orchestrating an online campaign". If you are a Pro-Abortion group targeting a Republican legislator, you are "orchestrating an online personal attack".

              None of those definitional flourishes that Chemjeff puts out there moderate the severity of how BAD this is in any way. I'm not putting on blinders here, I agree that this is nasty speech. It is often slanted, out of context and sometimes fully made up. It is also protected, and it is the CITIZENS who are empowered to speak, listen, and counter that language. Not. Governments.

              It is my earnest hope that one day, some of these basic libertarian principles will rub off on Chemjeff.

              1. "It is my earnest hope that one day, some of these basic libertarian principles will rub off on Chemjeff"

                Maybe in ten years when he's shocked to find himself on the gibbet with the rest of us. More than likely though he'll be quietly sobbing something similar to "If only Comrade Stain knew".

              2. "Imagine all the types of American speech that fit this definition"

                Also in Majorkas defense of the DGB did you see how absolutely vague and jargon-ee he made it? It was absolutely on purpose.

                The left's playbook right now is this very histrionic, estrogen infused ideology of "X person said this thing and I felt unsafe!" And then they use this to get the person shut down. No proof needed, just vague "I felt unsafe". Of course the other big one being "its disinformation" or the next level up "Russian (for some reason) disinformation!"

                It is absolutely what they intended to use it for.

              3. Unfortunately I think he also lies to himself.

              4. Collectivistjeff is an evil clump of cancer.
                Until you can admit that to yourself, you'll get nowhere.

              5. Those examples that I posted were not meant to be an exhaustive list, you know.

            3. Jeff is defending government propaganda because it isnt government murder.

            4. Yes, I used a little bit of hyperbole. So sue me.

              Let's be clear on what that means:
              1) Use government resources
              2) Create strategies
              3) That the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
              4) Will use to counter (aka stop)

              So far, we agree. And, so far, it's a bad idea on this basis alone - it's a useless waste of government money, like thousands of other bureaus. ALSO, all of the above can be reasonably inferred by what had been stated publicly by Mayorkas and others even before today.

              5) speech by americans, and their elected representatives.

              Nope, sorry, that's stealing a base. Your entire argument rests upon the very thin reed that the vague phrase "this type of campaign" refers specifically to American right-wingers criticizing the government, when there are a thousand other plausible explanations, and that the words of this anonymous aide represent the official policy of the entire department. The evidence for this is very weak.

              "it's creepy enough that it shouldn't happen." Are you willing to do the same?

              I agree.

              1. You are a little bitch.

              2. "Nope, sorry, that's stealing a base."

                No it isn't. The entire point of Lorenz's article is that these were american right wingers attacking Jankowicz. And as noted by Soave above, she is on the record repeatedly in recent history noting how she wants the power to censor americans, and label "mis-gendering" as disinformation.

                It isn't stealing a base. It is a reasonable conclusion for anyone who isn't 100% in the tank for Team Blue. Could it be the wrong conclusion? Perhaps. But Occam's razor says that if they are saying the board was meant to combat "this kind of campaign" which happens to be a Right Wing campaign, and if they appointed a Director whose personal mission has been to call any speech right of Pelosi as disinformation- well then, I think Team Red is probably closer to the truth than you are.

              3. “ Your entire argument rests upon the very thin reed that the vague phrase "this type of campaign" refers specifically to American right-wingers criticizing the government, ”

                You can’t possibly be this stupid. She is literally referring to the campaign by right-wing groups against the DGB.

              4. Hopelessly naive. Lol.

            5. We should have done the same when people were screaming "Paranoid fever dreams!!!" about criticism of the Patriot Act. If only those paranoid people had swayed more politicians then, it wouldn't be too late to stop it.

              Well, Overt, one reason why they weren't able to sway more politicians is because the people screaming "paranoid fever dreams!" sounded like a bunch of paranoid lunatics. It's much easier to dismiss people who seem like a bunch of crazies, than it is to dismiss people who argue from a position of evidence and reason and facts. We undermine our own position with all the paranoia.

              1. You dont use reason nor facts.

                This is getting sad.

              2. "sounded like a bunch of paranoid lunatics."

                Yeah, a lot of stuff sounds paranoid and whacko before turning out to be true. Patriot Act will be used to spy on american citizens for political purposes. Hunter Biden's laptop. Covid-19 came from a Lab. The FBI is going to be investigating parents protesting against their school boards. A disinformation board headed by a censorious SJW might label SJW targets as disinformation.

                Totally paranoid and delusional.

                Or...and I know this might sound paranoid and delusional...or maybe you are SO deep in your bias that you think anything said by a deplorable by definition is paranoid delusion.

                1. “Or...and I know this might sound paranoid and delusional...or maybe you are SO deep in your bias that you think anything said by a deplorable by definition is paranoid delusion.”

                  Ding ding ding.

          2. Again, I’m sorry, but no.

            It is not an overreaction to condemn something like this. The damn thing should have never even been mentioned, let alone implemented.

            And nothing in our government’s or media’s past, especially over the last two years, should provide them the benefit of the doubt that it won’t be used in the worst possible ways. So stop giving it to them.

            1. if anything, they have proven consistently that they will absolutely overreach and abuse it.

          3. That's some Sqrlsy level all-caps typing here.

        3. Now, you can argue all you want that the Right's portrayal of the Board was incorrect.

          It was, and manifestly so. Do you agree? Yes or no?

          But if it was, a) it is still protected speech that the government should not be trying to silence

          And I completely agree 1,000%.

          and b) that quote from the people defending the program seems to completely validate their statements.

          Yes, if that quote is interpreted in just the correct way.

          1. and yet folks he isn't defending it.

            1. And he is totally not partisan either.

          2. Keep flailing Jeffy. It amuses me.

          3. So on the one hand, you *insist* that the Right's portrayal was "manifestly" incorrect....and then acknowledge that if one interprets the quote in one way, it actually is proven correct.

            So which is it, Chemjeff? Is it "Manifestly incorrect" or "plausible based on some interpretations of the evidence"?

            Because as near as I can tell, you have given us no evidence that our interpretation of the evidence is incorrect. Just foot stomping and name calling. But we have two pieces of evidence- an unnamed source saying that "this campaign" was exactly the sort of thing they were supposed to stop and the choice of Jankowicz- that indicate they were indeed interested in using the government to label right wing speech as "disinformation" and counter it.

            At the least, it is plausible, not "manifestly" incorrect.

            1. Not to mention the pattern of behavior over the last 2+ years

        4. jeff is not supposed to be asked what clickbait article he got that nugget of information from.

      5. Nicholas Sandman
        Kyle Rittenhouse
        Need I go on?

      6. Jeff, Jeff, calm down. Instead of getting upset, dig in to that next barrel of Haagen-Daz. Haagen-Daz won’t judge you, or criticize you.

        1. Ben & Jerry's. They support virtuous causes like MoveOn, Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party. Haagen-Daz are right-wing extremists who greedily give all their profits to the shareholders instead.
          Chemjeff wouldn't touch Haagen-Daz with a ten foot pole, unless his mom buys it by accident.

          1. You make several good points. I picture Jeffy as one of those kids in that south Oark episode where Cartman goes to fat camp and smuggles in all kinds of desserts that he resells to the other kids for huge profits. Especially the scene where the one kid is sobbing while he chows down on a candy bar.

            Found it!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CISFw4o0j4U

            Totally Jeffy.

      7. Poor Lying Jeffy. Nobody’s fooled by your bullshit. You’ve become a bigger joke on these boards than sqrlsy.

        1. Meh. He has been a joke longer.

          1. Here is my problem: When he actually takes off his Red v Blue hat, we can have some good substantive conversations. I especially enjoy the ones where we are debating about foundational moral codes (what is a moral obligation, versus a moral good).

            The problem is that he is so anti-right that he would rather 1000 socialist injustices prevail than stand with a deplorable against them. This DBG is a fucking catastrophe. Even SOAVE agrees. And Chemjeff's hatred of the right is so extreme that even when Reason is in agreement with the right, he can't bear to concede the point.

            At the end of the day, a more libertarian society will have people with left-leaning and right-leaning tendencies. We will have to figure out a way to live together. Even more importantly, since both political parties seem increasingly captured by the Elites, any libertarian counter-voice will ultimately require left-leaning and right-leaning libertarians to cross this divide.

            1. To me those discussions are still couched in forms of moral relativism leaning heavily towards post modernism. In them he is trying to set up some form of basis for an argument in the future to why his morality is more correct.

              He gave the game away when he stated in a discussion on homelessness that people can only have liberty once the government provides a level of support to meet his level of intended morality.

              Often times his arguments are rationalizations for his presupposed belief system. This also occurs on his philosophical discussions centered around morality.

              1. He gave the game away when he stated in a discussion on homelessness that people can only have liberty once the government provides a level of support to meet his level of intended morality.

                That is a complete lie. I never said anything of the sort. Either provide proof of this supposed quote of mine from your dossier or STFU about it.

                1. Yes you did.

                  Just like you commiserate with sarc about people who save links to your prior statements as being creepy. Yet that was do e because if instances like this.

                  You dont have to so blatantly lie all the fucking time.

                  1. Yes you did.

                    So prove it.

                    We all know you lie about people's arguments, you stuff words into their mouths. You do it habitually and daily. You are doing it again now.

                    1. Cite? You always ask for them to be provided for you. I dont save 100% of your comments retard. You say enough stupid shit every day. But will leave you with my favorite libertarian stance of yours.

                      chemjeff radical individualist
                      February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      What is there to talk about?

                      From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course.

                      You lie constantly about what you've said in the past. Even om this thread youre lying about defending the DSG. Youre pathetic lol.

                    2. Tony says that not taking is giving and not giving is taking.

                      Well JesseAz says that not condemning is praising and not praising is condemning. Didn't condemn BLM? That's praising them. Didn't praise Trump? That's condemning him.

                      He's working with a Tony intellect.

        2. ‘Bigger’?

          I see what you did there.

      8. Jeff admits is is Taylor Lorenz.

        1. Am I the only one that wouldn’t mind seeing Taylor Lorenz and Nina Jancowics do each other? Neither one is bad looking, and crazy chicks are usually pretty energetic when it comes to sex. Especially two emotionally wanty whack jobs like these two.

          1. Jancowics is okay looking even though she has Overly Attached Girlfriend-style crazy eyes, but Lorenz is skinnyfat with horse teeth.

          2. Also, I'd love to watch the next day when they're both making phoney rape accusations against each other.

          3. They would stop 30s in and claim victimhood. Pass.

      9. I opposed the bad-faith efforts of right-wing demagogues to paint this board as some type of Orwellian nightmare come to life, rather than what it really was: a useless government bureau that would write reports that no one would read.

        Really? Why?

        Ignoring the “bad faith” part — although, absent a fair amount of mind-reading, I don’t see how you could know — and the “right-wing” part, there doesn’t seem any guarantee that the bureau is not and never will become and never spawn any type of Orwellian nightmare come to life.

        Given that possibility, plus your candid admission that there is no positive outcome for spending the taxpayers’ money this way, why your insistent opposition?

        1. “Ignoring the “bad faith” part”

          He assigns this to his enemies with every topic.

          1. Progs gotta project.

        2. there doesn’t seem any guarantee that the bureau is not and never will become and never spawn any type of Orwellian nightmare come to life.

          This is just sloppy thinking. It's also a logical fallacy. No one can prove a negative that an event WON'T occur. That doesn't prove that the event WILL occur, or is even likely to occur.

          1. What idiocy. You can't predict a future event at all retard. Not positive or negative.

            Learn how fallacies work. Fuck.

          2. "We had NO IDEA that creating trillions of new debt would cause massive inflation. We could not have foreseen this, and the people who said it would were engaging in a logical fallacy asking us to guarantee it would not."

          3. Just stop man. Seriously.

      10. Bad Faith!
        Jeff is crying about BAD FAITH

        1. Absolutely fucking hilarious.

      11. Chemjeff you obviously don't read the Los Angeles Times. Today columnist Robin Abcarian was saying that abortion was the first of the rights the Supreme Court would take away--and that the Supreme Court and the Rethugs were coming to get the rest of your rights. At least two other columnists were on the same theme. Tomorrow rinse and repeat. Different day, same stoking of faux lefty outrage. The Washington Post does the same thing. MSNBC, CNN etc join in the baying pack. You just haven't been looking.

      12. What is the lesson from the Disinformation Board being destroyed by disinformation?

        And to have it's failures whitewashed?

      13. "I opposed the bad-faith efforts of right-wing demagogues to paint this board as some type of Orwellian nightmare come to life, rather than what it really was: a useless government bureau that would write reports that no one would read."

        Hilariously delusional. Yeah, Democrats love their bureaucracies, Sure. But they love suppressing opposing views a LOT more.

        Get a clue, rube.

    2. "...Thoughts and prayers."

      I'll offer a kick in the nuts, assuming the lying pile of shit has any.

      1. They’re probably in there somewhere. Though at this point, it would probably take a ‘Fantastic Voyage’ event to find them.

    3. HAHAHAHA!!!

      It's funny because he is a fat basement dweller and deserves all of the scorn he inspires.

    4. math is racist. "whiteness needs to be eradicated"...."signs of whiteness are hard work, individuality, freedom, data driven decisions, and modern physics and chemistry.." About time someone calls this idiots what they are...bigots with inferiority complexes that no one wants to have relationships with.

      Losers who are a danger to liberty. Reason goes around fearing Trump...sorry but the WaPo and the little bolshies running much of the Federal Govt and the media/academia today are the bigger threat.

  2. Did she quit because she was harassed online?

    Because I got the distinct impression from that article that she quit because her board was indefinitely dissolved.

    1. She quit because she can't take what she dishes out.
      The spotlight of truth is blinding to fascists.

      1. Yeah, everything the WaPo described as a Hallmark of the right seems par the course for leftist activists. I mean the WaPo even sanctioned one of their reporters to Doxx a TikTok account holder who reposted leftist screeds without editing them, and her family. So not sure how that is different than the right bringing up past comments. They didn't misrepresent them. They quoted her.

        1. Welcome to the party, pal.

          Leftist accusation = confession

        2. The very same writer that did this ode to disinformation article. It's fucking hilarious that you can take every bad act attributed to the right in the article and they are no more than descriptions of Lorenz's "journalism" in action.

          1. While writing a puff piece about how Jankowicz has made a "career" out of fighting misinformation. There are way too many dickbeaters in DC making way too much money sucking up good air when this is considered a career.

            1. "Who do I have to fuck to be rich and famous?" the commissar sings.

              Shit, I wish she'd tell us who it was.

        3. That was in fact the same reporter who wrote the article Robby's commenting on here.

      2. She can always fall back on her singing career.

    2. She got torn up by so many people because she is a far left propagandist loon. Tucker Carlson didn’t make those idiotic videos of her. Nor did Breitbart force her to be a far left propagandist.

      This is how out of touch these idiot democrats are. They nominated this idiot, who is, on her face, an embarrassment to herself and anything she’s attached to, for a new government entity that is 100% Orwellian. WTF did they expect. It’s just like Rocco ordering bourbon and tomato juice on ‘Days of the Week’ all over again.

      1. But right wing smear campaign! A targeted campaign.

        1. And ONLINE!

      2. “It’s just like Rocco ordering bourbon and tomato juice on ‘Days of the Week’ all over again.“
        Cotdam, there’s a reference

    3. If she quits, she gets to play victim x2. 'Forced' to quit due to targeted sexist harassment campaign, job position gone due to (same group) right-wing white nationalist domestic terror campaign. She can probably milk an easy half-million or more in speaking fees, and another bullshit book out of this.

  3. Taylor Lorenz isn't a serious journalist and anything she writes is only suitable as toilet paper. She is, in addition to being a terrible journalist, a massive crybully who doxxes people at the drop and then cries and complains when it happens to her.

    1. Oh the irony. I didn't realize she authored the WaPo article. So everything she ascribes to the right is what she makes a living doing. The proggies lack any sense of self awareness.

      1. I read over the part of the article, or missed it, that stated she was the author. It makes this so doubly ironic.

        1. Taylor Lorenz should be relentlessly harassed until she leaves propaganda media. As a cautionary lesson to those who would follow in her footsteps. The more tears she squirt on the way out, the better.

      2. They're self aware. Or at least many of them are. It's not that they don't know, it is a rules for radicals standard that you accuse your opponents of doing what you are actually doing.

        1. It's more of the idea that I'm allowed to do it because I'm on the side of good whereas you are on the side of evil and therefore you should be prevented.

          1. I get the sense that most of the voters that act that way are completely self-unaware. Remember how many people were truly crushed by the existence of the evil Orange Hitler? Most of those people who truly despised him were honestly afraid that we were going to nuclear war w/ North Korea, and truly believed that he was a Russian agent. It's not only the left, though.

            I had a lawyer with a lot of money tell me that Obama is Hitler's grandson with a straight face today. The right is far more attached to reality, but it seems like there are way more nuts than in years past.

            1. I get the sense that most of the voters that act that way are completely self-unaware.

              Maybe. But they seem quite invested in the "no bad tactics, just bad targets" school of warfare.

              The problem is whether a Thermidorean Reaction follows in that wake, or the fall of the White Russians instead.

            2. LITERALLY his grandson, or just spiritually? A case can be made for the latter. Especially given some of the more disturbing parallels in their domestic policies.

              1. Literally. I was blown away by someone who seems pretty smart and was making sense until she drove straight to the looney bin.

                1. I used to have a neighbor who immigrated (legally) from Russia as a child. He gets these stupid videos from other people in his Russian church that push shit like the Clintons being in a satanic cult and literally eating babies. Again, an otherwise reasonable person.

                  I always tell people who spew that nonsense that it makes us all look bad, and that there is so much provable villainy that it is in no way necessary.

                  1. Hillary eating babies is a lot more believable than Obama being Hitlers’s grandson.

                    1. Why can't both be true?

                    2. Very true. Probably too fattening though.

                    3. So Obama is a baby eating descendant of Hitler? That could be a TV show.

      3. It's seriously in parody levels of stupid at this point. The fact that anyone takes someone like Lorenz seriously just shows how unserious and braindead our society is becoming.

  4. LOL

    https://twitter.com/wiczipedia/status/1518554643193896965?t=V6luwIH3SkGJIgPpex0q6Q&s=19

    Men "burst violently into your mentions and your life like the Kool-aid man, demanding your attention, hawking opinions that they believe are unarguably, manifestly correct and indispensable."

    A taxonomy of trolls, excerpted from #HowToBeAWomanOnline: [link]

    1. #howtobeawomanonline could lead to so many better places than it does.

      1. Didn't Eddie Murphy offer a how-to book about that?

        1. Velvet Jones was a genius.

    2. Does it include a section on sandwiches?

    3. Wtf is a Kool-aid man?

        1. Or... the reverend Jim Jones.

          1. oh, yeah ...

    4. Jeffy likely has the figure of the Kool-aid Man.

  5. "...DHS shuttered the Disinformation Governance Board...right-wing 'coordinated online attacks' achieved this outcome..."

    Thank you, right-wing.

    1. How coordinated did the attacks have to be, when you call your board "Disinformation Governance" and appoint an online troll as executive director?

  6. "It also shows what happens when institutions, when confronted with these attacks, don't respond effectively."

    What is the effective response? Jail or murder the critics?

    "Attacking faceless institutions is difficult, so a figurehead (almost always a woman or person of color)"

    Please define "almost always".

    1. Double down. Like Schumer's response to the leaked Roe decision, which didn't only protect access to abortion, but greatly expanded it and also removed protections for medical personal who refuse to participate in abortions based on moral or religious reasons. So not only did it make abortion legal, but made participating in abortions compulsory rather you agree or not. There is no other medical procedure I can think of that that is the case. I've done medical procedures that I disagreed with on professional basis, but were ordered to, but I've never had ever had a problem declining to do a medical procedure I morally objected to.

    2. Well, when you're big on token hires, that kind of thing might happen.

      Perhaps higher somebody competent next time...

      1. I was having a conversation about this with my son yesterday.

        2022 America is what you get when you prioritize “diversity” and “the first X to hold Y position” over core competencies.

        This entire administration is an affirmative action hire from Kamala on down, and now we’re reaping the whirlwind.

        1. In some ways I’m glad it happened. Imagine all the evil shit this administration could get done if they were competent.

          1. LOL I literally just finishing writing about this:

            https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/bidens-incompetence-is-the-only-thing

            This is another example of what may be the saving grace of the Biden administration — the complete incompetence of the Biden administration. In this case, the idea was so repugnant and antithetical to America that the DGB was dissolved almost as soon as it was created (especially when measured in government time). Americans who voted for Biden voted for a ‘return to normal’ with the ‘adults back in charge’, not for somebody who would attempt to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

            1. Do you get any $ if people sign up for your substack or just from donations?

              1. I get $ if people sign up for a paid sub, but all the content is 100% free except a monthly 'poll' about the direction of the 'stack. So paid subs are really just donations, really.

                I just wanted to give Substack a financial reason not to kick me off the platform. As 100% free with no paid option, we're just taking up bandwidth with posts and comments.

          2. What was it Elon Musk said yesterday?
            Tesla CEO Elon Musk goes after Biden:
            “The real president is whoever controls the teleprompter … There were a lot of people in the [Trump] administration who were effective at getting things done. This administration seems just to not have like the drive to just get shit done.”
            And confirmed this:
            "In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party.
            But they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican.
            Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold …"

            ????https://www.zerohedge.com/political/twitter-board-intends-close-transaction-musk-despite-spam-controversy

  7. Your weekly reminder that Taylor Lorenz is full of shit.

    1. You're just jealous you didn't attend boarding school in Switzerland like she did.

  8. Did Taylor Lorenz ever write for Reason?

    I ask because she reminds me of several others who effortlessly transitioned from Koch-funded libertarian to garden variety progressive MSM Democrat — Dave Weigel, Will Wilkinson, Radley Balko, and Noah Berlatsky to name just a few.

    #FunnyHowOftenThatHappens

    1. Current Reason is where lefties audition for the Atlantic, WaPo and the NYT.

    2. Dude, what happened to Balko? I didn’t read him for a few years when he went behind a paywall. Just came across him on Twitter “owning” his opponents with his hot takes, and going back-and-forth with WhateverHat (another one I used to always read).

      Weigel was always awful, but Balko was great in long form (as was xHat). Twitter had destroyed my image of him.

      1. Balko going from Reason to HuffPo and marrying an editor from The Nation didn't tip you off?

  9. By "pause" , they mean "we're going to do it behind the scenes, and then deny it when we're inevitably caught".

    1. That's what I'm taking it for.

      1. I'm hoping that isn't the case but rather they thought they could sneak it in during his testimony and no one would notice and that the uproar is more than they anticipated, especially as it's coming from all spectrums.

        1. especially as it's coming from all spectrums

          ^

          The opposition to it is getting characterized as "Right Wing," but Right Wing in a Joe Rogan way - i.e. often actually Left Wing, but not in agreement with The Party.

          1. And Bill Maher.

            1. And Russell Brand, Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Elon Musk and a bunch of other sixties-style left liberals who didn't migrate to the extreme left with the establishment and the clerisy.

            2. My Dad and Mom are out for my son's graduation, and my Dad and I were just talking about Bill Maher's take on modern leftists.

    2. exactly what is more scary the governance board that you know is a clown show or the governance board that you can't confront legally

    3. See the Total Information Awareness campaign. It was kiboshed once it was exposed, but then fully implemented anyway over time.

    4. I mean, they didn’t even stop spying on us when they were caught. For fucks sake, that talking piece of shit John Brennan straight lied to Congress and didn’t even get a slap on the wrist.

      1. Don't forget James Clapper, who admitted that he'd lied to Congress to Congress and still faced no consequences.

  10. https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1526995907681701889?t=7XngwkP8hNxOy6s8YzduFQ&s=19

    Appropriate that Taylor Lorenz writes disgraced Nina Jankowicz's political obituary

    But important to note that both Taylor and Nina are mere cocktail waitresses for the regime--figure heads of deeper forces

    [Link]

  11. Lorenz's story excessively flatters Jankowicz

    She wants her.

    1. it's the babysitter look.

      1. Based on what I’ve seen on the internet, babysitters are the luckiest people in the world.

        1. Also really suggestible.

          1. And most have equally attractive suggestible and attractive friends who happen to stop by and ‘help’.

            1. And always up for accepting payment by trade.

  12. “ ‘The irony is that Nina’s role was to come up with strategies for the department to counter this type of campaign, and now they’ve just succumbed to it themselves,’ said one Hill staffer with knowledge of the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the issue.”

    Funnily enough, that was not the mission of the board according to Mayorkas and DHS. The board was supposed to make sure there wasn’t improper sharing of intradepartmental information related to combating disinformation. That has nothing to do with developing strategies to combat misinformation. So either this anonymous staffer doesn’t know what they are talking about, or DHS hasn’t been straight about what the board’s purpose would have been. Would have been great if there had been a journalist who could address this contradiction.

    1. "...Would have been great if there had been a journalist who could address this contradiction."

      Wall-to-wall William Durantys.

      1. Walter Duranty but your point is well made

    2. "Funnily enough, that was not the mission of the board according to Mayorkas and DHS."

      That is what is SO hilarious about this whole article. Just like the NYT article on Hunter's Laptop, in the effort to report on something, they have inadvertently confirmed what critics were saying all along.

      Just look at that sentence: "Nina’s role was to come up with strategies for the department to counter this type of campaign"

      Get that? The Department was going to COUNTER campaigns of Right Wing news organizations. And Nina's job on the board was to figure out how to do that.

      Isn't that *exactly* what the right wing publications were worried about? Weren't they concerned that the Biden Administration was using a board of experts to weaponize the DHS to counter their critics? And isn't that EXACTLY what that quote says they were supposed to do?

      1. Reminds me of people who will tell you that the "deep state" is some crazy conspiracy theory and then talk about how good it was that government institutions resisted changes and policies that Trump wanted.

        1. You mean the coup?

          1. Well, whatever you want to call it, it refers to stuff that actually happens.

    3. That's the catch-22: you need to have a Disinformation Board in place so you can get a Disinformation Board up and running in a free country.

  13. Guess who else failed it...

    https://twitter.com/robbysoave/status/1526995835988344834?t=sD1JvQKRZQwlVkzb-UVIaQ&s=19

    The Hunter Biden laptop story was the test for disinformation experts, and most of them failed it. Jankowicz failed it badly. That's the case against her. It isn't mentioned one. single. time. in the WaPo article.

    1. WaPo is not a news organization. So why would they be interested in real news?

    2. I thought COVID was the main test.

    3. Holy shit I can't believe the balls it takes to write that tweet as a 'journalist'.

      1. Especially one at Reason...

  14. ...doesn't matter who chaired the board. This was an unconstitutional abuse of government power and should never have been proposed. The fact that she is a nut job only brought more attention to the "information ministry" plan.

  15. https://twitter.com/Doc_0/status/1526992406683566081?t=-I4VdMsD4nm6vI_ptLwzJA&s=19

    The most striking thing about the Ministry of Truth debacle is that Biden's handlers felt no need to recruit a vaguely plausible or respectable Disinformation Czar. They picked someone who might have been invented by conservative smartasses as a cartoon parody.

    1. ...and looks a little like Wretched Gretchen.

      1. Are you referring to Herr Whitler?

        1. We refer to her as Whitless in Michigan.

    2. Maybe appointing someone who isn’t batshit crazy, and who publishes Harry Potter snuff erotic fan fiction and sings bizarrely profane show tunes would be a good start.

      This isn’t isolated to Jancowicz. Has anyone seen footage of Psaki’s replacement? Holy shit, she is one stupid, stupid bitch. She makes Psaki look like a genius.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNL242iko3k

      She should have taken a page from Psaki and instead offered to ‘circle back’.

      1. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOf.

  16. So the polling on this must have been really bad.

    1. Even droolin' Joe's handlers couldn't find a way to spin it better.

  17. New Yorker staff writer

    https://twitter.com/JonathanBlitzer/status/1526957618912276480?t=aPU3HI1yODJJfiCKwGMjqQ&s=19

    Very striking reporting from ⁦@TaylorLorenz⁩ about how a DHS initiative to counter disinformation was promptly sunk by exactly the disinformation campaigns it was supposed to address. Revealing (and sobering) on so many levels:

    1. Yeah, now they aren't even pretending it wasn't aimed at Americans like they were last week. They are fully admitting it was aimed at Americans, especially the right. But I see Jeffy is still defending it.

      1. I never defended it, asshole.

        By the way, how many people did the Board throw into the gulags? Hmm?

        https://reason.com/2022/04/29/aoc-defends-due-process-as-colleagues-greenlight-asset-seizure-bill/?comments=true#comment-9469442

        I fully expect many of us will be labeled insurrectionist, arrested at 3 am by the FBI (after they shoot our dog) locked in solitary confinement, denied bale, denied access to a lawyer and held that way for a year to force us to confess.

        This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that I objected to.

        1. "I never defended it, asshole."

          You did defend it. You said that it was an exaggeration to claim that its purpose was to use the DHS to combat the speech of Americans- not foreigners.

          And what did we see? Quotes from the people involved saying, "That right wing speech of Americans is exactly the type of speech we wanted the DHS to combat."

          If those people are to be believed, then the Right Wing complaints that it was a Ministry of Truth are not exaggerations. They wanted to define what was 'disinformation' and to them that included the speech of Right Wingers, and they wanted to use the DHS (the government) to combat it.

          Either those people who went on the record were lying, or they just validated all that the Right said, and you were wrong for defending them.

          1. You did defend it. You said that it was an exaggeration to claim that its purpose was to use the DHS to combat the speech of Americans- not foreigners.

            No I never did. I dare you to find one comment where I said that this board is a good idea or that I support it. I never once did.

            Quotes from the people involved saying, "That right wing speech of Americans is exactly the type of speech we wanted the DHS to combat."

            No such quote exists. You completely made that up.

            1. They are in the fucking story idiot. And you weak ass condemnation was maybe one sentence and then you spend paragraphs making excuses and blaming the right. So, you didn't in so many words but your actions spoke pretty fucking loudly. I unmuted you to see you try and wiggle out of it, and sure enough you fucking did.

              1. No, that quote is completely made up.

                And you are right that I spent more time criticizing the right's overreaction to the board than to the board itself. None of which constitutes a defense of the board. I make it no secret that I loathe the right more than I loathe the left. I will not apologize for taking them to task when I think they have screwed up. But you also have to read what I actually write, not what you think I wrote.

                1. Jeff, when 90% of people see you run to every single negative comment about the left to attack the right as a defense of the left, it is a defense of the left. You do it constantly. How dare someone talk badly about the left with jeff around.

                  And then the bullshit you do with claiming you want neutrality as you attack the right in the same fucking thread. Grow up fatty.

                  Youre so tiresome and boring at this point. Just an obese loser pretending to be a libertarian when he knows he isn't one. Why the fuck do you spend so much energy gaslighting everyone. Take it to the gym and maybe you won't have to fucking beg people to wear a mask because you can't take care of yourself.

                  1. Yeah he is pulling his I criticize the right because they deserve it, quote me lying ass sophistry. He doesn't actually say the words 'I am defending it...' so he can deny that is what he was doing, but it's obvious to everyone that that's exactly what he is doing. It's typical obfuscation and sophistry, trying to convince you not to believe your eyes. And he is so picked on. Can't forget his playing the victim cards it's all a conspiracy to get him.

                  2. I used to defend him occasionally, but it's all so fucking tiresome, his bullshit, that I no longer even give him the benefit of doubt. It's so fucking predictable and such transparent bullshit, that I am fucking done even trying to be nice to him anymore. Fuck, it's gotten so bad that when I actually agree with him I reevaluate if I am wrong, because if he posts it, I fully expect it to be word salad bullshit, that I doubt my own position if it overlaps with his.

                  3. Oh and I love how he despises the right more than the left (which wouldn't be hard) because he considers them more of a threat to liberty, and who was it that created a government board to monitor Americans for disinformation by their own admission. Or and Overt paraphrased but got the jest of the statement that DHS sources provided, and Jeffy comes up with 'it's a made up quote'. As if the fucking original quote was any better than the paraphrase version. He's so full of shit and I think he is fully aware of it but that doesn't stop him for a second trying to imply that it's everyone else that is being untruthful. It's so fucking intellectually dishonest and self evident.

                    1. It’s almost like he’s paid to post his bullshit.

                    2. "created a government board to monitor Americans for disinformation.."

                      Yeah that would be terrible if anyone did that. They haven't.

                      Snowflake

                    3. Joe Friday, go fuck yourself.

                2. "Totalitarianism the problem, people objecting totalitarianism is the problem!"
                  -collectivistjeff

        2. Stop fucking lying about your consistent intentions jeff. Nobody is this fucking dumb to believe you.

      2. Since Jeffy is a gray box I'm not sure what he wrote but I'll take a stab at it. Denial he is defending the MoT, followed by deflection against the right, and sophistry. Am I close?

        1. He took one of your quotes out of context and said that you were part of the problem. https://reason.com/2022/04/29/aoc-defends-due-process-as-colleagues-greenlight-asset-seizure-bill/?comments=true#comment-9469442

          He left out the fact that it was one post out of many, where you said you expect at the least the board would be used to label american speech as disinformation (which it seems clear by their own admission, was going to happen) and that you could EASILY see such a thing later be used as justification to crack down on those people.

          1. A sarcastic post at that.

            1. "Sarcastic". Sure.

              1. Read the fucking post if you can't see it is fucking satire than you are way stupider than I thought you were and that takes a lot. Fucking he linked to it. Everyone can read it and see for themselves. Fuckhead.

                1. I mean it is so fucking obvious from the purposeful hyperbole that even my 5th grade daughter would get it was meant as fucking sarcasm.

                2. Oh and just so Jeffy is clear, since he obviously can't read critically, I didn't really think CE was arrested or mistreated by the now suspended MoT, that was also a fucking joke. I will now label all my jokes as fucking jokes so Jeffy doesn't get fucking confused. Because it's so obvious he has difficulty understanding basic concepts.

          2. To be absolutely fair he did once or twice say 'i think it's a bad idea but...' then spend four paragraphs saying how we didn't know enough to be concerned, that it wasn't aimed at Americans and it didn't have any enforcement powers.

            1. And it was all a right wing overreaction, anyhow.

            2. The idea that this board would produce reports on Americans 'that nobody would read,' that would simply sit around on a server or a shelf at DHS, is perhaps the most risible part of radical sophist's dismissal. Who created the Board? Who in Congress despises any member of the public who do not roll over when new, bigoted totalitarian bs is pushed out? Those are the folks who would use any reports against any person or group they deemed undesirable. As of now, and for the last decade or more, this has been the DNC more than the GOP, as much as the sophists, trolls, and shills wish it was the GOP.

              1. Lying Jeffy lies. It’s what he does.

            3. Your inability to debate issues with someone like Jeff who is regularly rational and not personal is duly noted. Your preference for lame personal insults says a lot about the weakness of your positions.

              1. No, it's treating chemtard's sophistry with the disrespect it deserves.

              2. Pedo Jeffy, like you, is not worthy of respect or civility. Also like you, he’s a liar. We prefer to visit cruelty upon your kind. Which is still better than you deserve.

                The best possible result for you, and Jeffy, is for you two to enter into a suicide pact. Feel free to fuck each other’s fat asses first if it helps.

      3. Not defending, just hemming, hawing, and excusing.

      4. They stopped pretending 10 days ago on that front:

        https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/ministry-of-truth-claims-parents?s=w

        “Critical Race Theory has become one of those hot-button issues that the Republicans and other disinformers, who are engaged in disinformation for profit, frankly … have seized on,” she said.

        She noted that she lived in Virginia where Loudoun County — which saw throngs of parents angrily speaking up at school boards — was “one of the areas where people have really homed in on this topic.”

    2. interestingly enough there was no disinformation or were her videos fake to begin with

    3. Why does it look like she's working in a casino with a beer?

      1. It does. I think it might be a bar or coffee shop, though.

  18. "And The Washington Post's wildly one-sided account of Jankowicz's fall was an exercise in government PR."

    Tony, turd and Joe Asshole SHOCKED!

  19. The Post should actually be the first target of the Ministry of Truth.

    1. Musk should have people go lay the homeless each ten do,Lars to go into WaPo’s lobby and take a shit, urinate, or masturbate to masturbate to comepletion. Given that WaPo is HQ’d in DC, there should be a never ending supply of homeless needing to relieve their bowels, balls, and bladders.

    2. The Washington Post: "Democracy Dies in Darkness".
      Also the Washington Post: "We're working on it."

  20. https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/1527003087927394307?t=dPPC0CBRF4HVIQcPJsfX3w&s=19

    Doocy: "DHS is worried if Roe v Wade is overturned there could be violence against the Supreme Court ... are these threats from pro-abortion activists or anti-abortion activists?"

    Jean-Pierre refuses to answer, instead saying that "protests have been peaceful to date."

    [Video]

    1. day one and proving she is an idiot

      1. It's day two, day one was her not being able to answer a question about inflation and the President's talking points.

        1. I posted a link to that upthread, but here it is again….

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNL242iko3k

          1. She may be just what we needed to rid ourselves of any positive coverage of el Presidente Pantshitter. From that clip yesterday, it's quite apparent that she's only in that job because she checks the boxes. As unlikeable as Peppermint Patty was, she was pretty incredible to cover for all of the retardation coming from her boss.

            1. As unlikeable as Peppermint Patty was, she was pretty incredible to cover for all of the retardation coming from her boss.

              ^

              She was clearly regularly caught completely off guard, but was always smooth and unflappable. This lady can't even read a pre-printed statement without stammering and sounding confused.

              1. "She was clearly regularly caught completely off guard, but was always smooth and unflappable."

                And also very happy to respond with extreme condescension even when her team was clearly at fault.

                I.E. Covid tests. "What is the government going to do to get COVID tests to people who need them"

                Psaki, condescendingly: "what do you think the govt is just going to send them to people?!"

                Reporter "...I mean ya like all the other governments are doing that..."

                She was never afraid to respond as the media entrenched cunt she was.

            2. She was a very adept liar. Maybe she’s Jeffy?

              1. Jeffy isn't adapt at lying, it's always perfectly clear.

        2. To be fair, she's not a trained economist.

          1. Or obviously a trained public speaker either.

            1. Oh sorry, I forgot to label that as a joke for SlowJeffy.

    2. Other than threats, molatov cocktails, disrupting church services and trying to instigate a fight and refusing to allow security to escort you out when asked. Entirely peaceful.

      1. We said mostly, not entirely.

        1. So glad to see you survived your interview with the now defunct MoT.

        2. Yeah. That wasn't in her quote but that will definitely be there next talking point when called out on this shit.

  21. prompted serious concerns from many civil libertarians

    Yeah, because all the minarchists, ancaps, and various other flavors of economic libertarians were shouting "Let 'er rip!" and not "Let her R.I.P.!"

  22. Always with the pouncing.

  23. Funny shit. Article refers to a far right wing source for comment on the agency's head's supposed botching of the Hunter laptop October Surprise. In another words, right wing shills pump the shrill fear about an agency with no enforcement powers and aimed at Russian/Chinese and other foreign disinformation and the scared little girlie snowflakes here and elsewhere think they hear the trains for Auschwitz coming to get them. Don't worry babies - Matt Geatz will keep the bad men from getting you.

    As pointed out numerous times now, the same MSM did not publish anything about the Steele Dossier until 2017 even though they all knew about it 2 months before the 2016 election. It's called journalistic responsibility. The Biden laptop story was another pre-election October surprise which those without any sense of responsibility, like the Mudoch NY Post, ran with and then refused access to the evidence for verification by other news organizations - same with Guliani. In a recent story, the WaPo found:

    "When the New York Post first reported in October 2020 that it had obtained the contents of a laptop computer allegedly owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter, there was an immediate roadblock faced by any other news outlet that hoped to corroborate the reporting, as many did: The newspaper wasn’t sharing what it obtained.

    The national story quickly centered on the dubious provenance of the material, particularly given how, four years before, WikiLeaks had begun releasing material stolen by Russian hackers at about the same point in the presidential contest. But for news outlets interested in actually evaluating what the New York Post claimed it had, neither the paper nor its source for the material, President Donald Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, were willing to share. (Giuliani famously told the New York Times that he was hoping to avoid having the material vetted before being published.) It therefore seemed wise to treat the New York Post’s claims with some skepticism.

    Now, a new voice has joined those raising questions about the validity of the material that’s alleged to have been on Hunter Biden’s laptop: the guy who recovered that data in the first place.

    Last month, The Washington Post was able to publish a report based on a copy of material that we obtained from a Republican activist named Jack Maxey who’d gotten it from Giuliani. We had multiple experts examine the contents of a hard drive that purported to contain the laptop’s contents, validating tens of thousands of emails as likely to be legitimate. But an enormous amount of the material on the drive couldn’t be validated as legitimate, in part because of the game of telephone that the material had undergone by the time it reached us. (The report notes that efforts to obtain the material in 2020 were rebuffed.)

    “The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years,” our report explained, with those we spoke with being unable to “reach definitive conclusions about the contents as a whole, including whether all of it originated from a single computer or could have been assembled from files from multiple computers and put on the portable drive.”

    For example:

    “[An expert] also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared.”
    “Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, ‘Mail,' ‘Salacious Pics Package’ and ‘Big Guy File’ — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.”
    One expert likened it to a crime scene that was littered with fast-food wrappers thanks to the first police who’d arrived on the scene. That’s meant as an indictment, but it’s also generous. The first people on the scene weren’t police, in this case; they were (to extend the analogy) people aiming to obtain an indictment against a particular person.

    There is still an unlittered crime scene out there. ...

    What Mac Isaac (laptop repair shop owner) said next, though, is what was most noteworthy. When he did his “deep dive,” he said, he “saw a lot of photos” — but “did not see a lot of photos that are being reported to [have been] seen.”

    “I do know that there have been multiple attempts over the past year-and-a-half to insert questionable material into the laptop as in, not physically, but passing off this misinformation or disinformation as coming from the laptop,” he said. “And that is a major concern of mine because I have fought tooth and nail to protect the integrity of this drive and to jeopardize that is going to mean that everything that I sacrificed will be for nothing.”

    In other words, Mac Isaac says that he has seen claims about what the laptop contains that don’t actually reflect what he saw on the laptop at the outset. Or, presumably, sees now, as one of the few people that might still have an unlittered copy of its contents.

    Here’s where The Washington Post’s discovery that folders were added becomes more important. We have evidence that the portable hard drive had something added to it both before and after the New York Post’s original story — and here’s Mac Isaac agreeing that some of what he’s seen presented as coming from the laptop was never on there. This is why provenance matters in journalistic investigations. Just because Rudy Giuliani says that material came from a hard drive is not reason to assume it did — particularly when he’s on-record as disparaging the idea that the material should be vetted before being reported on.

    Hunter Biden remains under federal investigation for possible violations of tax law. The material on the laptop (assuming that the laptop itself is Biden’s, which is also not entirely settled) may play a role in establishing his guilt or innocence. But the mythical contents of the laptop that have been so fascinating to the right for the past 18 months are — at least at times — not provably that.

    If you don’t want to take the mainstream media’s word for it, take Mac Isaac’s."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/

    1. Now here is Joe still flogging the laptop is fake story. You are about as pathetic as those people claiming the nukes in Iraq will be found any day now.

      Take the L, man.

    2. I didn't see much there other than a lot of words flying out of your flabby ass.

      1. If you need that many words to get your point across you are wrong.

    3. Burden of proof is on you Joe Friday.

      You want the government to actively censor information - you better PROVE that the information is false.

      Just pointing out that there may be reasons to be suspicious is not nearly enough to justify a federal agency's involvement with suppressing a story.

      Let us know when someone's been convicted in court for fraud or libel regarding the HB laptop story.

      1. You want the government to actively censor information - you better PROVE that the information is false.

        You need to prove a hell of a lot more than that.

      2. It's enough that the story might be bad for Democrats, in Joe's opinion that's reason enough for the government to ban it.

        1. Nope, no intelligent life in this post either.

          1. Witness Joe Fuckface's posts, for example.

      3. In the case of Hunter's laptop, it would have been the easiest story in the world to confirm. Ask the people involved in the emails. They all said the emails were real.

        There was no reason to be suspicious at all after an hour of investigation, which all the 'journalists' never bothered to do.

        1. Which several news agencies did and had answers within 24 hours verifying it's authenticity. But they were the wrong news agencies. It's much better to label it misinformation based on 50+ intelligence agents who didn't even bother to do any homework.

          1. Exactly.

            1. Like the 2016 October Surprise called the Steele Dossier, responsible news sources could not obtain evidence - withheld by Murdock's NYPost and Guliani - to verify the veracity of the Hunter Biden laptop and did not go with it just before an election. It still cannot be verified to be accurate, though some of it is, as even the owner of the shop which discovered it says it has screwed with and information added.

              I wish Comey had announced Trump was under FBI investigation - he was - when he announced Hillary was 2 weeks from voting day and I wish the Steele Dossier had been on the front page of the NYTs and WaPo before the election, but neither thing happened.

              Right wing jerk offs claiming the lack of verification for Hunter Biden's laptop - which part of it? - was an act of media bias is clearly bullshit as they did the same thing with Trump and the Dossier in 2016. Same with supposed "deep state" actor Comey who could have ended Trump's candidacy in 2016 by speaking the truth he somehow decided was relevant for Hillary but not Trump.

              WTF?

              1. Except the Steele Dossier was actually bullshit, and the Hunter Biden laptop wasn't.

              2. And yet the Steele Dossier was used to justify the investigation into the opposition party’s campaign.

                AND you’re full of shit on when the story broke. I even beat your ass with the fucking facts the last time you tried to pull it. Fuck off.

      4. "Burden of proof is on you Joe Friday..."

        Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
        Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
        Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
        Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.

      5. "You want the government to actively censor information.."

        No, I don't.

        1. Yes, you do.

        2. Sure you do. You’re a liar.

    4. Msm published the first article about the dossier 2 weeks before the election dumbass. Believe it was brooks. T

      Weird you confuse publishing the dossier with publishing articles about things in the dossier.

    5. Joe Friday, go fuck yourself.

    6. Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
      Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
      Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
      Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
      Eat shit and die, lying pile of lefty shit.

    7. TL:dr. I'll get to it on my own good time. Meanwhile, Fuck Off, O'Brien.

  24. The Washington Post is basically an arm of the Biden administration.

    But with that said, the real problem was the very idea of the board in the first place.

    1. Bezos completed it’s weaponization against democrat foes after he purchased it.

  25. And The Washington Post's wildly one-sided account of Jankowicz's fall was an exercise in government PR.

    Pretty sure everything WaPo publishes is an exercise in government PR. At least when the The Right People are in charge anyway.

  26. The real story is that Reason did not write extensively about the Disinformation Board quickly enough to satisfy the nationalists who lurk here.

    1. You mean the snowflakes who dominate here don't you?

      1. You don’t dominate anything. You’re a stupid progandist bitch who pukes out leftist talking points on command like a Baby’s pablum.

        P.S. ‘progandist’ was a typo, but I’m leaving it. I think it’s more descriptive of what you are than merely ‘propagandist’.

        1. He always claims he dominated and beat us, when it's clear from any thread he was demolished. If you have to declare yourself the winner, it's likely you weren't.

          1. And yes I said the same thing about Trump in 2020. Before he tries bringing that up.

          2. Sorry you're still butt hurt from your fight with the laws of physics and veteran ER docs, but I didn't claim above that I dominated anything. Can't read, all knee jerk action, or .... what?

            1. And who is "us"? Mouse in your pocket or the willing peanut gallery of right wing extremists posing as libertarians here?

              1. You don’t know anything about guns. Just like all progs. So just stop, you’re a harassing yourself. You’re just a buffoon.

            2. Sorry you're still butt hurt from your fight with the laws of physics and veteran ER docs,

              "Veteran ER docs" who claimed that American troops were shot by hajjis with M-16s instead of AK-47s?

            3. Hahahahahahaha

              Man, you are really giving shrike a run for his money on dumbest motherfucker to post here.

    2. It is sort of inexcusable for a supposedly libertarian news site to not react with swift and repeated condemnation when the government announces a brazen attack on free thought and expression. Mentioning it in passing and re-posting a Steven Greenhut article a week later is beyond disappointing.

      Contrast it to Reason's coverage of the Roe v. Wade opinion leak, an issue where libertarians are somewhat split.

      1. They condemned Trump endorsements in the midterms more than this terrible assault to freedom.

    3. Nah, it’s the L your side just took.

    4. Oh BS, writing quickly is a Reason hallmark. They had no less than 400 posts and half a dozen 12,000 word essays and multiple podcasts written, recorded, produced and published fifteen minutes after the SCOTUS abortion memo hit the news.

      When your blood is up about something, it'll happen.

    5. And wouldn't the "nationalists" be the ones in favor of the national government cracking down on free speech, instead of the people protesting against that crackdown?

      1. Nationalists is the new racists. It means anyone who disagrees with the left or the leftarians on Reason.

      2. What crackdown on free speech? Be specific please.

        1. Joe Friday, go play frogger on the expressway, please.

    6. No, the real tragedy is idiots like you who defend their inexcusable silence for 48 hours and ran more anti-republican stories in those 48 hours than stories on this subject since it broke.

    7. You don't have to be a NatCon to hate the idea of Government being the arbiter of what is true. If Government has that power, the NatCons, SoCons, Religoius Cons, NeoCons, Leftie Tankies, Eco-Wackos, RadFems, SJWs, Wokesters, and anyone else who gets the reins of power can use it against anyone!

  27. “Jankowicz's experience is a prime example of how the right-wing Internet apparatus operates, where far-right influencers attempt to identify a target, present a narrative and then repeat mischaracterizations across social media and websites with the aim of discrediting and attacking anyone who seeks to challenge them.”

    Oh, come on, that’s left-wing bread and butter. Remember Joe Rogan?

    1. Another lefty bandwagon Jeffy jumped on.

  28. Mission accomplished:
    Got the border and economy off the radar for a couple of days, and made people think it wasn't being more effectively already. Openly drop the red herring, continue using the old "private companies" gag to further the good works.
    That false flag wasn't going to last past November anyway.

    1. They'll fill their gas tanks for the weekend and it'll all come flooding back. Pretty hard to forget about the economy at $6 a gallon.

  29. Will they just create a secret disinformation council now? Pressure internet services behind the scenes on what they need to sensor.

    1. Well, they were already doing that.

      1. Just like the FISA court for the internet. They're going pretty hard after the commie shot up the grocery store in Buffalo to let us know how dangerous all the information is.

      2. Yeah, that's called Wednesday.

      3. Fuck, they aren't even doing it behind the screens, they are openly bragging about it. The Whitehouse even tweeted about being in communication with Social Media and flagging information they didn't like.

  30. Did Lorenz accuse another person or group of operating in bad faith? Wow, pot, meet kettle.

    1. In her case, those two things are inseparable.

      1. Traitor

        1. No, I’m not a leftist. I’m a conservatarian. Therefore I am incapable of treason, and am intrinsically patriotic. You are Marxist, therefore you are a traitor, to your very core. This also makes you a weak, beta male, soyboy pussy. This is why you’re so angry. Your natural envy and jealousy towards real men, of which you are not.

          Perhaps you should visit Tony. He probably needs another gimp for when he has a day off from being a gimp himself. Or maybe you can just kill yourself. A pussy like you will probably have to swallow a bunch of pills. As you are too scared of pain to take the honorable way out. If you could even understand what that mean.

          It’s not like you have any value, or anyone could care about you anyway.

  31. I am so glad that appointees to such boards are incompetent. Imagine this board existed and the head of it were competent!

  32. Speaking of government disinformation, it turns out nearly half of President Biden’s 22.2 million Twitter followers are bogus, a new audit revealed.

    https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/half-of-joe-bidens-twitter-followers-are-fake-audit-reveals/

    1. Tip of the iceberg. Keep that popcorn ready to pop.

      1. How’s Spokane traitor?

        1. Why don’t you come for a visit and I’ll show you? I can give you the full tour. Might have to help you a few dozen times though. As I suspect you have problems with your equilibrium.

          1. I’ll let ya know next time I’m on the shithole side of the Cascades.

            1. Yeah…….. is that way all you fangs are fleeing there to come here in droves?

        2. How’s Gehenna, freakshow?

          1. What’s Gehenna?

          2. Look it up you ignorant retard.

        3. Eat shit and die, lefty asshole.

          1. Have a beer ya big pussy

            1. You’re confused. YOU are the pussy. A real man could never vote for Patty Murray or Maria Cuntwell.

            2. "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." - Proverbs 20:1

    2. Sounds like Russian disinformation to me.

    3. I'm guessing that half of all followers of politicians on Twitter are fake. The second a republican posts on Twitter the thread instantly fills up with badly overused stock images and videos about how dumb they are, etc. They make engaging in ideas impossible, because they outnumber any serious users.

    4. Just like his voters.

  33. https://twitter.com/JarrydJaeger/status/1527038264418324480?t=6J_uichqbKE7ftBKcmPmiA&s=19

    Western University deleted an image depicting two women in hijabs about to kiss after receiving backlash from the Muslim community.

    My latest for @TPostMillennial

    [Link]

  34. Taylor Lorenz is a joke of a journalist. She's the twerp that harassed relatives of the person behind "Libs of TikTok" in her quest to publish an article exposing, "doxing", the owner of "Libs of TikTok". A couple of weeks before she was featured in an NPR video crying when complaining that people have made mean comments & death threats. Talk about lack of self awareness! She obviously doesn't know "Turnaround is fair play" or "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" nor "Karma is a bitch".
    P.S. It is apparent that Nina Jankowicz & Taylor Lorenz are "Birds of a Feather".

  35. https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1527007805810561026?t=GQs0UVthCmdr4D6MULNheg&s=19

    Gov. Hochul has announced a new police unit to "combat" hate speech. https://t.co/wb4yLVs2E8 Hochul previously stated. “There is a limit to what you can do, and hate crimes—hate speech—is not protected.”That is not true. Hate speech is constitutionally protected.

    ...Hochul declared “I’ll protect the First Amendment any day of the week. But you don’t protect hate speech." It is a common doublespeak of censorship. You cannot declare you support free speech except for any speech that you deem hateful.

    ...Similarly, Barack Obama declared himself a virtual "First Amendment absolutist" except for anything that he considers “disinformation,” “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.”

    [Links]

    1. Wonder what crime they can actually charge people with?

      1. Anything they want?

        Rule of law is dead, man.

        1. You're for that, right Nardz? Or do you think Putin is protecting free speech by killing any women and children who are opposed to it?

          1. Coming from a guy whose side's motto has been "It's okay when we do it" since the French Revolution, you're hardly one to point fingers you future compost pile.

  36. Every time one of their harebrained ideas gets into trouble, they immediately cry intimidation and death threats for right wing extremists. Where's the proof? If the was receiving death threats, that is a legal matter. But you will never hear any more about this, because it's complete BS.

    They certainly would not shitcan this twat because she's incompetent, that's a key feature of Bidend's entire administration.

    The DGB, lol, that doesn't cound Orwellian at all! It's like they have zero self awareness.

  37. Totes surprising!

    https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1526994002586873857?t=OaljkRXEXQeETm5AtiSkyw&s=19

    Disinformation Czar Nina worked on Zelensky campaign in 2019.

    I presume that Czarina Nina, Vindman and Alexandra Chalupa all knew one another.

    [Link]

    1. Don't you dare say bad things about Zelensky, the world's most greatest hero of democracy and Hunter Biden's crack dealer.... uhh, never mind.

    2. More of that dangerous right-wing disinformation that threatened Nina into quitting her job!

  38. https://twitter.com/SMoran99/status/1527000092401623043?t=8zZ2ebcoyVVpiqg1PkDqtg&s=19

    Just guessing but it probably has something to do with this [graphic]

  39. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has placed a "pause" on the newly-minted Disinformation Governance Board; its first executive director, Nina Jankowicz, has resigned.

    More like Jankywits, am I right?

  40. This news comes from an exclusive report by The Washington Post's Taylor Lorenz, whose scoop is buried underneath layers of pro-government verbiage.

    Pro-government verbiage from the scion of modern American Journolism, Taylor Lorenz? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo......

    1. Just add it to the stack of WaPo Pulitzer submissions for 2022.

  41. For WaPo, the story is not that DHS shuttered the Disinformation Governance Board—the real story is that right-wing "coordinated online attacks" achieved this outcome after subjecting Jankowicz to an "unrelenting barrage of harassment."

    Find the "conservative" with defensive knife wounds on his hands and accuse them of fighting Kultur warr hurrdurrr.

    1. if those conservatives just would have shut up and taken it from the people directly attempting to silence their viewpoints with the power of the government...and even worse, not only did they pipe up, they POUNCED!

      The audacity.

  42. "Jankowicz's experience is a prime example of how the right-wing Internet apparatus operates, where far-right influencers attempt to identify a target, present a narrative and then repeat mischaracterizations across social media and websites with the aim of discrediting and attacking anyone who seeks to challenge them."

    "Identify a target"? Where have we heard that before? Oh, yes...Rule # 12 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals!

    Looks like biden has 'misunderestimated' the outrage of his Orwellian creation and its Mary Poppins Supercalifragilistic-intoning Dear Leader.

    Guess we need something like a Ministry of Mis-Disinformation to rescue the Ministry of Disinformation.

  43. "She has been subject to an unrelenting barrage of harassment and abuse while unchecked misrepresentations of her work"

    AKA her Twitter feed.

  44. "These smears leveled by bad-faith, right-wing actors against a deeply qualified expert and against efforts to better combat human smuggling and domestic terrorism are disgusting," deputy White House press secretary Andrew Bates told The Post...

    Deeply qualified? At what?

    I would report Bates to the Disinformation Board for spreading disinformation, but the Board has been put on pause, apparently.

  45. Facebook for characterizing his videos as misleading, even though fact-checkers eventually conceded he was right.

    "eventually conceded" is a code word for "we got caught".

  46. The board's existence, which was announced just three weeks ago, prompted serious concerns from many civil libertarians...

    None of whom, apparently, work at Reason.

    1. Private government, they can do as they please.

  47. The article reads like it was ghostwritten by Jankowicz herself, which makes the underlying scoop less impressive: It's easy to get a government official to cooperate for a news article when the news article takes the form of PR.

    It probably was, and I'm not even being snarky.

  48. Collectivistjeff hardest hit

    https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1527009488301170688?t=w5fXXsz-wtQzwj0g-fyrdQ&s=19

    The 5th Circuit just dismantled the SEC's power to enforce securities law. This decision is beyond radical. It is nihilistic. [Link]

    Jennifer Walker Elrod's majority opinion approvingly cites Ronald Reagan's "Nine Most Terrifying Words in the English Language" (I'm from the government, and I'm here to help).

    I ask again: What is going on in the 5th Circuit?!

    Anyway, the implication of this decision is that most (all?) agency enforcement power is unconstitutional. Which, in plain English, means that the federal government can't enforce a huge swath of regulations. I mean, this is basically striking down the administrative state.

    1. Well that could actually be a huge story.

      1. Lotta those these days.

  49. Jankowicz's experience is a prime example of how the right-wing Internet apparatus operates, where far-right influencers attempt to identify a target, present a narrative and then repeat mischaracterizations across social media and websites with the aim of discrediting and attacking anyone who seeks to challenge them.

    By the way, did you all hear that Donald Trump called a bunch of KKK white supremacist Nazis in Charlottesville "very fine people"?! And he never actually ever, like ever, denounced white supremacy at all, ever?! And Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house???

  50. https://twitter.com/relevantmena/status/1527047965843521547?t=1oFTMoMIol8PWXOJz-0uZA&s=19

    How long will it take the narrative to go from “She’s choosing to live with the voices in her head and that’s okay” to “The voices in her head are REAL, it’s illegal to say otherwise, and we’ll take your children away if you disagree”

    [Link]

    1. God, we were always taught not to play into people's delusions. It's actually a very dangerous thing, to both the provider and the patient.

    2. We live now in a world where horrible, destructive pathologies aren't just normalized and celebrated, but the celebration is compulsory.
      This is completely and entirely the fault of the Western clerisy and the worst political class in history.

      1. They are cultivated because they are useful to the totalitarian establishment.
        They get to dictate what is to be treated as real, and what reality is to be ignored.
        It's incredibly destabilizing to the sane, and promotes the psychotic as deployable tools for the regime.

  51. "Within hours of news of her appointment, Jankowicz was thrust into the spotlight by the very forces she dedicated her career to combating," writes Lorenz.

    This is an interesting confession, by the way. According to the Washington post and its stalwart journalist, the very forces she was supposed to combat were her political opposition. This is a rather telling confession when you'd think they could claim that this new Disinformation department was supposed to simply root out foreign propaganda or Chinese interference in elections or... something that maybe... MAYBE reasonable people could MAYBE agree was a reasonable endeavor. Nope, domestic political opposition, that's it, that's the sum of it.

    1. Thrust into the spotlight. Isn't that par for the course for political appointees? Are they not supposed to be examined now by the public?

    2. Nuh uh.

      — Lying Jeffy

    3. Nope, domestic political opposition, that's it, that's the sum of it.

      "Within hours of news of her appointment, Jankowicz was thrust into the spotlight by the very forces she dedicated her career to combating," writes Lorenz.

      The WaPo isn't even pretending it was anything else. It frightens the shit out of me that the Proggies can state it so boldly without worry.

      1. Better than the Deseret News

        1. Fuck off.

        2. Please mention a journalist from Deseret News that's worse than Taylor Lorenz. Get going.

  52. You would think that Reason would get a fucking clue and stop quoting the piss-yellow rag whose motto should be "Democracy, Lies and Darkness". But where else are they going to get their talking points on the Jan 6 trials?

    1. Yeah, it’s pretty sad every time there’s an in depth story that shows WAPO to be a full of shit Democrat propaganda outfit, it’s fallowed the next morning by unquestioned links to a different story from them.

    2. Your dead pig friend is burning in hell

        1. Stop boring everyone

          1. Eat shit and die, lefty asshole.

            1. What makes you think I’m a lefty?

      1. Eat shit and die, lefty asshole.

        1. Do you think I’m a lefty because I don’t gargle Trump’s cum like you do?

          1. I doubt you could gargle what comes out of Biden's droopy sack. Choke on a cloud of dust maybe, but not gargle.
            Have you thought about mixing it with water first?

          2. "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry." - 1 Samuel 15:23

          3. True, but you have turned your rectum into Trump’s personal sperm bank.

  53. "Jankowicz ... is glamorized as "well-known" in the field, having "extensive experience," and "well-regarded" in just the first two paragraphs"

    No doubt Joseph Goebbels and Chen Boda were "well known" by others in their field, too, and brought "extensive experience" to their work.

  54. https://nypost.com/2022/05/18/philly-teachers-reportedly-encouraged-to-attend-trans-sex-conference/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter

    "The Philadelphia school district’s diversity office reportedly encouraged its teachers to attend a transgender conference where they were exposed to explicit presentations about kinky sex, masturbation and adult toys.

    The district’s Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion sent educators invitations to “learn more about the issues facing the trans community”

    That's good. Apparently the philly schools have things so wrapped up with their kids graduating with top literacy and mathematics performance. This must be the case, as the most pressing matter for the teachers to attend from the DEI office was about trannies talking about which big dildos they like to shove up their asses.

    Glad they are able to move on to these topics, with their students having an absolute mastery of the what they need to actually succeed in life.

    1. Nuh uh.

      — Lying Jeffy

  55. The White House will just have to find a new liberal buzzword to jump on. Perhaps an Insurrection Prevention Board is in order.

  56. It is a bitter, bitter day; just got back from Nina's farewell happy hour where we bought her some drinks and she sang us some new songs about mean men online and then we speculated on who would be in charge of the newly reformulated and more easily deniable Disinformation Governance Council ("Board" being the word the focus groups liked least). The mission has not changed, but it's clear the nation is not yet ready for what we had in mind, so we'll just do it behind the scenes for their own good. They can thank us later.

    Have a pleasant day, you bad-faith, right-wing actors!

    1. Best label this satire or SlowJeffy will think you are being serious.

      1. Nah. He was at the happy hour!

  57. https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/1527096243821989888?t=f2Cqryy0xjMHCnwWEl5Vcg&s=19

    Former U.S. President George W. Bush: "The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean, of the Ukraine"

    [Video]

    1. Does he say "Iraq, too" under his breath there?

  58. Jankowics' was hired despite the DHS knowing her history. FFS. If it weren't for the backlash, complaints, and humiation she and the DGB would still be a thing.

    It absolutely was her critics that got this done.

    But - can't give the 'right wingers' credit for getting one right, can we?

  59. The unconstitutional idea of a Disinformation Board doomed the Disinformation Board. No one with a brain cell functioning in their head wants the government propagandist deciding what is false and what is true. An open forum where different opinions can be shared and debated is what will find the truth.

  60. The entire notion of an official disinformation board is surreal and extremely distressing. The ironic to real to be funny is that Nina Jankowiz was chosen to even be involved.

    The simple rule when going all in on power grabs to view the new powers in light that at some point your opposition will hold these same powers and you will be on the other side should make you pause. Of course these power hungry partisans always assume that they will always be in power or that they can tilt the deck in such a way to prevent any opposition.

    Thus an official disinformation board. Label all opposition as a domestic terrorist. Use government alphabet agencies to harass any opposition. This is the Democrat elites game plan. Not that if the Republican elites would not attempt a variant of the same game plan, although the Republican elites are more timid than the Democrat elites. Sort of like a Super demon versus a regular Demon not that I think that they are possessed, but rather how they act. Both are bad, but one is worse. Neither will get my vote.

    It's time for third parties. For me I prefer the Libertarian party, but also want the Green party and others to thrive. There are some items where my views will align and others when they don't. I can support anyone who support my view regarding that specific issue. Likewise I can oppose someone whom I disagree regarding that specific issue even if I agree on other issues with them.

    Third parties allow collations to work on a specific issue. Issue by issue and not the omnibus all encompassing bills with all the graft and political trading. We live in a modern version of George Orwell's 1984 and it's time to stop the nightmare. Everyone should vote for some third party instead of either the Republican or Democrat parties. The final vote count need to be large and will have an impact even if the third party candidates don't win.

    1. None of that happened except in your fevered brain Uomo, because that's what you handlers want you to dream.

      The board has no enforcement powers and was defined as countering misinformation from foreign actors like the Rusians and Chinese - oooh, we can't have anyone providing counterinformation to whatever Putin feeds his stooges like Nardz - and specifically as an example cited misinformation being provide to potential immigrants encouraging them to show up on our borders.

      You snowflakes imagined gulags from this non-event because the GOP saw another cultural war front they could open over bullshit like CRT. Keep your Teddy Bear tight when you go to bed little girls.

      1. Literally nothing you wrote here is accurate.

      2. You keep saying that it has no enforcement powers, which has been one of the administration's talking points about the board. Repeating a lie over and over again might convince some very poorly informed people, but it doesn't make it true.

        The fact is that this board was organized under the Department of Homeland Security, which does have enforcement powers. A lot of them. They don't even need to go out of their department.

  61. right-wing disinformation and smear campaigns regularly follow the same playbook ...The campaigns invariably start with identifying a person to characterize as a villain.

    Knowledgeable Americans would recognize the tactic from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", but this week's sophomore prodigy never learned anything about the left as doing so would make her impure. So she imputes the tactic to the right, although at least in doing so she implies it is wrong. Revealingly she will never apply this judgement to her own team.

    WAPO and the rest of the left media hire people who literally know nothing other than campaigns specifically so reality will not impede their propaganda mission.

  62. The article would be unhinged if it were published in the oped section. That WAPO puts this in the news section shows what a joke they are.

    1. It was written by DNC mouthpiece Taylor Lorenz, which should automatically flag it as a joke regardless.

  63. Jankowicz is quoted as saying her critics need to be the adults in the room. When your life skill is propagandizing tweens on tic-toc surely someone else needs to be the adult, but it seems a strange admission. If you have the high-powered government job aren't you supposed to be the adult in the room?

  64. :::huddling over crystal ball, conjuring the future three years hence:::::

    Reason's Trumptard commentariat rationalizing the fat President's new "Fake News Board" because, well, it pisses off chemjeff

    1. Reason's Trumptard commentariat rationalizing the fat President's new "Fake News Board" because, well, it pisses off chemjeff

      At least you're acknowledging that he'll only start bitching about it if it's run by Republicans.

      1. and your bitching will stop for the same reason

  65. WHAT IS MONEY ME

    Money Me is an online lending platform that offers personal loans to customers across Australia. Applying for a loan with Money Me is simple and straightforward. Customers can apply for a loan online through the Money Me website or mobile app. The application process takes just a few minutes and customers will receive an instant decision on their loan application.

    Money Me offers their customers a simple and straight-forward online application process for personal loans of up to $50k. You submit your loan application online in just a few minutes; you get approved not long after that and, depending on your loan amount and who your bank account is with, you could receive your funds the same business day. There is no lengthy paperwork to fill out. There is usually no need for any phone calls. You receive your own personal loan dashboard where you can monitor and manage your personal loan details, Money me gives the opportunity to customers to make changes to your loan under any circumstances, and even make extra repayments if you want to. Simple, responsible lending of fast cash loans for every customer. That’s MoneyMe.

    Why is money me one of Australia’s favourite and fastest online lenders?

    If you’re new to the world of credit and applying for products like personal loans then there can sometimes be some confusion about exactly how credit products work, what types of personal loans are available, and what kind of information from an individual’s credit report will a responsible credit provider be looking for, and it’s not all bad news on that front. We’ll take you through the facts and figures and hopefully help you confidently understand how a personal loan works, whether quick cash loans are really as fast as they appear to be, and show you our range of credit options so you can find the best type of credit product for you from car loans to our Freestyle line of credit account and more.

    How Many Types Of Loans Can You Get From Money Me?

    Money me offers Personal Loans, Cash Loans, Quick Cash Loans, Online Cash Loans, Cash Advance, Fast Cash Advances, Short Term Loans, Quick Loans, Express Loans And Others

    Types of Credit Cards Available From Money Me.

    Line of Credit
    Credit Card
    Credit Card Application Online
    Virtual Credit Card
    Fast Approval Credit Card
    Interest Free Credit Card

    https://www.theghstage.com/2022/04/loan-how-to-get-up-to-50000-loan-from.html

  66. Jankowicz has those vacant, deranged Leftist Manson lamps.

  67. The Biden Administration's Orwellian Ministry of Truth is nothing more than government-sanctioned "fact-checkers", which is nothing but Leftwing propaganda in drag.

  68. So the "Working Group" that was supposedly going to protect the nation from threats by the Cartels and foreign intelligence services can't defend its own existence from an angry group of twitter and tiktok pundits and a slice of the public?

    Of course, if the group actually had as little actual authority as the DHS Secretary was claiming on the Sunday morning "news" shows, shutting it down was really a lateral move from keeping it going anyway.

  69. Not her faulty record should have not mattered. The job should not exist.
    I did hear she got death threats. Thomas Jefferson was very wise indeed.

    “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.