"Quite a few of them even plainly stated that Trump was trying to sow doubts about the legitimacy of U.S. elections.
Also good.
But most of them whiffed when it came to answering the all-important question: Why is he doing this?
That answer is essential to understanding the extraordinary dangers ahead.
And here’s the answer: Trump’s goal is to create a pretext for invalidating election results he doesn’t like in the future, starting with the midterm elections coming up in just over 100 days."
I think "fact-checking" is the wrong frame entirely. It implies that the statement is a "fact" to begin with, and then it needs to be "checked." That's an incorrect assumption.
Another way to put this: official statements are currently considered TRUE until proven FALSE.
- I say official statements from Trump or any of his spokes should be considered FALSE until proven TRUE.
- Statements from his press secretary should be considered FALSE until proven TRUE.
- Statments from his VP or any cabinet officials shouldbe considered FALSE until proven TRUE.
So instead of "fact-checking," the procedure should be called something like "statement-checking" to remove any assumption of factuality.
Unlike you, most journalists have the bandwidth and courage to be candid and honest. This is readily apparent with the New York Times and the legacy media insist on calling the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court "the Conservative Majority," which they are clearly not, as they ignore 50+ years of precedent and the plain language of the Constitution
Consider: The Insurrection Clause (14th Amendment, Section 3) was designed to automatically bar oath-breaking officials who "engaged in insurrection" from federal office, but the Supreme Court's unanimous Trump v. Anderson ruling narrowed it to require new congressional enforcement legislation rather than letting it operate on its own; by contrast, the Citizenship Clause's text — "born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" — is widely regarded by legal scholars as unambiguous, which is why many observers argue Trump v. Barbara should have been unanimous like United States v. Nixon rather than the 6-3 split it actually was, with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting. Both cases show a Court willing to divide along ideological lines even on textually clear constitutional provisions — a contrast to Nixon, where all eight participating justices (including three Nixon appointees) agreed 8-0 that executive privilege didn't shield the tapes, seen by many as a high-water mark of the Court prioritizing constitutional clarity over political stakes.
To provide important context, reporters should insert links in their stories to:
Timothy Snyder — "Hitler and Stalin Today" course, publicly released: https://snyder.substack.com/p/new-lecture-series-for-the-public (this is the post where he's releasing his ten-lecture U of T course on Substack; lectures are also going up on YouTube)
Craig Unger — "American Kompromat" (recently renamed from his personal Substack, same underlying publication): https://substack.com/@craigunger — note this covers his Trump-Russia Timeline series and Den of Spies-related writing
Senators — official pages with recent Trump/Russia/corruption statements
Corporate America is either afraid or complicit with Trump's attempts to Orbanize our elections. Trump hates voting by mail--solely because Dem voters prefer to cast their ballots that way. He hates women voters because they now prefer to vote Blue, and his "SAVE" act will prevent up to 30 million women from voting.
"Quite a few of them even plainly stated that Trump was trying to sow doubts about the legitimacy of U.S. elections.
Also good.
But most of them whiffed when it came to answering the all-important question: Why is he doing this?
That answer is essential to understanding the extraordinary dangers ahead.
And here’s the answer: Trump’s goal is to create a pretext for invalidating election results he doesn’t like in the future, starting with the midterm elections coming up in just over 100 days."
I think "fact-checking" is the wrong frame entirely. It implies that the statement is a "fact" to begin with, and then it needs to be "checked." That's an incorrect assumption.
Another way to put this: official statements are currently considered TRUE until proven FALSE.
- I say official statements from Trump or any of his spokes should be considered FALSE until proven TRUE.
- Statements from his press secretary should be considered FALSE until proven TRUE.
- Statments from his VP or any cabinet officials shouldbe considered FALSE until proven TRUE.
So instead of "fact-checking," the procedure should be called something like "statement-checking" to remove any assumption of factuality.
Thank you, Dan.
Unlike you, most journalists have the bandwidth and courage to be candid and honest. This is readily apparent with the New York Times and the legacy media insist on calling the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court "the Conservative Majority," which they are clearly not, as they ignore 50+ years of precedent and the plain language of the Constitution
Consider: The Insurrection Clause (14th Amendment, Section 3) was designed to automatically bar oath-breaking officials who "engaged in insurrection" from federal office, but the Supreme Court's unanimous Trump v. Anderson ruling narrowed it to require new congressional enforcement legislation rather than letting it operate on its own; by contrast, the Citizenship Clause's text — "born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" — is widely regarded by legal scholars as unambiguous, which is why many observers argue Trump v. Barbara should have been unanimous like United States v. Nixon rather than the 6-3 split it actually was, with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting. Both cases show a Court willing to divide along ideological lines even on textually clear constitutional provisions — a contrast to Nixon, where all eight participating justices (including three Nixon appointees) agreed 8-0 that executive privilege didn't shield the tapes, seen by many as a high-water mark of the Court prioritizing constitutional clarity over political stakes.
To provide important context, reporters should insert links in their stories to:
Timothy Snyder — "Thinking about...": https://snyder.substack.com/
Timothy Snyder — "Hitler and Stalin Today" course, publicly released: https://snyder.substack.com/p/new-lecture-series-for-the-public (this is the post where he's releasing his ten-lecture U of T course on Substack; lectures are also going up on YouTube)
Ruth Ben-Ghiat — "Lucid": https://lucid.substack.com/
Michael Luttig: https://judgeluttig327269.substack.com/
Craig Unger — "American Kompromat" (recently renamed from his personal Substack, same underlying publication): https://substack.com/@craigunger — note this covers his Trump-Russia Timeline series and Den of Spies-related writing
Senators — official pages with recent Trump/Russia/corruption statements
Sheldon Whitehouse — Senate floor speech tying together Trump, Epstein, and Russia connections: https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/trump-russia-trump-epstein-epstein-russia/ (his general newsroom is at whitehouse.senate.gov/news)
Chris Murphy — "500 Days of Corruption" floor speech: https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-details-unprecedented-corruption-of-trump-white-house-over-the-last-500-days
Adam Schiff — press release page (frequent Trump/Russia/corruption statements): https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/
Elizabeth Warren — recent joint statement (with Sen. Shaheen) on Trump extending sanctions relief for Russian oil: https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/dem/release/shaheen-warren-statement-on-trump-administration-extending-sanctions-relief-for-russian-oil-again — her Banking Committee minority page has more: https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority
Most of the country knows their lying their asses off. Every time different outlets don’t show this, they sow their own demise.
Critics argue that Peter Baker is a mealy-mouthed weasel.
Corporate America is either afraid or complicit with Trump's attempts to Orbanize our elections. Trump hates voting by mail--solely because Dem voters prefer to cast their ballots that way. He hates women voters because they now prefer to vote Blue, and his "SAVE" act will prevent up to 30 million women from voting.
There are a few who get it with clear eyed realism
https://x.com/deAdder/status/2077909032191299624?launch_app_store=true&ct=google-seo
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump-setting-stage-to-declare-emergency-around-midterms-former-white-house-attorney-says