The Federalist article builds its entire outrage on six words: “whose victory Putin was counting on,” plucked from a longer quote and treated like a profound indictment. It ignores the broader context of multiple independent investigations from separate agencies, disregards how ambiguous the fragment is, and pretends the whole intelligence community nodded along like zombies.
Tulsi Gabbard’s memo is positioned as damning, yet there’s no real evidence of what she asserts. Her claims that Obama ordered a fake intel assessment are dropped with dramatic flair but backed by zilch. No documentation, no bipartisan confirmation, no independent reviews. Merely loaded language to make right-wing audiences salivate like Pavlov's dog.
The piece insists the ICA’s high-confidence judgment hinges on this single quote, dismissing the fact that multiple interpretations existed and other intelligence existed in parallel to the obscure source they referenced.
Then there's the language used by the author: “Jackboot henchmen,” “security state tyrants,” “fabricated the Russia hoax,” are phrases used in opinion pieces, not journalism. “Years-long coup,” “treasonous conspiracy,” “hoodwink Americans,” are colorful descriptions that imply guilt despite any real evidence to establish that guilt.
Happy? I dissected your article and explained where the biases and misrepresentation of facts lie. Now, do you want to continue to pretend your source is reliable?
