PV: Pfizer Director Concerned Over Women’s Reproductive Health After Getting Jabbed

 

Source: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/project-veritas-pfizer-director-concerned-womens-reproductive-health-covid-vax-something-irregular-menstrual-cycles-video/

Here it is…

Project Veritas on Thursday released undercover video of Pfizer Director Jordan Trishton Walker sharing his concern about women’s reproductive health after getting the Covid vaccine.

Project Veritas last week dropped a bombshell undercover video of a Pfizer Director admitting the pharma company was experimenting with dangerous gain-of-function on Covid-19 in order to make more money on vaccines.

Project Veritas last Wednesday night released explosive video of Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer Director of Research and Development, Strategic Operations, admitting the pharma giant is exploring ‘mutating’ Covid-19 via ‘directed evolution’ so the company can continue to profit off of vaccines.

“One of the things we’re exploring is like, why don’t we just mutate it [COVID] ourselves so we could create — preemptively develop new vaccines, right? So, we have to do that. If we’re gonna do that though, there’s a risk of like, as you could imagine — no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating f**king viruses,” Walker told the undercover Project Veritas journalist.

Now this…

Jordon Trishton Walker shared his concern over women’s reproductive health after taking the Covid vaccine.

“There is something irregular about the menstrual cycles. So, people will have to investigate that down the line,” Walker said to the undercover PV journalist.

“The [COVID] vaccine shouldn’t be interfering with that [menstrual cycles]. So, we don’t really know,” he said.

“I hope we don’t find out that somehow this mRNA lingers in the body and like — because it has to be affecting something hormonal to impact menstrual cycles,” Walker added.

“I hope we don’t discover something really bad down the line,” he said. “If something were to happen downstream and it was, like, really bad? I mean, the scale of that scandal would be enormous.”

WATCH:

Taking On the Would-be Destroyers of America

posted by Allen J. Feifer at American Thinker

Enemies of Freedom wish to see our prosperous nation willingly give up our success to become a failed state.  Think about the enormity and monstrous nature of that goal they set for themselves.  All they had at first were the obvious imperfections of our country to work with, and our enemy commenced from there. 

Have you considered the impact of the plan by the destroyers to change our language and its influence on all of us?  Within this strategy is another plan to change the emotional impact of words we never contemplated or would not have given a passing glance.  To be successful, destroyers must control the meaning of words.

The destroyers had to take a functioning country with the world's largest middle class and tank it.  Not only that, but to tank it with the acquiescence of a significant portion of the population and make it appear noble.  Where do you start?

First, you become a metaphorical geologist and, in that way, uncover our stress points.  But instead of rock, you look at fissures like inequities, racial disparities, the continuing breakdown of families, and how to take on the economic and political power structures.  Introduce fear, such as claiming the end of the world is at hand through climate change.  Then, institutionalize the process so that challenging "change" identifies you as one of the dangerous ones standing in the way of "progress." 

Remember former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel?  He is widely credited for saying, "Never let a crisis go to waste." He associated with Clinton, Ayers, and other members of those New Left radicals who are primarily responsible for where we are today.  That period began while George H. Bush was still in office, and their power and influence still grows to this day.  That cabal built an organization of reflexive haters of America.

Bill Ayers is one of those central figures of the New Woke generation.  Read some of his quotes that validate his hatred of America and its institutions:

• Kill all the rich people.  Break up their cars and apartments.  Bring the revolution home, kill your parents; that's where it's really at
• "I get up every morning and think...today I'm going to end capitalism."
• "The fact is that in my prep school, I went to a boarding school; 39 young men graduated from that prep school.  Five years later, a quarter of us was in SDS, in Students for Democratic Society.  Not because we were particularly chosen or because we were, as I say, we were lucky.  Still, we were mainly lucky to grow up at a time when this black freedom movement was really defining the moral character of what it meant to be a citizen and a person."
• "I get up every morning and think today; I'm going to make a difference.  Today I'm going to end capitalism.  Today I'm going to make a revolution.  I go to bed every night disappointed, but I'm back to work tomorrow, and that's the only way you can do it."

Ayers was not the founder of the anti-capitalism, anti-American movement, but he worked to perfect it and to convince many adherents who soon would become key players in our country. To save America, you have to destroy it first, they believed.  Who were some of those people?

• Barack Obama
• Hillary and Bill Clinton
• Bernardine Dohrn
• Jane Fonda
• Rahm Emanuel
• Jeremiah Wright

Think about the phrase…." Speech is Violence." What is notable about this hyperlink is its source, Psychology Today.  "Hateful speech," according to Feldman Barrett, is so stressful that it should be prohibited because, as she reports, chronic stress can shrink your telomeres." According to the article, speech is so dangerous that it claims, "Faculty and administrators across the country are telling students they will suffer irreparable harm if they engage with ideas they find abhorrent, or even interact in a civil manner with the people who hold those ideas."

If this were an isolated statement, we wouldn't be too concerned.  But this kind of thought is established dogma in thousands of schools across the nation, from elementary to university.  This is not simply another tool of the Destroyers.  Changing our history, how we speak, our country's iconology and our culture redefines who we are.  And, once it's gone, how do you bring it back?  It's the same with removing historical figures like Jefferson and other important figures from history that form our past.  Who rewrites history?

• Nazis
• Communists
• Intellectuals
• Politicians

The list goes on.  What empowers some to determine what's true and what's not?  "…reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.." wrote George Orwell in 1984.  Who should tell you how to live your life, even with whom you can associate?  Have we become so spoon-fed that what we see and hear with our own eyes and ears is no longer valid?  When we no longer believe what we witness and instead favor what we are told, we are no longer real Americans.  You have passed the Destroyers Litmus test, for when you see the truth right in front of your eyes, yet deny it.  If one plus one no longer equals two, you have become one of 'them.'

How did the destoyers gain so much power over us?  The University of Pennsylvania received $54 million from China, and China gave over $1 billion to other U.S. universities.  Why do you think they make such donations?  It is for influence, access to technology, and the power to circumvent U.S. laws and even money laundering.  Much of it is, indeed, all about the Benjamins.

Bill Ayers and his ilk understood what it would take to bring America to its knees.  Changing our language, getting rid of our iconology (think America's Flag and Pledge of Allegiance), and changing history to take away our natural pride, tenacity, and very intellectual being is required to get to their end game.

We must fight back with force against those with a generation or two head start on the rest of us.  If someone comes into your house to kidnap your baby, no amount of your righteous indignation will suffice in defense.  We must commit to total war against those intruders who hold such blackness in their hearts.  

Such is another litmus test we will need to pass to survive.

God Bless America!

X22, And we Know, and more- Feb 2nd

 

It still boggles my mind how 1 show's fandom gets all the good info leaked for them in 1 day, yet the other show's fandom gets junk leaked that no one really cares about.

Here's tonight's news:

Race Everywhere ~ VDH

“Whites”—to the extent we can determine any race in an intermarried, multiracial society—do not fit the now ossified definition of an exploitive majority.

by Victor Davis Hanson for American Greatness

Recently an unarmed 29-year-old African American, Tyre Nichols, was brutally beaten to death by five black Memphis police officers. They were charged with murder. All belonged to a special crime unit known as the Scorpions. 

Both the victimizers and victim were black. The Memphis police chief is black. The assistant police chief is black. 

Nearly 60 percent of the police force is black. The white population of Memphis is about 25 percent. 

The now-disbanded Scorpion unit of mostly black officers was created as a response to grassroots appeals to stop spiraling crime in mostly black neighborhoods. 

The death of Tyre Nichols could be attributed to many things: a basic lack of humanity on the part of the officers, poor police training, lax administrative supervision, and lowered hiring standards.  

Instead, no sooner was the beating death announced than accusations of “systemic racism” surfaced. 

Van Jones, the former Obama Administration green czar and recent recipient of Jeff Bezos’ $100 million “courage and civility award,” pronounced on CNN that the black police oppressors were acting out white racism. 

Some claimed that charging the five black officers with murder was itselfracist. Others alleged that creating the unit in the first place to reduce black-on-black crime was racist.  

Yet, when everything becomes racist, then nothing in particular can be racist.

About the same time, the city of San Francisco, along with the state of California, was exploring paying out huge cash reparations to its African-American residents for the ancestral sin of slavery. 

That evil institution was abolished some 158 years ago through a Civil War that killed some 700,000 Americans. 

Yet California was always a free state with no history of slavery. 

No resident of America in six generations has been either a slave or slave owner. 

Such multibillion-dollar payouts apparently are to be funded by a nearly bankrupt state facing a $25 billion budget shortfall. 

How do we quantify either current eligibility or culpability in multiracial California where 27 percent of the residents were not born in the United States? Whites make up only 35 percent of the state’s population. 

College campuses increasingly greenlight racially segregated resident housing. 

These reactionaries seem eager to return to “separate but equal” apartheid, supposedly outlawed nearly 60 years ago by the 1964 Civil Right Act. 

A recent National Association of Scholars study found that of some 173 schools surveyed, 42 percent provided racially segregated residences. Some 46 percent offered racially segregated orientation programs. An overwhelming 72 percent  hosted racially segregated graduation ceremonies.

So-called “safe spaces” on campus exclude students on the basis of race, especially whites who are reduced to stereotyped members of a toxic collective. 

Race-based admissions have transmogrified from proportional representation—the entering class should reflect roughly the racial make-up of the nation—to reparatory or compensatory admittance. 

So, for example, Stanford University’s incoming class of 2026 lists white students at 22 percent of the enrolled, roughly one-third of their percentage of the nation’s general population. 

Ironically, current racial engineering resurrects the old quota systems used in the past to discriminate against Jews. 

“Whites”—to the extent we can determine any race in an intermarried, multiracial society—do not fit the now ossified definition of an exploitive majority. 

They no longer even compose a majority in most major American cities and in some states. 

They rank well behind many nonwhite ethnic groups in terms of per capita income and millions of working-class Americans certainly don’t fit the tired stereotype of “privileged.”  

In racist fashion, white males are often smeared as exhibiting collective “white rage.” 

Yet they commit suicide at double their demographics—and more than twice as frequently as blacks and Latinos. 

They were also killed in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq at twice their numbers in the general population. 

In terms of hate-crime offenders, whites are demographically underrepresented. The most overrepresented victims of hate crimes are whites of Jewish background.

Whites commit violent crimes against those of different races at rates below their percentages in the general population.

In sum, class, not race, remains the best litmus test of being underprivileged in America. It is no longer synonymous with race. 

No wonder the identity politics industry now strains to attach prefixes such as “systemic” or “implicit” to “racism,” or “micro” to “aggression,” purportedly to ferret out bias that otherwise is not apparent. 

Pause to reflect that America is the only successful multiracial constitutional republic in history.

To survive in an increasingly dysfunctional and hostile world abroad, the unique idea of the United States requires concord. 

But national cohesion is only possible through citizens subordinating their tribal interests to a common culture. Only then do they cease being automatons of warring tribes and collectives. 

As the world becomes ever scarier, Americans must—as Benjamin Franklin once warned—hang together, or most certainly they will soon all hang separately.

No Apologies Over Paul Pelosi

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall

Apologize for what? 

"My gosh, I was always telling fake stories about wolves and calling the people I was telling them to 'racists,' and then some wolves really have shown up, and none of those racists believe me!" 

So, the authorities finally got around to releasing the 911 call and bodycam footage from the Paul Pelosi hammer imbroglio, and now the left is demanding an apology from everyone who refused to accept the regime's twisted, Swiss-cheese narrative about the whole attack. While there are still unanswered questions – which no one would be asking if the regime media had not tried to blame conservatives for the actions of the Berkely nudist – the cop body cam footage appears to show a nut and his victim and not much more. Yeah, there was a lot of speculation early on about what really happened, partly from the fact that the stories being pushed by the regime were contradictory or incomplete or just bizarre, but mostly because we have been lied to so often that the regime no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. Some guy walks into the house of the woman who was third in line to the presidency and whacks her hubby on the skull? Sure, it's San Francisco, but that's weird, even for Hobo City.

Not that the speculation people engaged in was utterly insane. After all, once or twice dudes have gotten together for some sexy antics while the wife was away in the City by the Bay. Occasionally, people have partaken of controlled substances in Frisco. And Paul Pelosi has been known to enjoy the occasional snifter of port. So, in the absence of answers and a tsunami of stories that do not make sense, yeah, people are going to fill in the blanks, and it might not be pretty. 

Mad about it? 

Too bad. 

The only rational response from regular people when faced with some bizarre tale about one of our putative betters is to reject anything the elite tries to tell us. All we get from it are lies. 

The Hunter laptop. 

Russian collusion. 

MAGA extremists. 

Normal people who own guns have blood on their hands. 

You are racist. 

You are sexist. 

You are transphobic. 

You are racist again. 

Everything that comes out of the filthy pieholes of these jerks is a lie and a scam, and yet we're supposed to not only trust their (everchanging and utterly insane) story du jour and – and the "and" is important – we are not only supposed to blindly believe but to also accept our own personal complicity in this whole John Henry scenario. Yes, this was on us, they insisted. As the real story was being obscured, the left was actively promoting the "This was some sort of MAGA, right-wing, Jesus, gun-conservative, Republican, NRA guy" narrative. In other words, the left was engaged in actively lying about the provenance of the mutant illegal alien who their perverted petri dish of Bay Area social pathologies created. 

Are you dirtbags going to apologize to us? 

No? 

Then you best not hold your breath waiting for us to say, "Oops, sorry." 

We're not sorry. The regime brought this on itself, not only through its track record of lies but its total refusal to hold leftists or leftist-adjacent family members accountable for their actions. People believed the worst about the regime because the regime is the worst. 

If their story – and again, it was not just one story but a bunch of different versions of this sordid tale – was true, true-ish, or even true-curious, then that's the first time in years that something they have told us was not outright bullSchiff. 

But it appears that maybe, to the extent that their story was that some guy broke in and attacked the guy with a hammer for no good reason and that there were no erotic or dope-fueled tangents involved, they were generally right about that part. But they were also consciously lying by blaming us for it at the same time, and yet we were supposed to defer to them. We were supposed to take their word that this guy was an innocent victim. 

Nope. 

Not happening. 

No, you lost your benefit-of-the-doubt privileges. 

There are consequences that come from lying to us all the time, and this situation casts a spotlight on them. You cannot lie to us and expect us to choose to buy the story that you prefer. No, the void that honesty and trust used to fill now gets filled with something else. In this case, the speculation that this was a close encounter of the kinky kind. 

Now they want apologies? 

For what? 

For not believing them? 

We're not sorry about that. Not believing them is standard operating procedure. It is the only rational and reasonable response to an elite and its toadies fibbing to us about anything and everything. They want our trust? No. They shattered that with their figurative mallet every time they lied to us for short-term advantage. Remember 50 national security pros insisting that Hunter's laptop is Russian disinformation? Well, we do. 

They want an apology from us for not believing them? I hope they're not driving because they must be hammered. 

College Board Concedes, Removes CRT From AP African American Studies Curriculum

Joe Cunningham reporting for RedState 

College Board, the entity behind Advanced Placement (AP) courses provided in schools around the country, has announced changes to the course framework for its new AP African American Studies (APAAS) course.

Earlier this month, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis made the move to bar the state of Florida from teaching the course, which was being offered to a handful of schools across the country as a sort of trial run. The course would be offered to roughly 60 schools this school year, expanded to almost double that next school year, and then made available to all schools the following year.

But DeSantis claimed the course, which referenced several writers tied to the Critical Race Theory movement in education as the sources for some of the course’s required reading.

An early draft of the course framework showed that the first three units of the course were focused primarily on the history of African-Americans in the United States and their cultural movements. The fourth and final unit focused on modern-day black movements and sociological studies of niche studies of Black academic thought and theory.

But, as the New York Times is reporting today, the course framework has undergone serious overhaul since the controversy began.

The College Board purged the names of many Black writers and scholars associated with critical race theory, the queer experience and Black feminism. It ushered out some politically fraught topics, like Black Lives Matter, from the formal curriculum.

And it added something new: “Black conservatism” is now offered as an idea for a research project.

When it announced the A.P. course in August, the College Board clearly believed it was providing a class whose time had come, and it was celebrated by eminent scholars like Henry Louis Gates Jr. of Harvard as an affirmation of the importance of African American studies. But the course, which is meant to be for all students of diverse backgrounds, quickly ran into a political buzz saw after an early draft leaked to conservative publications like The Florida Standard and National Review.

A full look at the course framework can be found here.

However, while DeSantis and conservatives are being blamed for the overhaul, such a move would not have been made without serious consideration from College Board that the course may have been flawed.

David Coleman, the head of the College Board, said in an interview that the changes were all made for pedagogical reasons, not to bow to political pressure. “At the College Board, we can’t look to statements of political leaders,” he said. The changes, he said, came from “the input of professors” and “longstanding A.P. principles.”

He said that during the initial test of the course this school year, the board received feedback that the secondary, more theoretical sources were “quite dense” and that students connected more with primary sources, which he said have always been the foundation of A.P. courses.

As someone who has taught AP courses, looking at the original framework did show that some of the sources weren’t just offering a CRT perspective, but leaned heavily in one direction and without any alternative viewpoints. What’s more, AP courses are structured to be foundational courses in a content area, helping to transition advanced students to collegiate-level work.

While certainly academically rigorous, APAAS as it was originally designed pedagogically would have led students to conclusions aligned with the source material rather than teach students to think critically for themselves. The overhaul now appears to be more open-ended, allowing students to draw their own conclusions and have a healthy and honest debate on the material rather than be taught that the perspectives offered by Ibram X. Kendi and others were automatically the correct ones.

I, for one, advocate more sociological teaching in the classroom, particularly in AP social sciences courses, but the originally APAAS framework was not the way to go about it. The new framework is structurally and academically honest, and it has the potential to be a very good course for high school students.

Media Liberals Aren’t Even Trying to Hide Their Bias Anymore

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall

I’ve been saying for years that not only is journalism dead, but it died by suicide. In reality, it died from auto-erotic asphyxiation. Few professions love themselves as much as journalists do, and none but Hollywood give themselves more awards. If you are a journalist who doesn’t have a wall of plaques or shelves full of laser-etched glass blocks masquerading as accomplishments honoring some dead leftist with a byline, you either suck at your job or are a conservative. Of course, if you are a conservative you have either been fired or live in fear of being discovered, because “celebrate diversity” isn’t a request, it’s an order…on everything except thought, where the concept is forbidden. 

For years, the visible side of journalism denied such bias existed – these were, after all, the “speak truth to power” set. Now, after a lifetime of denial, they’re finally admitting the truth like it’s somehow a virtue on their part.

In a piece entitled, “Newsrooms that move beyond ‘objectivity’ can build trust,” the Washington Post admits the concept of objectivity is dead. Not, curiously, because it’s a faulty one, but because the current practitioners of journalism are too stupid to understand why it was important in the first place. 

OK, that’s not exactly what they’re saying, but it is what they’re doing. What they’re saying is that concept of being objective is racist because it was instituted by white guys. 

The Post writes, “increasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality. They point out that the standard was dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly White newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world.”

White people also created movable type and newspapers, among the billions of other things all people engage in and use every single day. Will these leftists give up those things? The world would be better off if they did, because they’d disappear, but this “virtue” only exists when convenient; it would never apply to, say, medicines or medical treatments developed by evil whitey. 

“They believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading ‘bothsidesism’ in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects,” the Post continues. “And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”

You are a special kind of pathetic human being if your skin color or who you screw dictates who you are as a person. If you don’t understand the difference between the two concepts, you’re even more pathetic. No company, no matter what they do, should ever hire anyone who lives this way or has their pronouns in their social media profiles. 

They used to pretend to be honest, now they pride themselves on not being. The Post goes on, “More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view.”

The very concept of “news” now needs to be in quotes because it’s not actually news anymore, it’s activism with nuggets of information stuck in it occasionally, like corn from last night’s dinner.

The editor-in-chief of the San Francisco Chronicle “is among a vanguard of print, broadcast and digital news leaders who have increased their newsrooms’ diversity and created new avenues of communication among their reporters and editors to discuss issues and coverage. Some have assembled affinity groups or caucuses of staff members — for women, Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans and LGBTQ+ people — and involved them in newsroom decisions.”

There used to be a “wall of separation” between news and opinion in newspapers, but a couple of years ago when the New York Times saw that wall breached not by the opinion side, but the news side demanding the head of the opinion editor for running a piece by a sitting United States Senator because it upset their frail sensibilities, that wall was destroyed. The Times leadership was exposed as cowards, and the game was up. 

Once the bosses lived in fear of the people they were supposed to hold to standards, those standards were dead. Journalism, whatever remained of it, went with it. At least they’re now admitting it. It’s probably the first time they’ve been honest in decades. 

Chip Roy Gets Maxine Waters to Denounce Maxine Waters in Amazing Exchange

Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState 

Any day that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) commits a self-own is a good day.

But sometimes a little prodding is necessary to achieve the desired result, and that’s exactly what happened during a fascinating exchange Tuesday between Waters, who is the former Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) at a House Rules Committee hearing.

The subject of the hearing was a discussion of a resolution titled “denouncing the horrors socialism,” which is sponsored by Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.) and which was introduced on January 25th.

At one point during the hearing, Roy confronted Waters with her own words where she essentially endorsed socialism.

Before he addressed Waters, though, Roy stated that “I was intrigued by an op-ed that I saw not too long ago by a Democrat from Cuba commenting on one of our colleagues, an avowed socialist [AOC], and essentially pointing out the extent to which ‘democratic socialism is a lot like the system my family fled except its proponents promised to be nicer when seizing your business.'”

“That’s the truth,” Roy remarked. “We can talk about these terms as if they don’t matter, but they do. They do matter. They’re actually at the core of who we are.”

“I’ve got one question for the ranking member,” Roy continued, looking at Waters and then his notes. “Ranking member Waters, in a 2008 hearing you said quote, ‘and guess what, this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing, would be about basically taking over the government and the government running all of your companies,’ end quote” Roy said. “Simple question: Do you stand by that statement?”

Waters responded by first claiming that socialism was “basically a non-issue” and saying that the federal programs she was trying to protect were the same ones Roy wanted to protect.

Roy didn’t take the bait and insisted on Waters addressing the 2008 remarks he referenced where she appeared to advocate for a government takeover of the oil industry. Waters denied twice during their back and forth that she was a socialist. She later claimed she was a “capitalist” in what hilariously came across as Maxine Waters denouncing Maxine Waters when all was said and done.

Watch:

I remember just a few weeks ago when certain “conservatives” were bemoaning the fact that Roy and other members of the House including Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) were pressing for concessions from Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) over the course of several rounds of voting in the House Speaker battle.

One of the things Roy pushed for was to be on the Rules Committee.

As we saw from his exchange with Waters, it’s to our benefit that he got what he asked for. We need to see more of this. A whole lot more.

Twitter, Media, And Democrats Are All Guilty In The Hamilton 68 Scandal

Besides Hamilton 68, three groups deserve condemnation for peddling the Russian-bots hoax: the media, corrupt politicians, and Twitter.

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

The latest chapter of “The Twitter Files” broke on Friday, with the release of internal communications that provided a takedown of Hamilton 68, which wrongly purported to expose Russian disinformation on social media. The details released, however, prove equally devasting to the corrupt media, dishonest Democrats, and Twitter itself. 

Independent journalist Matt Taibbi’s most recent exposé provided more details of the internal angst at Twitter caused by Hamilton 68, which Taibbi described as “a computerized ‘dashboard’ designed to be used by reporters and academics to measure ‘Russian disinformation.’” As Taibbi explained, former FBI counterintelligence agent Clint Watts conceived of the dashboard, which the Alliance for Securing Democracy think-tank hosted. It then served as “the source of hundreds if not thousands of mainstream print and TV news stories in the Trump years.”

“Virtually every major news organization in America is implicated, including NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and the Washington Post. Mother Jones alone did at least 14 stories pegged to the group’s ‘research,’” Taibbi stressed, adding, “Even fact-checking sites like Politifact and Snopes cited Hamilton 68 as a source.”

But there was a problem — a huge problem: “The Twitter Files expose Hamilton 68 as a sham.”

Exposed

The internal communications revealed that Twitter had reverse-engineered how Hamilton 68 supposedly tracked online Russian influence and determined the methodology relied on a list of some 644 accounts. Twitter executives then ordered a forensic analysis of those accounts and determined that only 36 were registered in Russia, many of which were connected to Russia Today, the government “news” service.

According to Taibbi, “the accounts Hamilton 68 claimed were linked to ‘Russian influence activities online’ were not only overwhelmingly English-language (86%), but mostly ‘legitimate people,’ largely in the U.S., Canada, and Britain.” 

Email exchanges captured the problem, with Twitter insiders saying, among other things: “No evidence to support the statement that the dashboard is a finger on the pulse of Russian information ops.” “Hardly evidence of a massive influence campaign.” “These accounts are neither strongly Russian nor strongly bots.” 

As Twitter executive Yoel Roth synthesized: “I think we need to just call this out on the bullsh-t it is.” But while Twitter brushed reporters and politicians off Hamilton 68’s Russian-bots storyline, the tech giant’s concern about “playing the long game” kept it from calling BS on the project.

[READ: The Astounding Saga Of Hamilton 68 Illustrates Scope Of America’s Institutional Rot]

In a devastating Friday thread and subsequent article, however, Taibbi did. So devasting was his reporting, it prompted Hamilton 68 to post a response framed as a “FACT SHEET: Hamilton 68 Dashboard (2017-2018).”

Taibbi, who had basically begged Watts and those connected to the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD) to speak with him before his “Twitter Files” reporting went live, was neither amused nor persuaded. He countered with his own response, saying: “After refusing to answer questions pre-publication, Hamilton 68 and Clint Watts printed a response to the Twitter files that’s both laughable and damning.” And he went on to add an addendum highlighting the changes Hamilton 68 made to its webpage’s discussion of the project. 

These revelations prove devasting to Hamilton 68 and scandalous to the Alliance for Securing Democracy. But three additional groups deserve equal focus and condemnation for peddling the Russian-bots hoax: the media, corrupt politicians, and Twitter.

Media

Based on the Hamilton 68 dashboard, as Taibbi detailed, the legacy press ran “hundreds if not thousands of mainstream print and TV news stories in the Trump years” — a forgivable mistake, maybe, if the media had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information. But they did because Twitter itself refuted Hamilton 68’s representations. “Off the record,” Twitter also “cautioned” reporters that they “should be very skeptical of ASD’s claims.” 

For instance, when the media began reporting, based on the Hamilton 68 dashboard, that the trending of the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag — a campaign that pushed for the declassification of then-Rep. Devin Nunes’ memo on FISA abuse — was the result of Russian bots, Twitter told reporters it had “been monitoring closely since #releasethememo started trending late last week,” and that the hashtag “appears to be organically trending.” 

But as Twitter’s internal communications revealed, “Twitter’s efforts to privately nudge reporters away from the story failed miserably.” One Twitter employee seeking to steer reporters away complained in emails that “Reporters are chafing.” “It’s like shouting into a void,” Emily Horne wrote to her Twitter colleagues. 

Even after Twitter responded publicly with a letter revealing that its internal investigation “has not identified any significant activity connected to Russia” regarding the hashtag, the press persisted in pushing the fake Russian-bot story. That same letter stressed that the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag “was also used by several prominent, verified U.S. accounts on the evening of Thursday, January 18,” with Twitter adding, “Typically, hashtag use by high-profile accounts, including those with high numbers of followers, plays a role in driving conversations around a hashtag on Twitter.” Yet the corrupt press kept peddling the Russian-influence narrative.

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway recognized in real time what was happening, dissecting the media’s unreasonable reliance on Hamilton 68’s information. Even after Twitter publicly refuted Hamilton 68’s claims, the press “uncritically accept[ed] and promote[d] a secretive group’s unverified claim of a Russian conspiracy,” Hemingway stressed. 

Americans should be outraged that our “free press” peddled Hamilton 68’s bogus claims of a Russian influence campaign, and every reporter who ran the unsupportable stories should be called out for pushing fake news.

Democrats

Likewise, the Democrats who fanned the claims of Russian interference based on Hamilton 68 deserve censure. 

Rep. Adam Schiff and Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal, and Sheldon Whitehouse, among others, not only pushed the unfounded claims that Russian bots were behind the trending hashtags, but they also demanded that Twitter and other tech companies investigate and stop such supposed interference.

These Democrats and the others pushing the conspiracy relied solely on Hamilton 68 as a source and did so even though Twitter had refuted the claims. In fact, internal Twitter communications show executives tried to warn senator staffers that the Russian-interference story didn’t stand.

“It might be worth nudging Blumenthal’s staffer that it could be in his boss’ best interest not to go out there because it could come back to make him look silly,” one email suggested. We tried to “wave him off” because “we don’t believe these are bots,” said another. But Blumenthal and the other Democrats continued to scream about the supposed Russian operations, and for that they should be made to look silly.

Twitter

While Twitter did try to warn off the media and politicians, it also deserves an equal share in the blame for peddling the Russian-bots hoax because it knew Hamilton 68 was BS.

“We should have a separate discussion about if/when/how we confront ASD privately with our knowledge of their flawed methodology/dashboard and seek to help them reorient in a more accurate direction,” one Twitter insider wrote after Schiff and Feinstein began pushing the conspiracy theory.

Roth asked whether it was “now the time to go public with the fact that any given user only counts once towards a trend.” Another Twitter executive seemed fine with going public, writing: “If ASD isn’t going to fact check with us, we should feel free to correct the record of their work.”

But rather than clearly and unequivocally refute Hamilton 68, Twitter merely made hints off the record, thereby allowing both the media and congressional Democrats to mislead the public about Russia’s responsibility for various social media trends.

So, yes, Hamilton 68 deserves censure. But so too do the corrupt media and Democrats who pushed the Russian-bot hoax — and the Twitter execs who stood by while they did.