U.S. Politics

[Tom Graves]

My home page gives me a wide variety of sources across the political spectrum. I don't read any print media on a regular basis because I think print media is obsolete. I'm surprised it has hung on this long.

I do watch Fox more than the other cable news stations but I will check out the others including MSNOW and CNN. MSNOW is bad for my blood pressure because I can rarely watch it for more than a few minutes before I want to reach through my TV screen and choke the life out of whatever talking head is spewing the far left crap. CNN is almost tolerable and I'm hoping with the new ownership they will move a bit more to the center but so far they are clearly still slanted to the left. I don't have much faith in any of the broadcast network news. I have tried to watch the new anchors on CBS and NBC with an open mind but so far I have seen little change in their bias. I'm hoping it is just a matter of time before Bari Weiss shakes things up at CBS and makes them a bit more fair in their reporting, but so far, they still have way too much of the old guard on their staff for there to be any meaningful changes. It didn't take me long to figure out Tom Llamas at NBC is more of the same old crap NBC has been spewing for decades.

Now I've told you about my news consumption habits. How about telling me about yours. I think i could take a pretty good guess, but I'll hold off on that for now.

The only thing worse than Fox News is OANN, Newsmax, and RT.

From the Media Bias Fact Check website:

Overall, we rate Fox News right-biased based on editorial positions that align with the right and Questionable due to the promotion of state propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks. While straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate, it is typically overshadowed by propagandistic opinions, which earns them a Low factual rating.

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, State Propaganda, Poor Sources, Numerous Failed Fact Checks

Bias Rating: RIGHT (8.0)

Factual Reporting: LOW (7.6)

Country: USA

MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE

Media Type: TV Station/Website

Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic

MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History

Fox News is an American basic cable and satellite news channel founded in 1996 by Rupert Murdoch. The Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of 21st Century Fox, owns Fox News. FNC is available in 90+ million homes and operates the Fox Business Network and Fox News Radio. They also own the National Geographic Channel and broadcasts from New York, NY.
 
Roger Ailes was the founding CEO. Roger Ailes resigned in 2016 after many accusations of sexual harassment. Jay Wallace became president of the network, and Suzanne Scott, the CEO of FNC, as of May 2018. She will report to Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan Murdoch. Lachlan Murdoch is the executive chairman and co-chairman of News Corp and 21st Century Fox (FOXA).
 
In October 2018, Fox News added to their terms of use, “Company furnishes the Company Sites and the Company Services for your personal enjoyment and entertainment.” This has led some to declare that Fox News is now an entertainment company and does not have to uphold journalistic standards. This is not true.

On 6/13/2020, Fox News ran digital coverages in coverage of Seattle’s protests, Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

On 12/12/2021 – 18-year, veteran journalist Chris Wallace resigned from Fox News and joined CNN.

On 12/13/2021, it was reported that on January 6th, 2021, several Fox TV personalities texted Trump’s Chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to encourage Trump to stop the Capitol Riot, which contradicted their reporting later that evening that Antifa was involved in a false flag operation.

In 2022, Fox News was sued for Defamation by Dominion Voting Systems for 1.6 billion dollars due to alleged false claims and conspiracy theories related to the company's voting machines in the 2020 presidential election. According to the lawsuit’s court docket, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Jeannine Pirro, and former Fox Business host Lou Dobbs will be deposed.

On 04/18/2023, Fox News settled a defamation lawsuit for $787 million where they were accused of promoting false claims and conspiracy theories against Dominion Voting Systems during the 2020 elections. A statement by Fox reads as follows:

“We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems,” the network said Tuesday in a statement. “We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects FOX’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.”

On 4/24/2023, Tucker Carlson, the top-rated prime-time news host, left Fox News for undisclosed reasons.

Finally, under the second Trump administration, Fox News has increasingly been described as operating less like an independent news outlet and more like a state propaganda network. Multiple analyses have noted a feedback loop in which Fox shapes Trump’s rhetoric while simultaneously amplifying his agenda, creating near-synchrony between the White House and the network’s coverage. Reports also highlight the revolving door between Fox personnel and Trump officials, further blurring the line between journalism and political messaging. Critics argue this alignment has effectively turned Fox into a platform that prioritizes advancing administration narratives over independent reporting.

Funded by / Ownership

Rupert Murdoch is the owner and a board member of News Corp 21st Century Fox. According to Reuters, James Murdoch (son) was chief executive of 21st Century Fox and left in May 2018. Lachlan (the other son of Murdoch) and Rupert Murdoch will serve as the new Fox co-chairman. Revenue analysis can be found at Investopedia, and income reports here. 

Analysis

According to a Pew Research Center survey, “Fox News was the main source for 40% of Trump voters” during the 2016 election. Further, another Pew Survey indicates, “When it comes to choosing a media source for political news, conservatives orient strongly around Fox News. Nearly half of consistent conservatives (47%) name it as their main source for government and political news.” Further, a Reuters Institute survey found that 35% of respondents trust their news coverage and 46% do not, ranking them #11 in trust among the major USA news providers.

Fox News typically looks at the issues from a conservative perspective. Also, it has several on-air personalities that are strong supporters of former President Trump, such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson (former), Laura Ingraham, and Dan Bongino (former); thus, during the Trump Presidency, FNC typically skewed conservative as there was less criticism of Trump.

Bias

In review, FNC publishes stories with emotionally loaded headlines such as Biden says ‘MAGA Republicans’ threaten democracy as he and Dems crank up anti-Trump rhetoric ahead of midterms and White House defends slamming half of America as ‘semi-fascist,’ ‘terrorists’ despite Biden’s unity pledge.

After the 2020 election, Fox News TV personalities advanced false and unproven conspiracy theories regarding election fraud Questions linger over the Left’s plot against Donald Trump. Numerous audits and studies reveal that election fraud during the 2020 election was average and had no impact on the election’s outcome. Further, as noted above, they promoted conspiracy theories related to Dominion Voting Machines.

TV personalities also advanced false claims and conspiracies on the following issues: No guns at the capitol riot (False), Trump authorized the National Guard for the Capitol Riot (No Evidence), FBI orchestrated insurrection (False), The USA funds Biolabs in Ukraine (False), Numerous instances of Covid-19 vaccine disinformation (False). Further, according to Politifact, FNC has also been deemed the least accurate cable news source.

Finally, Fox News also features fact-based news reporting by beat reporters and some daytime TV hosts. However, this credible news reporting is buried between TV programming promoting right-leaning propaganda and false claims. The website is similar, with credible news stories between hyper-partisan, questionable content from their nighttime TV hosts.

In general, Fox News’ beat reporters produce low-biased fact-based news; however, the reporting on their entertainment-based news programming frequently promotes propaganda and false claims that render Fox News Questionable. In short, Fox News is essentially the state’s official propaganda platform.

Failed Fact Checks

Says John Bolton “fundamentally was a man of the left.” – PANTS OF FIRE

“NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming.” – PANTS ON FIRE

Obamacare is “one big fat VA system.” – PANTS ON FIRE

Marie Yovanovitch is “dishonest” when she claimed she never personally responded to an email from a Democratic staffer. – FALSE

“Biden’s climate requirements” will “cut 90% of red meat from diet” to a “max 4 lbs per year” and “one burger per month.” – PANTS ON FIRE

“Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict.” – FALSE

Clinton campaign paid to ‘infiltrate’ Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia: Durham. – FALSE

Natural immunity protects better than vaccination; “the mortality risk of an un-boosted person under age 30 was zero”; cloth face masks, school closures had zero benefits for children and some harm – MOSTLY FALSE

What is the Bias of Fox News?

Overall, we rate Fox News right-biased based on editorial positions that align with the right and Questionable due to the promotion of state propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks. While straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate, it is typically overshadowed by propagandistic opinions, which earns them a Low factual rating. (7/19/2016)

Updated (M. Huitsing 09/26/2025)

[John Corbett]

The only thing worse than Fox News is OANN, Newsmax, and RT.

From the Media Bias Fact Check website:

Overall, we rate Fox News right-biased based on editorial positions that align with the right and Questionable due to the promotion of state propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks. While straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate, it is typically overshadowed by propagandistic opinions, which earns them a Low factual rating.

I always get a chuckle from these so called fact checkers because they almost always reveal their own biases.

As the report shows, Fox reporters are "generally fact-based and accurate". Then they go on to say they are "overshadowed by propagandist opinions". As if MSNOW or CNN don't spew their own propagandist opinions 24/7. So do the broadcast networks although just a little less blatantly. I wouldn't even give MSNOW the benefit of any fact-based and accurate reporting. It's all propagandist reporting and it is over the top. CNN makes a token effort at actual reporting but it's largely a left wing echo chamber.

I gave you the opportunity to reveal your sources and you declined so I'll take a stab at it. My guess is you lean heavily on MSNOW and CNN. If you're into print media, I'll bet you think the New York Times and Washington Post are unbiased news organizations. If I am wrong, then tell us who you do trust to keep you informed.

[Tom Graves]

I always get a chuckle from these so called fact checkers because they almost always reveal their own biases.

As the report shows, Fox reporters are "generally fact-based and accurate". Then they go on to say they are "overshadowed by propagandist opinions". As if MSNOW or CNN don't spew their own propagandist opinions 24/7. So do the broadcast networks although just a little less blatantly. I wouldn't even give MSNOW the benefit of any fact-based and accurate reporting. It's all propagandist reporting and it is over the top. CNN makes a token effort at actual reporting but it's largely a left wing echo chamber.

I gave you the opportunity to reveal your sources and you declined so I'll take a stab at it. My guess is you lean heavily on MSNOW and CNN. If you're into print media, I'll bet you think the New York Times and Washington Post are unbiased news organizations. If I am wrong, then tell us who you do trust to keep you informed.

I like to watch MSNBC's "Dateline: Washington," Ari Melber, and "Morning Joe." I also read stories / news items that look interesting to me on the Internet as presented by Microsoft (I think) when I click the weather icon in the lower-left corner of my Windows 11 screen.

I prefer Alicia Melindez to occasionally hyperbolic Nicolle Wallace on the former, and I wish Joe Scarborough wouldn't interrupt his wife, Mika, so much on the latter.

Regardless . . .

ME: Please name three people in each category, if you can, whom Nicolle Wallace tends to interview regarding 1) War-in-Ukraine matters, 2) War-in-Iran matters, 3) Middle East matters, 4) economic matters, 5) immigration matters, 6) legal matters, 7) the Epstein files, 8 ) free speech matters.

GROK: Here are three people Nicolle Wallace (host of MSNBC's Deadline: White House) tends to feature or has recently interviewed as recurring or topic-specific experts/panelists, based on episode descriptions, clips, and appearances. These are drawn from her show's patterns, where she often turns to a core group of MSNBC contributors, former officials, journalists, and analysts (many anti-Trump or critical of current events). Note that some overlap across categories due to intersecting topics like foreign policy; "tends to" reflects frequent or notable appearances rather than exhaustive lists, and guest rosters can vary.

War-in-Ukraine matters Michael McFaul (former U.S. Ambassador to Russia) – frequent for analysis of Russia-Ukraine dynamics and U.S. policy.

Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (retired U.S. Army) – military/leadership expert often discussing strategy and Trump-era shifts.

Anne Applebaum (The Atlantic columnist) – foreign policy voice on authoritarianism, Russia, and Ukraine.

War-in-Iran matters (context: ongoing 2026 U.S./allied conflict with Iran under Trump administration discussions):  Anne Applebaum – regularly appears on Iran war episodes for broader geopolitical analysis.

John Brennan (former CIA Director) – national security/intelligence perspective on the conflict.

Mark Mazzetti (New York Times investigative correspondent) – reporting on Middle East/Iran strikes, evacuations, and U.S. policy.

Middle East matters (overlaps significantly with Iran coverage):  Anne Applebaum – consistent on regional fallout, strategy, and U.S. involvement.

Mark Mazzetti – for on-the-ground/diplomatic reporting tied to Iran and broader region.

John Brennan – intelligence lens on threats, strikes, and alliances.

Economic matters Justin Wolfers (University of Michigan economist/professor) – frequent for explaining tariffs, markets, stagflation, and Trump policies.

Steve Liesman (CNBC senior economics reporter) – updates on Fed, markets, and economic indicators.

Ryan Petersen (Flexport CEO) – business/supply-chain impact of trade wars and policy chaos.

Immigration matters Dara Lind (American Immigration Council senior fellow) – expert on mass deportation, ICE tactics, and border policy.

Jasmine Garsd – appears on panels discussing ICE enforcement and immigrant treatment.

Michele Norris (MSNBC senior contributing editor) – covers public backlash, protests, and street-level impacts of enforcement.

Legal matters  Andrew Weissmann (former Mueller prosecutor/MSNBC contributor) – very frequent for Trump cases, investigations, and prosecutorial analysis.

Harry Litman (former U.S. Attorney/MSNBC contributor) – regular legal panelist on rule-of-law and court issues.

Mary McCord (former acting Assistant Attorney General) – joins on high-profile legal cases and national security law.

The Epstein files: Julie K. Brown (Miami Herald investigative reporter) – the journalist who originally broke major Epstein stories; Wallace has interviewed her on the files and survivor accounts.

Lisa Rubin (MSNBC senior legal reporter) – covers DOJ handling, redactions, and withheld documents.

Danielle Bensky (Epstein survivor) – direct interviews on the files' release, government handling, and survivor impacts.

Free speech matters (often tied to media pressure, FCC, or censorship claims):  Oliver Darcy (media newsletter author, Status) – discusses FCC threats, network capitulation, and press freedom.

David Frum (The Atlantic staff writer) – appears on panels about media intimidation and free press issues.

Tom Nichols (The Atlantic) – broader commentary on media, public discourse, and related threats (frequent Wallace guest).

Wallace's show often features a mix of these experts alongside regulars like Claire McCaskill, Charlie Sykes, David Jolly, or Al Sharpton for context. Guest selection aligns with her focus on accountability, foreign policy critique, and legal/political analysis. For the most current episodes, check MSNBC or the Deadline: White House podcast.

ME: What about political matters?

GROK: For political matters on Nicolle Wallace's Deadline: White House (and her related podcast The Best People), she frequently features a mix of former Republican strategists turned critics, Democratic strategists/analysts, former elected officials, journalists, and academics for broad commentary on elections, Trump administration dynamics, party politics, democracy threats, and daily Washington developments.

Here are three recurring or frequently appearing voices in this broad category (with some overlap from other topics due to the interconnected nature of her show):

Charlie Sykes (conservative commentator, MSNBC contributor, former talk radio host) — A staple panelist for sharp political analysis, often critiquing the GOP, Trump-era politics, and conservative media. He appears regularly across episodes.

David Jolly (former Republican Congressman from Florida, MSNBC contributor) — Frequently joins for insider Republican perspective, discussions on party shifts, congressional politics, and anti-Trump viewpoints.

Claire McCaskill (former Democratic Senator from Missouri, MSNBC contributor) — Regular for political strategy, Senate/House dynamics, election analysis, and Democratic Party insights.

Other common political voices she turns to include:

Tim Miller (Republican strategist/podcaster with The Bulwark) — Often for GOP insider takes on Trump, party fractures, and campaign strategy.

Tom Nichols (The Atlantic staff writer) — For broader political/cultural commentary on democracy, authoritarianism, and public discourse.

Eddie Glaude (Princeton professor) — Joins for discussions on political morality, public opinion, and the state of American democracy.

Wallace's panels on political matters often blend these voices with others like Al Sharpton (for progressive angles), Basil Smikle (Democratic strategist), or journalists such as Jacob Soboroff and Molly Jong-Fast for real-time reaction to news. The show emphasizes accountability, rule-of-law themes, and critiques of power, so guests tend to align with that framing. Guest lists evolve with current events (e.g., elections, shutdowns, or policy fights).

If you'd like more details on a specific sub-topic within politics (e.g., elections, Congress, or Trump-specific), or expansions on any name, let me know! For the absolute latest episodes, checking recent Deadline: White House clips or the podcast is best, as lineups shift daily.

. . . . . . .

Questions:

Do you have a problem with any of those people?

Are you a Libertarian? (Libertarians are the worst.)

Do you support The Heritage Foundation and its authoritarian 2025 Project?

[John Corbett]

I like to watch MSNBC's "Dateline: Washington," Ari Melber, and "Morning Joe." I also read stories / news items that look interesting to me on the Internet as presented by Microsoft (I think) when I click the weather icon in the lower-left corner of my Windows 11 screen.

Questions:

Do you have a problem with any of those people?

No. I have a problem with all of them, at least the ones whose names I recognize. Most of them are extreme leftists and the rest are turncoat Never-Trump Republicans. MSNOW wouldn't hire anybody who didn't fit one of those two categories (The haven't been MSNBC for quite a few month). One of the most despicable people you've listed is John Brennan, a total scumbag. He showed his true colors when he cosigned a letter claiming the Hunter Biden laptop had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation. They all knew that was a damn lie, yet they signed it anyway because they were so desperate to deny Trump a second term and instead install a demented old geezer who they knew they could manipulate to doing whatever they wanted. It actually worked but the joke was on them. All they did was delay the second Trump term by four years. If not for their deceitful act, the Trump presidency would have ended almost 14 months ago. Instead, they have almost three more years of Trump in the White House to look forward to. The irony is delicious. I feel their pain and I am deriving way too much fiendish pleasure from it.

Are you a Libertarian? (Libertarians are the worst.)

Yes, I am. Thank you for asking. But that's not why I support Trump. He is not an idealogue. He is a pragmatist. He doesn't look at problems from a left or right point of view. He decides how best to fix them. He's pretty good at it, too.

Do you support The Heritage Foundation and its authoritarian 2025 Project?

I know very little about Project 2025 and what I do know about it, I support some of it and oppose others. I think Trump feels the same way about it.

[Tom Graves]

No. I have a problem with all of them, at least the ones whose names I recognize. Most of them are extreme leftists and the rest are turncoat Never-Trump Republicans. MSNOW wouldn't hire anybody who didn't fit one of those two categories (The haven't been MSNBC for quite a few month). One of the most despicable people you've listed is John Brennan, a total scumbag. He showed his true colors when he cosigned a letter claiming the Hunter Biden laptop had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation. They all knew that was a damn lie, yet they signed it anyway because they were so desperate to deny Trump a second term and instead install a demented old geezer who they knew they could manipulate to doing whatever they wanted. It actually worked but the joke was on them. All they did was delay the second Trump term by four years. If not for their deceitful act, the Trump presidency would have ended almost 14 months ago. Instead, they have almost three more years of Trump in the White House to look forward to. The irony is delicious. I feel their pain and I am deriving way too much fiendish pleasure from it.

Yes, I am. Thank you for asking. But that's not why I support Trump. He is not an idealogue. He is a pragmatist. He doesn't look at problems from a left or right point of view. He decides how best to fix them. He's pretty good at it, too.

I know very little about Project 2025 and what I do know about it, I support some of it and oppose others. I think Trump feels the same way about it.

I didn't ask you if you had problems with all of them.

Hunter's laptop emails did have the earmarks of a Russian disinformation op.


ME: Did John Brennan say Hunter Biden's laptop had the earmarks of a Russian disinformation operation?

GROK: Yes, former CIA Director John Brennan signed a public letter in October 2020 (along with 50 other former intelligence officials) that stated the Hunter Biden laptop emails, as reported by the New York Post, had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."

What the Letter Actually Said

The open letter, released on October 19, 2020 (five days after the New York Post story), did not flatly declare the laptop "Russian disinformation" or prove it was fake. Key excerpts:

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails... are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement."
However: "Our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case. ... [it] has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."

The signatories cited patterns like the timing, the sudden "dump" of material, and Russia's history of using hacked or leaked information mixed with accurate content to influence elections. They noted that Russian ops often include genuine material to lend credibility.

Brennan's Involvement and Later Defense

Brennan was one of the highest-profile signatories (along with James Clapper, Leon Panetta, Michael Hayden, Michael Morell, and others).
The letter was organized with input from Biden campaign associates (Antony Blinken was cited as playing a role in its inception, per Congressional testimony from Michael Morell). Nick Shapiro, a former aide to Brennan, helped distribute it to media.

In later interviews and confrontations (e.g., 2025), Brennan has pushed back against characterizations that the letter called it outright "disinformation." He has argued they described it as consistent with Russian influence operations (which can involve dumping real information), not a fabrication, and accused critics of misrepresenting the letter's nuance.

Context and Outcome

At the time, the letter was widely cited by media outlets, social media platforms (which restricted sharing of the Post story), and Joe Biden himself during debates to cast doubt on the reporting.

Subsequent investigations (FBI had possession of the laptop since 2019 and quickly authenticated it as Hunter Biden's with no evidence of tampering or Russian manipulation), forensic analysis, and court proceedings in Hunter Biden's legal cases confirmed the laptop's authenticity. No public evidence has emerged supporting Russian orchestration of the laptop's contents or release.

Critics (including Congressional Republicans and later Trump administration actions) have called the letter misleading or election interference, leading to security clearance reviews for some signatories in 2025. Defenders argue it was a cautious warning based on professional experience with Russian tactics, not a deliberate smear.

In short: Brennan did not personally author the exact phrasing in a solo statement, but he publicly endorsed the letter's core claim that the story bore the "classic earmarks" of a Russian information operation. The distinction between "earmarks of an information operation" (which can include real data) and outright "disinformation" (fabricated content) has been a point of ongoing debate and defense by the signatories. The episode remains highly partisan, with interpretations split along lines of whether it was responsible skepticism or improper influence on the 2020 election.

. . . . . . .

ME: What specific "earmarks" were there?

GROK: The 2020 open letter signed by John Brennan and 50 other former intelligence officials did not list a detailed, exhaustive set of specific "earmarks" with evidence or new intelligence. Instead, it offered a high-level, experience-based suspicion without claiming proof of Russian fabrication or direct involvement. The letter explicitly stated: "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails... are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement—just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.

The Cited Factors ("Earmarks")

The letter and contemporaneous explanations from signatories (including James Clapper in later testimony) pointed to these general patterns as consistent with known Russian influence operations (which often mix genuine material with amplification to sow chaos, rather than pure fabrication):

Timing and proximity to the election: The story broke in mid-October 2020, very close to the presidential vote, reminiscent of Russian efforts in 2016 to influence the outcome at a critical moment.

Involvement of Rudy Giuliani: The New York Post obtained the material through Trump's personal attorney Giuliani, who had been in contact with Ukrainian figures. Signatories viewed this as a potential vector for laundering information, especially given Giuliani's own prior associations that Russia had reportedly targeted or exploited.

Connection to Ukrainian figures and Burisma: Much of the content involved Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine (e.g., Burisma). Russia had previously conducted cyber operations targeting Burisma, and the letter referenced intelligence community assessments about Russian efforts to push narratives damaging to Joe Biden.

Method of release ("laptop op" or sudden dump): A large trove of emails and data appearing via a repair shop in Delaware, then funneled through Giuliani to a media outlet, fit a pattern of "hack-and-leak" or "dump" operations where Russia (or proxies) releases compromising material to create political chaos and deepen U.S. divisions. One signatory described it as fitting "the bill" for discrediting Biden while aiding Trump.

Consistency with broader Russian objectives: The letter referenced public intelligence community assessments that Russia sought to undermine Biden's candidacy, support Trump, exacerbate polarization, and erode trust in the electoral process—goals allegedly served by amplifying allegations of Biden family influence-peddling.

Signatories like Clapper highlighted "capability, intent, the timing, the involvement of Rudy Giuliani, and this Ukrainian businessman" with reported Russian intelligence ties. Former officials later noted that Russian ops often include real information to lend credibility, so they assumed a "significant portion" of the content could be authentic while still suspecting orchestration or amplification. [emphasis in original]

Important Caveats

The letter presented no forensic analysis of the laptop, no classified evidence of tampering, and no proof of Russian hacking or planting. It was framed as a "yellow flag" or caution based on pattern recognition from past Russian activities (e.g., 2016 election interference).

Subsequent investigations (FBI possession of the laptop since December 2019, forensic validations in Hunter Biden's legal cases, and lack of any substantiated Russian manipulation) found the device and its core contents authentic. No evidence has emerged publicly supporting Russian government orchestration of the laptop's contents or its delivery to the New York Post.

Critics argue the "earmarks" were vague, circular (relying on the story's political impact as proof of intent), and selectively applied. The letter was organized with Biden campaign input (Antony Blinken cited as playing a role), and it was quickly used by media, social platforms, and Joe Biden to cast doubt on the reporting.

In essence, the "classic earmarks" boiled down to narrative fit with prior Russian tactics — timing, chain of custody through Trump allies, Ukrainian angles, and potential to influence the election—rather than concrete indicators like digital forensics showing forgery or known Russian malware. Signatories have defended it as responsible skepticism; detractors call it misleading speculation that suppressed legitimate journalism close to an election. [emphasis in original]

ME: Had Giuliani been in contact with any KGB-types in Ukraine?

Yes. Rudy Giuliani had documented contacts in Ukraine with Andrii Derkach (also spelled Andriy Derkach), a then-Ukrainian parliament member whom the U.S. government officially described as a Russian intelligence asset with direct family and training ties to the KGB/FSB.

Key Facts on the Contacts

Giuliani met with Derkach multiple times in late 2019 (including in Kyiv in December 2019) while investigating Biden family dealings in Ukraine on behalf of then-President Trump. They appeared together in a One America News (OAN) documentary pushing allegations about the Bidens.

These meetings occurred as Giuliani sought information related to Burisma, Joe Biden’s pressure to fire Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, and related matters.

Derkach’s “KGB-Type” Background

Father: Leonid Derkach was a Soviet-era KGB officer (served in the Ukrainian KGB from 1972 onward) who later became head of Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) from 1998 to 2001. He was a high-ranking intelligence figure in the post-Soviet transition.

Derkach himself: He studied at the Russian FSB (Federal Security Service) academy in Moscow in the early 1990s—the direct successor organization to the KGB. U.S. officials and media reports described him as “KGB-trained.”

U.S. government assessment: In September 2020, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned Derkach, stating he had been “an active Russian agent for over a decade” with “close connections with the Russian Intelligence Services.” He was accused of waging a covert influence campaign to interfere in the 2020 U.S. election by spreading disinformation about the Bidens.

Additional context: U.S. intelligence agencies (including the CIA) warned the White House in 2019–2020 that Giuliani was the target of a Russian influence operation involving figures like Derkach. Ukrainian authorities later charged Derkach with treason in connection with pro-Russia activities.

Giuliani has publicly downplayed the significance, stating he had “no reason to believe” Derkach was a Russian agent and that no evidence of such ties was presented to him at the time. He maintained the meetings were legitimate fact-finding.

Other Giuliani Ukraine Contacts

Giuliani also met with other Ukrainian figures (e.g., former prosecutor Kostiantyn Kulyk and lawmaker Oleksandr Dubinsky) who were later implicated in related Russian-linked influence efforts, but Derkach is the one with the clearest, publicly documented “KGB-type” pedigree (father’s service + personal FSB training + U.S. designation as a Russian agent).

In the context of the 2020 Brennan letter (which flagged Giuliani’s Ukrainian channels as a potential vector for Russian information operations), Derkach was a central example cited by critics. The contacts were real and involved a person the U.S. government later formally identified as tied to Russian intelligence. No evidence has emerged that Giuliani knowingly collaborated with Russian operatives, but the associations were well-publicized and led to sanctions and investigations.

Andrii Derkach (also spelled Andriy Derkach), a former Ukrainian parliament member (seven-term MP, now stripped of citizenship), orchestrated a documented covert influence campaign targeting Joe Biden during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The U.S. government has officially characterized it as a Russian-linked disinformation effort in which Derkach acted as an “active Russian agent for over a decade” with “close connections with the Russian Intelligence Services.”

Official U.S. Government Assessment:

Treasury Department sanctions (September 10, 2020, under Executive Order 13848):

Derkach was designated for directly or indirectly engaging in foreign interference to undermine the 2020 election. From at least late 2019 through mid-2020, he waged a “covert influence campaign” centered on “cultivating false and unsubstantiated narratives” about U.S. officials (primarily Biden) engaged in corruption, money laundering, and unlawful influence in Ukraine. The goal was to spur bogus corruption investigations in both Ukraine and the U.S. timed to culminate before Election Day.

Further sanctions (January 11, 2021): Treasury targeted Derkach’s network of seven individuals and four Ukrainian media entities (NabuLeaks, Era-Media, Only News, Skeptik TOV) for coordinated dissemination of the same narratives.

ODNI declassified report: Russian President Vladimir Putin “had purview over” Derkach’s activities as part of a broader Kremlin effort to denigrate Biden and help Trump.

DOJ indictment (December 2022): Derkach was charged with conspiracy to violate U.S. sanctions and money laundering (tied to purchasing U.S. real estate while sanctioned). Prosecutors explicitly linked this to his “scripted Russian disinformation campaign” seeking to undermine U.S. institutions.

Derkach has denied being a Russian agent and called the election-interference claims “nonsense.”

Core Tactics and Timeline of the Campaign

Derkach’s operation relied on edited or selectively presented materials, press conferences, media proxies, and back-channel delivery to U.S. figures to launder the narratives into American politics and media.

Meetings with Rudy Giuliani (late 2019–2020): Derkach met Giuliani (Trump’s personal attorney) multiple times in Kyiv, including in December 2019. He provided documents and allegations about Biden family corruption in Ukraine (centered on Hunter Biden’s Burisma board role). Giuliani used some of this material in his own investigations and public statements. U.S. intelligence warned that Giuliani was being targeted by Russian influence ops involving Derkach.

Release of edited audio tapes (May–July 2020): This was the campaign’s centerpiece.Derkach held Kyiv press conferences releasing snippets of purported 2015–2016 phone calls between then-Vice President Joe Biden, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, and briefly John Kerry.

Claims: Biden withheld $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees unless Poroshenko fired Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin to protect Burisma/Hunter Biden from investigation.

Reality per U.S. assessments and fact-checks: The tapes were heavily edited, presented out of context, and did not substantiate bribery or protection claims. They largely corroborated Biden’s public account of pushing for Shokin’s removal as part of a broad, bipartisan anti-corruption effort (Shokin was widely viewed as ineffective/corrupt). Ukrainian authorities opened (but did not substantiate) an investigation into the tapes’ origins.

Network and amplification:

Coordinated with Ukrainian allies (former officials Kostiantyn Kulyk, Oleksandr Onyshchenko, Andriy Telizhenko; MP Oleksandr Dubinsky) who appeared publicly with him to echo the claims.

Operated Ukrainian media fronts to push the narratives in English and locally.

Targeted U.S. audiences via press events, social media, pro-Russian U.S. lobbyists, and Western media coverage of his releases. Materials were funneled to influential U.S. persons and platforms.

Broader context: The campaign built on earlier Russian efforts (starting ~2015) to promote Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theories. It aimed to sow discord, damage Biden’s candidacy, and portray U.S. officials as corrupt.

Impact and U.S. Response

The materials were amplified by some Trump allies, media outlets, and social platforms, contributing to the broader Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory. However, U.S. intelligence and the Treasury explicitly labeled them disinformation (misleading or false narratives, even if some raw audio was authentic). No evidence has emerged that the tapes were entirely fabricated, but their selective editing and framing were deemed part of a Kremlin-orchestrated influence operation.Derkach’s activities fit a pattern of Russian “active measures”: using proxies to launder plausible-but-misleading information through seemingly legitimate channels (Ukrainian officials, U.S. contacts) to influence Western elections.

In summary, Derkach’s campaign was a targeted, multi-channel effort using meetings with Giuliani, press conferences, and edited audio to push unsubstantiated Biden-corruption claims. It was formally deemed Russian-backed election interference by the U.S. government under both the Trump and Biden administrations, resulting in sanctions, network disruptions, and criminal charges against Derkach.

. . . . . . . .


Trump's pretty good at fixing problems?

Please name five of them if you can.

[John Corbett]

I didn't ask you if you had problems with all of them.

Hunter's laptop emails did have the earmarks of a Russian disinformation op.


ME: Did John Brennan say Hunter Biden's laptop had the earmarks of a Russian disinformation operation?

GROK: Yes, former CIA Director John Brennan signed a public letter in October 2020 (along with 50 other former intelligence officials) that stated the Hunter Biden laptop emails, as reported by the New York Post, had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."

What the Letter Actually Said

The open letter, released on October 19, 2020 (five days after the New York Post story), did not flatly declare the laptop "Russian disinformation" or prove it was fake. Key excerpts:

Are you a spin doctor by profession?
Your lame attempt to justify the letter signed by Brennan and 50 others is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person. I'm not going to bother with a point-by-point rebuttal because that would be giving respect to your diatribe that it does not deserve. The quote I have left in says it all. They admitted they had no evidence it was Russian disinformation but that didn't stop them from making that baseless accusation. That was all the leftist media needed to perpetrate the fraud that the Hunter Biden laptop wasn't genuine. That gave them plausible deniability for everything that laptop contained which was later proven to be genuine. Every last person who signed that letter is a lying scumbag whom I have zero respect for. Their efforts effectively put the United States in position of not having a mentally competent POTUS for four years. Joe Biden didn't have the mental acuity to be a Walmart greeter, but that didn't stop a group of unelected far leftists from making him leader of the free world and empowering themselves to effectively run the White House for four years. They knew they couldn't get one of their own elected so they grabbed Joe as their front man to be brought out for photo ops and to read a teleprompter when need be. They didn't dare have an open press conference and on those rare occasions when he did a presser, the questioners were preselected and the questions and answers were given to Biden in advance. They had to send the Easter Bunny to rescue him during the White House Easter Egg Roll when he wandered over toward the press for an impromptu Q&A.

Joe Biden was without a doubt the worst President in my lifetime and probably in the lifetime of our country. The sad thing is that as bad a President as he was, he was an even worse person, and that was before he lost his marbles. The Democrat Party should never be forgiven for the fraud they perpetrated on the American people. I used to vote for Democrats on occasion. I always voted for John Glenn for Senator. I voted for Ted Strickland both times he ran for Governor of Ohio. No more. The Democrat Party has become so repulsive that I won't vote for anyone willing to put a D next to their name. That want change until and unless the Democrat Party does a complete cleansing of their leadership, they quit allowing the extreme left to set the agenda for the party, and they return to some semblance of sanity.

Trump's pretty good at fixing problems?

Please name five of them if you can.

How about four conflicts he negotiated an end to:
  Thailand and Cambodia
  Serbia and Kosovo
  Rwanda and Congo
  Armenia and Azerbaijan

In addition, he has resolved a disagreement between Egypt and Ethiopia over water rights which had the potential to escalate into a shooting war.

He got our hostages released from Gaza.

He decimated Iran's ability to enrich uranium for making nuclear weapons.

He is now doing the same to their missile program. The attack on Diego Garcia demonstrated Iran already had intermediate range missiles that could reach every capital in Europe including the Scandinavian capitals of Oslo, Stockholm, and Helsinki. If they had that capability, it wouldn't have taken them long to develop missiles that could reach our entire eastern seaboard.

Had Trump not acted to remove Iran's nuclear and missile programs, it would only have been a matter of time before they had the firepower to deliver ICBMs with nuclear warheads to our country. Once that happened we would have been in the same boat with Iran that we are with are with North Korea. Our only defense with them would be Mutual Assured Destruction. A nuclear Iran would be far more dangerous than North Korea because it is a fanatical regime that embraces martyrdom. Deterrence is not that effective against an enemy that is willing to sacrifice their existence in order to eliminate yours.

Trump's tariffs and threat of tariffs have allowed us to renegotiate more favorable trade terms with a number of our trading partners, including the UK, the EU, and India.

In his first term he brought us vigorous economic growth and low inflation. Real wages grew for the first time in decades. The economic boom was brought to a halt by the COVID pandemic which shutdown economies all over the globe and for which there was no effective defense. When the current conflict with Iran ends, which it soon will. Our economy is poised to have a similar period of growth and low inflation.

He has ended the insane practice of minting pennies which should have been done at least four decades ago. Hopefully he will also end the equally silly practice of printing $1 bills.

I lost count but I think that is a bit more than five items, but it's still early and I haven't eaten my Wheaties yet.
 
 

[Tom Graves]

[...]

As I said, "Libertarians are the worst."

Especially pro-Trump Libertarians.

[Tom Graves]

[...]

ME: Is this true?

"Trump's tariffs and threat of tariffs have allowed us to renegotiate more favorable trade terms with a number of our trading partners, including the UK, the EU, and India. In his first term he brought us vigorous economic growth and low inflation. Real wages grew for the first time in decades. The economic boom was brought to a halt by the COVID pandemic which shutdown economies all over the globe and for which there was no effective defense. When the current conflict with Iran ends, which it soon will. Our economy is poised to have a similar period of growth and low inflation."


GROK: The statement is a mix of partially accurate, overstated, and speculative claims. Here's a breakdown based on economic data and historical records from Trump's first term (2017–2021) and related trade developments.

Trade Renegotiations with UK, EU, and India

Trump's use of tariffs and tariff threats in his first term did pressure trading partners and lead to some renegotiations, but not primarily with the UK, EU, or India in the way described.

In the first term, the major renegotiation was NAFTA into the USMCA (with Mexico and Canada). There was also a revised KORUS deal with South Korea and a Phase One agreement with China. Tariffs (especially on steel/aluminum and China) served as leverage, though economists debate how "favorable" the outcomes were overall—many tariffs remained or led to retaliatory measures.

No comprehensive new trade deals were completed with the UK, EU, or India during the first term. Negotiations with the UK began post-Brexit but stalled; EU talks were limited and tense due to steel/aluminum tariffs; India saw some defense/energy deals but no major trade breakthrough.

In the second term (2025 onward), Trump's tariffs and threats have prompted new agreements or frameworks, including an Economic Prosperity Deal with the UK (sector-specific tariff adjustments on autos, aerospace, etc.), a framework with the EU (capping some tariffs at 15% in exchange for U.S. market access), and an interim trade deal with India (reducing U.S. tariffs on Indian goods amid prior hikes). These involved tariff leverage, but many are non-binding frameworks, face implementation hurdles (e.g., EU pauses over new threats), or remain subject to ongoing disputes and court rulings on tariff authority.

The claim overstates the first-term role for these specific partners and attributes outcomes more cleanly to "tariffs and threats" than the complex mix of negotiations, existing WTO rules, and partial deals suggests. Tariffs often raised costs for U.S. importers/consumers and prompted retaliation without fully resolving deficits.

First-Term Economy: Vigorous Growth, Low Inflation, Real Wage Growth

This is mostly accurate for the pre-COVID period but requires context:

Growth: Real GDP grew at an average of 2.5% annually (2017–2019), with peaks around 3% in 2018. This was solid but not exceptional compared to other expansions (e.g., not dramatically above late Obama years). Unemployment fell to historic lows (3.5% pre-pandemic).

Inflation: Remained low (around 1.5–2% CPI), consistent with the prior decade.

Real wages: Grew modestly in the first three years (~1–2% annually for many measures, stronger for lower-wage workers in tight labor markets). Analyses show real median household income and production/nonsupervisory wages rose, with some blue-collar gains standing out relative to prior stagnation in certain periods. However, cumulative gains were comparable to (or slightly better than) late Obama years in some metrics, and not a complete reversal of "decades" of stagnation—wage growth had picked up pre-2017 in a tightening market.

Overall, the pre-2020 economy featured low unemployment, steady growth, and low inflation, building on the long expansion that began under Obama. Tax cuts and deregulation contributed to some momentum, though deficits rose.

The COVID-19 pandemic did halt the expansion globally. U.S. GDP contracted sharply in Q2 2020 (~31% annualized drop quarterly), with massive job losses (over 20 million in April 2020 alone) due to lockdowns, business closures, fear of the virus, and supply/demand shocks. This was not unique to the U.S.—it was a worldwide event with no prior "effective defense" beyond mitigation. The statement is correct here.

Future Outlook: Post-Iran Conflict Boom with Growth and Low Inflation

This is speculative and optimistic. As of early 2026, the U.S. faces ongoing effects from recent policies (including tariffs), with mixed data on growth, wages, and inflation in 2025. Projections vary widely by source, and a conflict with Iran introduces new risks:

Economists and institutions (e.g., Goldman Sachs, OECD) note that Iran-related disruptions (oil supply threats via Strait of Hormuz) have raised energy prices, boosting inflation risks (potentially +0.2–1+ points) and slowing growth via higher costs for consumers/businesses. Recession odds have been revised upward (e.g., 30–40% in some forecasts).

Pre-conflict, the economy showed resilience in some areas but faced headwinds like tariff-induced costs, uneven job growth, and debates over real wage trends (some data show gains in early 2025; others note slowdowns or uneven distribution).

A quick resolution to any conflict could limit damage and allow rebound, but sustained energy shocks could raise inflation and dampen consumption—counter to "low inflation" and rapid boom assumptions. Historical parallels (e.g., oil shocks) show variable outcomes depending on duration and policy response. No guarantee of repeating the pre-2020 conditions exists, as the global and domestic context differs (debt levels, AI/productivity trends, prior tariff effects).

Overall Assessment

True elements: Pre-COVID first-term economy had solid growth/low inflation with real wage gains (especially notable for some workers after prior stagnation); COVID halted it globally; tariffs/threats have been used as leverage for deals (more visibly in the second term with UK/EU/India frameworks).

Overstated/misleading: The specific UK/EU/India renegotiations were not major first-term achievements; "more favorable terms" is subjective and incomplete (many deals are partial or contested); real wage growth was positive but not unprecedented in scale or solely attributable to policy; future "similar period" is hopeful projection amid new risks like energy shocks from conflict.

Context matters: Economies are influenced by many factors (monetary policy, global conditions, pandemics, fiscal choices). Tariffs can protect certain sectors but often raise input costs and consumer prices; trade deals involve trade-offs.

The statement aligns with a pro-Trump economic narrative but simplifies complex data and extrapolates forward uncertainly. For the most current numbers, check sources like BLS (wages/unemployment), BEA (GDP), or independent analyses, as conditions evolve rapidly.