PART I – Introduction
Have you wondered why Americans are so divided about what happened on Jan 6, 2021? This series of posts will explain why that is and why it is important to know why that is. “The events of Jan 6” (“Jan 6”) were a monumental and pivotal moment in America’s history. The events were monumental because whether Trump would have a chance of becoming president in 2025 depended on the percentage of the voters who accepted the narratives about Jan 6 that mainstream media (“MSM”) regurgitated every day of the 46 months between Jan 6 and November 5, 2024, and the percentage of voters who believed or, at least accepted the possibility, that the events of Jan 6 were a Deep State Psy-Op. (“Deep State,” as I am using the term, is simply those in or outside the federal government who are calling the shots for the country.) I don’t know whether or not Jan 6 was a Psy-Op. However, I know much of what the MSM said about Jan 6 is incorrect, deceptive, manipulative, and wrong, and there is enough evidence that Jan 6 was a Psy-Op that dismissing that possibility shows an unhealthy lack of curiosity. [See my About page to know where I’m coming from.]
Watching MSM videos and seeing photos taken at the Capitol to figure out what happened is like a Rorschach Inkblot Test[1] with a twist. That test is a projective psychological test in which subjects’ perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex algorithms, or both. A Rorschach test involves silently showing a series of ten inkblots to a subject and, after the subject has decided what to say about what they see in the inkblot, asking what they see in them. 
The twist is that, unlike a Rorschach Inkblot Test, the videos were typically observed as biased commentators with their hair on fire either told the viewer what the commentators wanted the viewer to see or the viewer watched after commentators told the viewer what to be looking for.
The mainstream media,[i] ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSMBC, New York Times, Wall Street Journal (“MSM”), Social Media,[ii] Democrat and socialist politicians, leftist pundits, and the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the Capitol (“Select Committee”), Never Trumpers, and the Deep State (the people in the federal government that set the agendas and call the shots for federal actions)(collectively, the “Disinformers”) have masterfully propagandized much of the public with substantially or completely false narratives about “The Events of Jan 6, 2021” (“Jan 6”). Most politicians, pundits, bloggers, etc. who contest the MSM’s narratives about Jan 6 point out inaccuracies and deceptions in the Disinformers’ narratives. This post will do some of that, but I aim to reveal how the Disinformers bamboozle the public. I hope that, by seeing how they were bamboozled, some of the bamboozled will see that they have been bamboozled.
Contrary to what the Disinformers would have you believe, it’s not just right-wing nutjobs who claim the MSM is fake; the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review issued four scathing reports on the MSM’s fake news. After skewering the New York Times for its fake reporting on the Russia Collusion hoax, CJR wrote:
“Before the 2016 election, most Americans trusted the traditional media and the trend was positive, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer. The phrase “fake news” was limited to a few reporters and a newly organized social media watchdog. The idea that the media were “enemies of the American people” was voiced only once, just before the election on an obscure podcast, and not by Trump, according to a Nexis search.”
In a 2022 Reuters report, the US media has the lowest credibility—26 percent—among forty-six nations, according to a 2022 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. In 2021, 83 percent of Americans saw “fake news” as a “problem,” and 56 percent—mostly Republicans and independents—agreed that the media were “truly the enemy of the American people,” according to Rasmussen Reports… news outlets and watchdogs haven’t been as forthright in examining their own Trump-Russia coverage, which includes serious flaws. Bob Woodward, of the Post, told me that news coverage of the Russia inquiry ” wasn’t handled well” and that he thought viewers and readers had been “cheated.” He urged newsrooms to “walk down the painful road of introspection.” The wisdom of crowds, as evidenced by the public’s awakening to MSM’s fakery and CJR’s honest reporting, reveals the fakeness of MSM news.
On August 27, 2024, after many years of Facebook and Instagram censoring content about COVID-19 that did not violate platforms’ policies, Mark Zuckerberg wrote a letter to Congress admitting that he wrongfully succumbed to White House/Deep State pressure to suppress content that did not violate the platforms policies, regretted having done so, and “stated a commitment to not compromise content standards due to pressure from any administration, suggesting a readiness to push back against such pressures in the future. This implies a policy of not succumbing to external political pressures on content moderation that aligns with Meta’s policies.” The same was true of posts that opposed the Deep State’s narratives about Jan 6.
What the Deep State did to Facebook and Instagram reveals that the Deep State does what it can to control what the public can learn about what the Deep State wants the public not to know and that telling the public the truth is not a priority. Withholding information about what the Deep State is doing by “overclassifying ” documents creates many problems, especially how it allows the Deep State to avoid transparency and surely enables it to cover up its wrongdoings. Perplexity AI produced a list of seven confirmed instances in which the CIA broke laws restricting its powers. Perplexity also confirmed that there were no instances in which the participants in the CIA’s criminal activity suffered any legal consequences.
The CIA, directly or through its allies, publishes highly consequential disinformation. For example, 51 former agents wrote a letter saying that the indisputably valid story about Hunter Biden leaving a laptop (which was full of incriminating evidence) at a pawn shop “had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.” The letter aimed to help Biden’s campaign defeat Trump in the 2020 election. The letter was a double whammy. It suppressed news of Hunter’s wrongdoing, including his records about his businesses, about which there Congress has found connections to Joe Biden, and it intimated that foreign bad actors supported Trump. The CIA is prohibited by law from engaging in domestic matters, with few exceptions that do not include election interference. It would be ridiculous to assume that the CIA did not collaborate with the former CIA agents to quash the Hunter laptop story. “A joint report from three House committees has revealed that some signatories of this letter were active CIA contractors at the time and that high-ranking CIA officials were aware of the statement before its release.” “CIA played key Jan. 6 roles, texts reveal.” “CIA played key Jan. 6 roles, texts reveal.”
In each of Trump’s three presidential runs, he promised to “drain the swamp,” which includes the DOJ and CIA. The last thing the DOJ and CIA want is to be drained. Undoubtedly, they consider Trump to be an existential threat to its power. There
The FBI has issued many false statements and is known for stonewalling Congress so that it cannot be held accountable for wrongdoing. Given the existential threat that Trump is to the DOJ/FBI (he continually promises to drain the swamp) and that the DOJ/FBI surely covetous of their jobs and love the power they wield, e.g., the power to conduct a pre-dawn raid on the home of a former president who would have opened the door had they run the doorbell at a reasonable hour of the day, is the primary protector of the swamp, the antipathy the Deep State has for Trump and “Great Patriots” (the name Trump gave his supporters) is not only understandable, it is warranted. Because the FBI is part of the DOJ and the head would approve any major action the FBI undertakes, the FBI agents need not worry about being prosecuted no matter what they do while conducting an approved operation – unless Trump becomes president.
Author’s Note: The raid of Mar-a-Logo was after 8:00 a.m.
It’s common knowledge that the FBI uses “confidential human sources,” “undercover employees,” “assets,” “contractors,” and “task force officers” (collectively, “assets”). On many occasions, Congressmen have asked FBI officials how many assets it had at the Capitol on Jan 6 crowd. Before September 25, 2024, the DOJ wouldn’t answer those questions in any way – thereby leaving no opportunity for Congress to ask, much less discover, what the assets were doing that day. The primary narrative that the Democrats and other Disinformers have deployed against Trump in the 2024 election is that he instigated an insurrection on Jan 6. Voters need to know who instigated or orchestrated the invidious events of Jan 6. If it were proven that the events of Jan 6 were a Deep State Psy-Op, Trump would likely win in the largest landslide in American history. On 9/25/24 (40 days before the 2024 election and 1400 days since the events of Jan. 6, the FBI Inspector General testified before a House Committee that FBI assets were in the Jan 6 crowd. Disinformers have denied or belittled claims that FBI agents were in the Jan 6 crowd. However, the Inspector General would not say how many or what they were doing. Worse, his report about the events of Jan 6 very likely won’t be released before the election and possibly not before the inauguration next year. This, too, is a case of election interference and reveals that the FBI has, once again, put the Deep State’s interests ahead of those it pretends to serve. Was Jan 6 a Deep State Psy-Op? I don’t know. However, under the circumstances described above, it is reasonable to assume the Deep State, at a minimum, desired to do what it could to ruin Trump’s prospects of ever running again and to vilify and otherize Great Patriots as deplorables, terrorists, or worse. That the Deep State lies and that orchestrating what could be propagandized as an insurrection would have been ridiculously easy is indisputable. It could infiltrate the Jan 6 crowd with inciters and ruffians and let them make the Great Patriots appear as bad as possible on Jan 6. After that, the Deep State would be free to terrorize its favorite enemies, the Great Patriots.
I asked AI if anyone had claimed the CIA was involved with the events of Jan 6. The answer was “no.” I followed up with, “Has anyone investigated whether the CIA was involved in the events of Jan 6? The answer was “no.” No one outside the Deep State can know the extent to which, if any, the CIA was involved in making the Great Patriots look bad on Jan 6. However, given that Trump is an existential threat to the Deep State and Deep Staters are above the law, one can reasonably ask, “Why wouldn’t the CIA do whatever it could to make the Great Patriots appear to look like hoodlums on Jan 6?” That the Disinformers’ false narratives succeeded in bamboozling a vast swath of the public is unsurprising. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s pick for the head of Nazi Germany’s Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, significantly advanced the arts and science of propaganda in the 1930s and got close enough to perfection to flip Germany’s democracy into one of the worst dictatorships in human history. The Deep State Disinformers have improved Goebbels’s techniques for about 80 years. Given what the public was up against, Americans who were bamboozled should not be embarrassed that they fell for the disinformation. However, it would be irresponsible of them not to consider the possibility that they were misled and be proud of themselves if they consider that possibility.
Convincing people that they have been bamboozled is nearly impossible. Given the magnitude of the consequences of the disinformation inflicted on much of the public and the extreme, democracy-threatening divisiveness the Disinformation spawned, not trying to convince them they have been bamboozled is inexcusable. So, let’s try to sort out how the Disinformers bamboozled the public about Jan 6 and hope for the best.
The ways and means used by the Disinformers are many and varied. The web they spun has so many threads that sorting out the differences between reality and the tales told by the Disinformers will take a while. The more people who understand how the bamboozlement was accomplished, the higher the likelihood that America’s republic will survive the attempt by tyrant wannabes to achieve their goals. Consequently, you will be performing a public service to understand it and an even more excellent public service to spread the word. A HEADS UP TO THOSE ONLY INTERESTED IN A DEFENSE OF TRUMP: THIS PRESENTATION IS NOT A DEFENSE OF TRUMP’S ACTIONS OR INACTIONS CONCERNING JAN 6. While Trump deserves a defense for many, if not most, of the MSM’s narratives about Trump’s actions or inactions on Jan 6, my purpose here is not to defend Trump. I believe Trump did several crucial things for the country in his first term that no one else would or could have done as well as he did, e.g., waking millions of Americans to the reality that the MSM “news” is mostly fake. Nevertheless, I’m not a Trump fan. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 and made many noticeable donations to conservative candidates over the years but not a dime for Trump. I considered checking his box on my 2020 ballot to be a vote against Biden and not for Trump. I will consider my vote for Trump in 2024 to be a vote against the vilification and persecution of Trump by leftists and a vote against leftist totalitarianism. This post is about the Disinformers’ misdeeds relating to Jan 6. Nevertheless, when needed for context, I will mention some of Trump’s good deeds concerning Jan 6 and those of the Great Patriots.
Misinformation Overview The Disinformers sprinkled their incriminating narratives about “The Events of Jan 6” with provable facts. However, their narratives are predominately saturated with incriminations based on 1) unverified or verifiably false allegations, 2) bias-driven assumptions, many of which are based on a false belief that they can read the minds of others (which is especially absurd when one tries to read the minds of people who think very differently from themselves),[i] or 3) wishful thinking. The Deep State used its alliances with or control over the MSM and most social media to bombard the public continually with their false or groundless pap about the events of Jan 6. They also did all they could to suppress and discredit the evidence, counter-narratives, and opinions that questioned or contradicted, added context to, or revealed the Disinformers’ claims as incomplete, misleading, or false. They’ve continued to do it since Jan 6. As ludicrous and unfair as the Disinformers’ words and deeds are, their most egregious deed has been to dupe a wide swath of unsuspecting Americans into believing the following about the events of Jan 6:
- It was a planned violent insurrection[iii] instigated by Trump and carried out exclusively by Trump supporters,
- Trump-hating bad actors (“Trump Haters”) neither instigated nor engaged in unprovoked violence on Jan 6,
- No federal provocateurs were in the Jan 6. crowd,
- Police officers died at the hands of Great Patriots and
- Trump and his “insurrectionists” are responsible for every negative thing that happened at the Capitol on Jan 6.
We’ll sort out why those claims are disinformation and how they were achieved. Before we examine the Disinformers’ disinformation techniques, allow me to make a preliminary concession that they did not get everything about Jan 6 wrong.
Preliminary Concessions This series of posts will present a vast amount of evidence that is consistent with “The Events of Jan 6” being a Deep State psyop. As vast and deep as the evidence is, there is no conclusive proof that the Deep State orchestrated the event or instigated most of the violence at the Capitol on Jan 6. On the other hand, “the phrase “connect the dots” is widely recognized and used across various contexts to imply making connections between pieces of information or events to draw conclusions. Democrats often use the phase.[v] Disinformers reserve unto themselves the right to connect dots to spin yarns and condemn other people who connect dots to make cases against the Disinformers’ cases. This series of posts will show the dots for the case of Jan 6 being a Deep State psyop. I hope you have not been so bamboozled that you are not interested in possibilities (probabilities, in my estimation) if the possibility differs from what you believe about one of the most consequential events in American history. I welcome sound counterarguments. The Disinformers appear to have been partially correct when they claimed the Great Patriots instigated and committed unprovoked violence and other wrongdoing at or in the Capitol on Jan 6. Subject to two exceptions and one condition discussed below, anyone who stormed the barricades, engaged in unjustified violence, damaged property, or unjustifiably harmed or threatened anyone, especially the police, should be charged for their crimes, prosecuted, and receive punishment commensurate with the crime(s). speedily [justice delayed is justice denied] in a neutral venue [not in a [biased jury pools cannot serve justice],[vi] The critical exceptions/conditions to the preceding are:
|
The Disinformers’ Bamboozling Techniques
The Disinformers’ deceptions were often achieved by using refined framing techniques. The FrameWorks Institute’s framing description is: “Framing is about the choices we make in what we say, how we say it, what we emphasize, and what we leave unsaid, and how these choices shape how people think, feel, and act.”[xiii] A 2021 ScienceDirect paper titled “Persuasion strategies of misinformation-containing posts in the social media,”[xiv] observed, “Several studies have revealed that misinformation creators are getting better and better at persuading recipients to establish, change, or strengthen their views in an expected direction (Osatuyi and Hughes, 2018), and become increasingly prevalent in social media environments (Guo et al., 2020)… Pennycook and Rand (2019) indicates that social media users’ susceptibility to political misinformation is caused by the users’ insufficient cognitive efforts, i.e., lazy thinking.” With expert framing, the public can be convinced of almost anything. The Deep State and the MSM have taken full advantage of the power of many forms of false framing to convince much of the public of things that are not true about Jan 6. Let’s sort out how the Disinformers used false framing to their great advantage.
Priming. “In psychology, priming is a technique in which the introduction of one stimulus influences how people respond to a subsequent stimulus. Priming works by activating an association or representation in memory just before another stimulus or task is introduced.”[xv] The persuasion of this phenomenon occurs without our conscious awareness, yet it can have a major impact on numerous and profound aspects of our everyday lives. That the MSM called the events of Jan 6 an “insurrection” at 9:15 a.m. on Jan 6 when very few people were milling around at the Capitol no violence had begun caused most viewers to be on the lookout for violence and automatically deem the violence to be an insurrection.
False Framing. An extreme example of false framing would be, “When did you stop beating your wife?” The primary problem with such framing is that it is predicated on a claim (the husband has beaten his wife) based on an assumption rather than a fact. The technique can cause uncritical thinkers to assume unreasonably that the husband beats his wife. The Disinformers used that technique by describing the events of Jan 6 as an “insurrection” without establishing that an insurrection occurred on Jan 6. I’ve searched in vain for an example of Trump or a Great Patriot saying that they wanted to overthrow the government, the election, or anything remotely similar. In August 2024, I asked Grok if any Jan. 6 protesters wished to overturn the election. In addition to a bunch of irrelevant gobbledygook, Grok’s response was “no.”[xvi] In short, plenty of Americans have been convinced that the Great Patriots at the Capitol on Jan 6 wanted to overturn the election or the government despite the claim being preposterous. A framing technique the MSM and other salespeople, e.g., car salesmen, commonly use is getting the listener to “think past the sale.”[xvii] The critical issue with which a buyer must deal is whether the benefits of buying a car are worth more to him than the car’s cost. A salesman has a much better chance of getting a potential buyer to say “yes” to that question if the customer doesn’t think much about the car’s cost. For example, if they can get customers to focus on (frame the decision as) how much fun, pride, and joy the customer will derive from owning and driving the car, they will think less about the car’s cost.
Disnaming. (I would have used the word “Misnaming” had the Disinformers not misnamed something to bamboozle the public.) The term “Holocaust deniers” was coined in the late 1970s to disparage people who questioned or denied that the Holocaust occurred. “Holocaust denier” was a description, not a framing technique. However, the term proved to be a very effective framing technique to disparage people and intimidate people who had any issue with a variety of other narratives concerning propaganda the Deep State wanted to use to disinform. Since the late 1980s, when “AIDs deniers” were deployed by the Deep State, Disnaming has become the Disinformers’ go-to technique to disinform. In the late 1990s, the Disinformers coined the term “climate deniers” to describe people who did not fall for the Disinformers’ narrative about CO2 and climate change. We’ve since seen “Science deniers,” “climate deniers,” “Holocaust deniers,” “election deniers,” “AIDS deniers,” “COVID deniers,” “austerity deniers,” “inequality deniers,” “racism deniers,” “systemic racism deniers,” “GMO deniers,” and “tech deniers.”[xviii] These disnames have in common that they describe approximately no one. Take “climate deniers” for an example. No one claims that climate doesn’t exist or doesn’t change. Nevertheless, the Disinformers have bamboozled many millions into believing that people are denying climate. These bogus applications are used to confound or stamp out conversations about what the climate is doing and cause many millions to dismiss out of hand any comment questioning or not in line with the Deep State’s narrative about the climate. It is a brainwashing technique. The Disnaming technique was used to great advantage by the Deep State to sell the idea that the Jan 6 protesters were insurrectionists. “Coup” is the first word in Thesaurus.com’s list of synonyms for “insurrection.”[xix] By 9:15 AM on January 6 “CNN was reported to have used the word “Coup” to describe what was happening at the Capitol.”[xx] A relatively small group of people toppled the bicycle rack barriers a little after 1:00 p.m. So, at 9:15a.m., unless someone told CNN that arrangements for a Deep State-manufactured “insurrection” had already been made, CNN had no evidence that a coup was about to happen. Yet, CNN and the rest of the MSM continually, throughout the day and thereafter, kept pounding the words “insurrection” or “coup” to describe what was going on at the Capitol. The people the Disinformers brainwashed/primed to believe the Great Patriots wanted to revolt when they got to the Capitol looked for and believed they saw evidence of an insurrection. The Disinformers brainwashed the public into believing the Great Patriots wanted to overturn the election despite never having made that case concerning what the Great Patriots were doing on Jan 6. I can’t think of how the Disinformers could have gifted a greater service to the Deep State or a greater disservice to the public than their bamboozling of the public about Jan.
Dishonest Omissions of Essential Information The Disinformers effectively used several false frames about what the Great Patriots were doing at and inside the Capitol. Their primary frame was/is that the Great Patriots were carrying out an “insurrection.” While that claim was repeated ad nauseam while showing videos or images of mayhem, the Disinformers rarely identified the people in their pictures who engaged in violence and only mentioned Trump Haters who were involved in violence, e.g., The Capitol policeman who shot and killed Ashley Babbitt.[xxi] Other than Ray Epps (more on him later) and false claims that Trump incited Great Patriots to commit violence [more on this later], the MSM never identified who incited the mayhem or whether or not the violence against police officers was in self-defense in response to unjustified police violence. In short, the Disinformers did not provide the evidence to prove that Great Patriots were the only people causing trouble at the Capitol. The Disinformers talked past the sale. They primed their audience to hate Great Patriots, implied that everyone committing violence was a Great Patriot, and, having so primed and brainwashed their audiences; their audiences were duped into believing that they could judge books by their covers. The FBI routinely infiltrates domestic groups that the FBI believes might be a threat to the country.[xxii] The FBI infiltrated groups that the FBI believed would be present and might cause trouble at the Capitol on Jan. 6.[xxiii] It’s fair to suspect, if not assume or be convinced, that the FBI clued in the MSM and social media companies to the fact that Trump Haters and people following orders issued by Trump Haters were in the Capitol crowd.[xxiv] Some Trump Haters are known to have been in the Jan 6 crowd, and they could have been in every scene presented by the MSM. MSM characterizations of the images they presented, which omitted information critical to a fair understanding of who the people in their pictures and videos were, caused most of their audiences to assume that the Disinformers, who had no evidence for their implications and claims that every pictured person engaging in or encouraging people to be violent was a Great Patriot. By implying the lie that all bad actors in the crowd were Trump Supporters, they talked past a critical consideration about who the depicted terrible actors were. That bamboozling technique worked on the vast majority of MSM’s audiences. Another technique Disinformers use is to spot ordinary words their opponents/targets used that have both a benign and sinister meaning and declare, based on a pretend ability to read minds, that the target was using the word in sinister meaning. For example, all politicians encourage crowds to “fight,” [xxv] and most add “like hell” for all kinds of things. As discussed below, the Disinformers hypocritically rolled out that technique when they said Trump’s use of “fight like hell” in his Jan 6 speech incited Great Patriots to commit violence. Thorough and honest investigative news reporting, without which republics die, includes the situation’s who, what, when, where, and why. The Disinformers rarely got any of those things right on the rare occasions they included some of those story aspects in their Jan 6 coverage. Below is a list of some of the essential things the Disinformers failed to include in their reporting:
- Pointing out that it is impossible to distinguish Trump Haters from Great Patriots by simply looking at a picture or video that people can judge books by their cover;
- The percentage of unlawful violence on Jan 6 that Great Patriots committed versus the percentage of Great Patriots who did nothing other than protest peacefully. (Compare calling the BLM riots in 2020 “mostly peaceful.”);[xxvi]
- A comparison of the magnitude of the unlawful violence committed by Great Patriots versus that committed by Trump Haters or people Trump Haters ordered or incited others to commit violence;
- Identification of the people engaging in or provoking violence. (Note that many of the Capitol’s windows were broken by men in black, some of them wearing masks – much like was seen in BLM protests in 2020, much to the consternation of many BLM members who were protesting the death of George Floyd, not to loot or facilitate looting or destroy property);
- How much of the violence was triggered by Capitol Police’s provocations and assaults that riled up (instigated) erstwhile peaceable protestors to become hostile;
- How much of the violence by Great Patriots was justifiable self-defense and
- Admission by “news” sources that they did not attempt to get the above essential information or that they had the information but withheld it because it would undermine their narratives.
Rather than telling the whole truth, the Disinformers painted with an overly broad brush and left a fundamentally false impression concerning what happened. They published disinformation and malinformation. With that sleight of hand, the Disinformers convinced their audiences of the “Big Lie”[xxvii] that all violence and other wrongdoing captured in pictures and videos was instigated and committed by Trump and the Great Patriots. While some Great Patriots were wrongfully violent,* by omitting discussion of violence of and instigation of violence by Trump Haters, the Disinformers bamboozled much of the public into a fundamentally false narrative. With that in mind, let’s look at some of the images of Jan 6. The Disinformers used to bamboozle.
CNN’s Picture and Captions Are Worth a Thousand Lies CNN was the primary Disinformer concerning Jan 6, and its techniques exemplified those used by all the Disinformers; so let’s focus on the tactics and techniques CNN used to disinform the public about Jan 6. Let’s first establish that CNN was a lying organization before May 2022 (including Jan 6, 2021), when Chris Licht became CNN’s CEO.[xxviii] In a CNN staff meeting soon after Licht was hired, he said, “I want to acknowledge that this is a time of significant change, and I know that many of you are unsettled. There will be more changes, and you might not understand it or like it.” Later, Licht signaled a philosophical change for CNN in a letter to CNN employees, announcing, “First and foremost, we should, and we will be advocates for the truth.” Licht, the top insider, confirmed that CNN hadn’t previously been an advocate advocated for truth — so much so that fixing that failure was a top priority for CNN. Then Licht expressed his aspirations for CNN, “I think we can be a beacon in regaining that trust by being an organization that exemplifies the best characteristics of journalism: fearlessly speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo, questioning ‘group-think’ and educating viewers and readers with straightforward facts and insightful commentary, while always being respectful of differing viewpoints…. First and foremost, we should, and we will be advocates for the truth.” By saying, “I think we can be…,” Licht once again confirmed that CNN had not been and was not currently dedicated to the truth when he was hired. That period included Jan 6. (To his credit, Light cleaned out or demoted several biased CNN liars.[xxix]) A former CNN reporter corroborated and elaborated on Licht’s assessment of CNN, “Obama Paid [CNN] To Lie.”[xxx] Now, let’s dig into how the Disinformers’ lied.
[i] The Biggest Source Of ‘Misinformation,’ Lies, And Delusion Is Leftist Corporate Media: “This brings us back to the question of why, a question Stelter, Democrat politicians, and their ilk refuse to grapple with honestly. Why would people believe so-called misinformation? It’s a pivotal question, and the left can’t bring themselves to answer it because it damns them.”
[ii] SOCIAL MEDIA, POSOBIEC: Biden and Big Tech Conspired to Censor Americans on Social Media Now can we all agree that Jan. 6 was an insurrection?
[iii] id
[iv] Is the phrase “connect the dots” widely recognized and used in various contexts to imply making connections between pieces of information or events to draw conclusions, which could inherently be applied in political rhetoric by any party?
[v] Democrats saying “Connect the Dots
[vii] What evidence is there that Jan 6 defendants have been denied their constitutional right to a speedy trial, and how many defendants have been affected by that?
How many Jan 6 cases have been tried and how many were tried outside of D.C.
[viii] How many Jan 6 cases have been tried and how many were tried outside of D.C.
[ix] What percentage of Republicans living in D.C. are Never Trumpers?
[x] Can criminal trials be held in a district other than the district in which the crime occurred in instances in which an impartial jury cannot be empaneled?
[xi] Have all motions of change of venue by Jan 6 defendants been denied? [xii] https://x.com/i/grok/share/K1pJ6GNBjwJB7MceWqKiDzAvQ
[xiii] Five Questions about Framing
[xiv] Persuasion strategies of misinformation-containing posts in the social media
[xv] Priming In Psychology Activating associations with previous stimuli
[xvi] https://x.com/i/grok/share/pG6jbVtddfI7Q5EjMNT5MGO9I
[xviii] Leftists have used the word “denier” in many contexts since the late 1990s. What are the other contexts in which that persuasion technique has been used?
[xix] https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/insurrection
[xx] When did the press first use the word “insurrection” to describe what they feared would occur on Jan 6?
[xxi] Who killed Ashley Babbet and what position did he hold?
[xxii] FBI infiltrates group whose members wanted to test homemade bombs, surveil Capitol, secede from US, court records show
[xxiii] In Proud Boys Jan. 6 Sedition Trial, F.B.I. Informants Abound
[xxiv] Latest Twitter Files shows CIA, FBI have spent years meddling in content moderation
[xxv] Dems urging fighting: Trump impeachment team plays video of ‘hypocrite’ Dems ‘urging FIGHT LIKE HELL’ and Trump lawyer plays video montage of Democrats doubting election results at impeachment trial and Trump lawyer plays video montage of Democrats doubting election results at impeachment trial, and
[xxvi] As Seattle Settles Major Lawsuit, Media Still Insist George Floyd Riots Were ‘Mostly Peaceful’
[xxviii] Final edition of ‘Reliable Sources’ raises questions about CNN’s future
[xxviii] New CNN president promises to work toward regaining trust of viewers, and CNN Staff Brace for Change as Chris Licht Era Starts to Take Shape
Recently, I shared this article with someone and this was their response. I haven’t personally watched the testimonies yet. I have asked that person to send some links for further review.
“ Donald Trump incited a mob to force their way into the Capitol in order to use violence to prevent the certification of a lawful presidential election, which is the sole basis of legitimate authority in our republic. I saw all of this happen in real time on TV, and I watched hours of testimony from the people who were there on that day. If that wasn’t treason, nothing is. I don’t need after-the-fact think pieces telling me that black is white and up is down. Their only function is to prey upon open-minded individuals with bad-faith argumentation in order to normalize the behavior of a criminal who should have been forcibly ejected from our political system years ago. So, thanks but no thanks. I have better things to do with my time, like trying to figure out how to oppose, in whatever small way I can, the oligarcho-fascist takeover which is currently underway in Washington.”