Starting many months ago, I began asking some commentators on Facebook to provide their sources when they make what appear to be particularly outlandish statements. Over the months, not a single one of them has been able to provide me with anything concrete that might support their positions. Until now.
I was having an exchange, recently, with one fellow on a right-wing wanna-be echo chamber group. The "discussion" was, as I recall, about DonOLD Trump and security and media bias, among other things. At first, when I asked for evidence to support what the fellow was saying, I got memes in response and the usual cop-out "do your own research". I've always found that kind of comment amusing. If you want to actually convince someone, you provide some backup material that might help convince them. Telling them that they're dumb, a liberal, or whatever, doesn't seem to me to be much of a sales pitch.
Finally, though, I got an actual response. FINALLY. After several years of asking. A link to an article in The Federalist and a list of names. purportedly to be worthwhile sources. This seemed like too good an opportunity to pass up, so I'm going to go through a bit of an analysis to see what might be there.
The Evidence
The article was titled: "25 Lies Kamala Harris Told in Her Debate Against Trump", published by The Federalist, September 11th, 2024.
Not being familiar with The Federalist, I looked around to see what kind of a reputation it has. I found this from Wikipedia:
The Federalist is an American conservative online magazine and podcast that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion, and publishes a newsletter.[1][2][3][4] The site was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis and launched in September 2013.[4]
During the COVID-19 pandemic, The Federalist published many pieces that contained false information, pseudoscience, and contradictions or misrepresentations of the recommendations of public health authorities.[5][6][7] While ballots were being counted in the 2020 United States presidential election, The Federalist made false claims that there had been large-scale election fraud.[8][9]
The fellow I was exchanging view with dismissed Wikipedia as a source, but there are a number of credible supporters, such as the following:
The basic premise was that Wikipedia is a pretty good source although it lacks the detailed editorial control that traditional encyclopedias have. Usually, there is a recommendation to dig deeper by looking to scholarly, edited works. Of course, we know full well that the political right has spent several years disparaging anything to do with scholarly pointy-headed academics, so I'm not sure where that leaves them.
My approach is to treat Wikipedia as a relatively reliable source of information, keeping in mind how it is created and edited. I'd also point out that IF the main reason for dismissing Wikipedia has to do with "crowd sourced articles" (even with the requirement for citations that can be verified) one has to wonder why so many people think VAERS is a useful source for anti-vaccine information, given that the raw information there is not verified at all. However, I digress....
Back to The Federalist.....
Knowing what has been said about this publication and some of the blatant falsehoods that it's been accused of spreading (COVID-19 and the 2020 US Election results), I'd certainly be unlikely to rely on it, much less read it on even an irregular basis.
The article I was given contained 55 links as follows:
- To Twitter (currently referred to as X) - 22 links
- To other Federalist articles - 17 links
- To Truth Social - 1 link
- To Brietbart - 1 link
- To Other sources - 15 links. These included NPR, ABC News, Hill Times, among others.
I can't imagine using anything coming from "Truth Social", in any context. This is Trump's mouthpiece. Trump lies as easily as he breathes. Nothing he says is credible, at least not on its own.
I'm intrigued by a publication using links to other articles that it's published as "backup material". This sounds like me using my own quotes in support of what I'm currently saying.
If you want to know more about why you should ignore Brietbart, Wikipedia would be a good place to start. For a fun exercise, try to find even one positive thing to say about the outlet.
I've never used Twitter (currently known as X), but it seems pretty clear that it's a cesspool of personal opinions with no moderation of any kind. If you want the wild west of bullshit, then Twitter (currently known as X) would be the place to go. As an aside, many on the right disparage Elon Musk for a variety of reasons and claim they wouldn't buy a Tesla because of him and yet they seem content to quote "tweets" from Twitter (currently known as X) as something close to gospel. Yeah, Musk is an idiot, albeit a rich one. Teslas are nice cars, Musk notwithstanding. Twitter is just another anarchists platform.
The Claims
The Federalist article made claims that Harris lied a minimum of 25 times during the debate. I'm not even going to attempt to address each one, but several are worth commenting on.
Harris claimed she was a "middle-class kid". Frankly, criticizing a comment like this while supporting DonOLD Trump is pretty preposterous. Do I need to refresh anyone's mind about DonOLD's wealth here? Nah, I didn't think so. DonOLD has done that plenty by himself. So, what's a middle-class family? According to the Pew Research Center, a family of 4 would be considered middle-class if its income fell between $67K and $201K. Keep in mind that Kamala's mother was a research scientist and her father was a tenured professor in Economics. I don't know what those kind of positions command in terms of salary, but a quick Google search might lead one to assume over $100K as a professor and under $100K as a research scientist. So, upper middle class, perhaps? Also, when Kamala was seven, her parents divorced, so she became the child of a single parent family. Was Kamala "lying" about her background? Not so far as I can see. Is Trump a "man of the people"?? This rates a protracted LOL.
Harris claimed Trump will implement a sales tax if elected. The only evidence quoted in support of the Federalist's claim of a lie is what Trump appears to have said. He has said he wouldn't bring in a sales tax. However, he has promoted various tariffs on imported goods. Many economists see these as a form of sales tax and some have suggested they could cost the average middle class family $4000 a year. So, draw your own conclusions on this one.
Harris claimed that the January 6th riot was an attack on democracy, the worst since the Civil War. Harris is not alone in saying this. So do other organizations and groups, such as: A Majority of Americans, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and the Center for American Progress. It has also been reported as such by The Hill, the BBC, Encyclopedia Britannica, PBS and CNN. What transpired on January 6th was an attempt to subvert an election. I was unable to find a similar event in the years since the Civil War (although I didn't try very hard). It was clearly an attempted insurrection. For The Federalist to dismiss January 6th because there were also events like Pearl Harbour and WWII is preposterous. January 6th was an attack on Congress, the center of government of the nation, by American nationals, incited by a defeated President. Was Harris lying? Not in my opinion.
Harris claimed Trump will implement Project 2025 if elected. Once again, the only evidence refuting this is Trump's word, something any thinking human will recognize as pretty suspect. What the Federalist didn't mention was the very clear fact that the people behind Project 2025 are former or current Trump consultants, advisers, and operatives. Trump may be on the golf course, but these people will be hard at work. Guess what they'll be working at? Furthermore, if you look critically at Project 2025, hundreds of its proposals match Trump policies. You want to read more? Try this link as reported by CBS It claims 270 Project 2025 proposals match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. Was Harris exaggerating or lying? Not based on that evidence.
Claims related to Abortion. There were 4 in the list of 25 claimed by The Federalist. I'm going to lump all of them together. Perhaps the ONLY thing worth saying is this: What a woman does with her body is her business and should ONLY be a discussion between her and her doctor. So far as I'm concerned, any other points raised are merely a distraction from that. Here's the reality: Trump appointed several conservative supreme court justices. They decided to reverse the long-standing Roe protections for abortion. In the absence of Roe, many extreme right-wing states have brought in their own very restrictive laws against a woman's right to choose. Saying those states have "protections" (to address rape, incest and so on) is pretty much useless if applications under those provisions are refused. Which is actually the case. A New York Times article made exactly this point
As for the 9-month abortion "issue", The Federalist cites CDC data about what they call "late-term abortions (after 21 weeks). The Federalist ought to know that full term is around 40 weeks. The data they claim isn't related to "9-month abortions". In fact, the link provided by The Federalist to CDC data showed nothing related to these so-called "9-month abortions", only noting that 0.9% occurred after 21 weeks, which is not the same thing at all. There are, though articles debunking this 9-month nonsense. One is here: "Debunking the Mythical 9-Month Abortion". Another is here: "Dear Donald Trump. I'm an Ob-Gyn. There are no 9-month Abortions". So, was Harris lying? Not so far as I can see. Not on any of the four claims raised by the Federalist.
Harris claimed that Trump incited the January 6th attack on Congress. Despite protestations by The Federalist, it's been reliably reported by several news organizations, complete with quotes from Trump, that Trump did exactly that. Here is a selection:
Was Harris correct is saying what she did? Based on what Trump is quoted as saying, how can there be any doubt? Unless, of course, you're The Federalist.
Harris claimed that "some" officers died because of the Jan 6 riots. The Federalist seems to believe this is a lie. I'm only going to bother referring to one case. DOJ finds police officers suicide .... was a death in the line of duty. Perhaps The Federalist is lying? It's worthwhile noting that, according to some sources, The Federalist was responsible for promoting false information about the 2020 election.
Harris claimed she doesn't support mandatory gun confiscation. Frankly, in the US, there is NO WAY to discuss this issue without invoking massive pushback, from both sides of the debate. I'm not even going to try to consider what Harris might or might not have said. This article does try to explain, however. Trump has said "She’s for taking away all of your guns", which doesn't seem accurate either. I'd say there is exaggeration from everyone on this issue. Sensible gun regulations is not the same as gun confiscation. We see that here in Canada. But to some, regulations mean the same thing. So, once again:
Just as former President Barack Obama never confiscated firearms from law-abiding gun owners, Vice President Harris and Gov. Walz oppose confiscation. PolitiFact rated the confiscation accusations against Harris as “mostly false.” During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she supported “a mandatory gun buyback program,” but only for assault weapons. In July 2024, the Harris campaign said she still supports an assault weapons ban but not a requirement to sell existing assault weapons to the federal government. PolitiFact “found no examples that she supports mandatory gun confiscation now and the majority of guns sold in the U.S. are handguns.”
The Federalist seems to believe Harris is lying about the gun issue. Not how I see it.
In February, for example, several clinics in Alabama temporarily paused IVF procedures after the state’s supreme court ruled that frozen embryos are “children”. (Because the IVF process typically involves making multiple embryos, disposing of surplus embryos would put medical professionals in legal jeopardy.) Following a massive backlash, Trump said he would “strongly support the availability of IVF” and called on Alabama lawmakers to preserve access to the procedure. Which they did: Alabama quickly passed a law protecting IVF providers from liability. At the same time, however, Republicans refused to consider proposals that would have addressed the legal status of embryos created in IVF labs, meaning the issue still isn’t fully settled.
So Trump may wish to woo women voters by claiming he's all for IVF, but Republicans do not seem to be onside with Trump on that. It's also surprising that The Federalist would mention Trump's promise to make taxpayers pay for IVF treatment. As The Guardian notes, that's a very big, very expensive and very unsubstantiated promise.
Back to what Harris claimed, however. If Trump (and through him his conservative USSC justices) have effectively thrown the whole issue back to individual states, and those states are rushing to block IVF for ideological reasons, it's hard to see why Trump's feelings on the issue matter much. What matters is what happens on the ground. I think The Federalist is avoiding a discussion about reality as it exists.
"It’s in many ways a continuation of the precedent-breaking, Western-world-order-busting policies that Trump pursued in his first. As president, Trump heaped scorn on faithful U.S. allies, like Germany’s Angela Merkel, and embraced autocrats, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Honduras’ Juan Orlando Hernandez, who is now serving a 45-year sentence in U.S. federal prison for drug trafficking."
The article goes on to explain how this is likely to continue, and has indeed continued while Trump has been out of office. The best The Federalist can do is claim that it's difficult to know what any foreign leaders night think. That's not what numerous examples seem to indicate. Trump is an authoritarian, he likes authoritarians and there are many Americans who know this and support it.
But the fellow who sent me this link also included the names of several commentators who he indicated were worth listening to. I will briefly mention them here.
Lara Logan - On reading some background on Ms Logan, one thing struck me pretty clearly. If you wanted a good example of someone who started a promising career in journalism but fell from grace as a result of stories containing factual errors and eventually descending into the rabbit hole of conspiracies, fake information and outright lies, Ms Logan's career would be an excellent exemplar. She was even dumped by Faux News, which must say something. She has an entry in Wikipedia that outlines her decline. I suppose you "could" read her material, but my question would be WHY? Even far-right media disavow some of her material.
Julie Kelly - Ms Kelly seems like a regular run-of-the-mill right wing writer with the usual mantras: Biden bad, Trump good; progressives bad, regressives good. An archive of some of her articles is available here. It's worthwhile noting that one of her articles mentioned the (travesty of the) arrest of someone associated with Moms for Liberty, a group Ms Kelly paints as " a nationwide group of moms defending their children from “woke” ideology and government overreach". Just to be clear, this group has declared support for a member who approvingly quoted Hitler and which some label as a group promoting hate speech. And this article from The Hill, calls the group an Extremist Organization.
Glen Greenwald - Given the hate and harassment that gay couples face, I have to give credit to Mr Greenwald for his chosen career. He even managed to attract the negative attention of Bolsonaro supporters, which must count for something. You can get a useful synopsis of his career here. If you read that story you might notice that Mr Greenwald appears critical of both sides of the political spectrum, depending on the issue at hand. That's the kind of commentator you're looking for, generally.
John Solomon - Although Mr Solomon has held positions at The Hill and Faux News, he has been criticized (by colleagues) of having a conservative bias and missing important context. Terms like "false narrative" and "significant flaws" appear regularly. In an internal report, The Hill noted: "...Solomon's 14 columns about Ukraine and the Bidens, including omitting important details and failing to disclose that the sources used by Solomon were his own attorneys Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova—both close associates of Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani." Hmmm... He may have won awards, but....
Summary
So. What to make of all this? I appreciated the opportunity to look into some of the sources that at least one individual regards as informative. Not sure I'd look to any of these sources to inform my own opinions but if I did, I'd be careful to fact-check anything they said because it seems they are playing a bit fast and loose.
