American Thinker Retracts Lies Against Dominion Voting Systems

[colfax_m]

Defamation.

How? Speaking facts is defamation? Or, are you saying she lied? Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? No? Well, how about not looking at evidence is a guilty verdict by proxy?

Y'all can claim anything you want and repeat the lies told to repeat- it won't change the facts- it will however, disallow evidence to be presented-

Any reasoned person (read intellectually honest) looking at just the videos posted in this forum has to admit there is evidence of fraud- not to mention all the affdavits- but, I did say intellectually honest. That isn't a trait many have.

Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. Any reasoned person has skepticism to these dramatic claims that are presented without hard evidence but just allegations from someone who has demonstrated poor grasp of facts based on her court submissions.

Yes, Powell is innocent until proven guilty and she will likely see the court room if Wood is to be believed. The fact that basically everyone else repeating Powell’s allegations has retracted them should be a clue as to whether they’re true or not.

But just like Powell is innocent until proven guilty, the voters have elected Biden unless proven otherwise. You don’t get to deprive us or our vote without proof.

 

[Gdjjr]

Looking at edited videos of something you don't understand in the first place and forming an "opinion" from that is what an intellectually honest person would do?

Who said they were edited? You? Or your betters? I understand quite well- you're intellectually DIShonest-

 

[Lesh]

The Dominion Lie is no different from all the other "stolen election" lies being told.

 

[Gdjjr]

Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. Any reasoned person has skepticism

I'm very skeptic- especially on the internet- and anything from the MSM, or anything called official-

 

[Gdjjr]

The Dominion Lie is no different from all the other "stolen election" lies being told.

You have the easy part over with- and no official lies don't count as truth.

 

[Gdjjr]

You don’t get to deprive us or our vote without proof.

If it isn't allowed into a court room what then?

 

[colfax_m]

I'm very skeptic- especially on the internet- and anything from the MSM, or anything called official-

Then you must be extremely skeptical of Powell’s assertions that Dominion was founded by Hugo Chavez.

 

[colfax_m]

If it isn't allowed into a court room what then?

It is and has been. It’s just that the evidence is extremely poor quality.

 

[Dragonlady]

Trump lied about the election being stolen. Trump’s sycophants lied about the election being stolen. Trump’s media lied about the election being stolen.

And now they are facing real consequences for it.

American Thinker and contributors Andrea Widburg, R.D. Wedge, Brian Tomlinson, and Peggy Ryan have published pieces on www.AmericanThinker.com that falsely accuse US Dominion Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively “Dominion”) of conspiring to steal the November 2020 election from Donald Trump. These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently. ​

​

These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims. ​

​

It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error. ​

Retraction

We received a lengthy letter from Dominion's defamation lawyers explaining why they believe that their client has been the victim of defamatory statements. Having considered the full import of the letter, we have agreed to their reques...

www.americanthinker.com

Money talks. Bullshit walks.

I think Trump really believes the election was stolen.

But I do agree with this. There was never any evidence against Dominion. I agree with this.

Doesn't change the fact Democrats lied non-stop for 4 years, or the fact they engaged in open terrorism to win. But yes, this claim against Dominion was false.

No they didn’t. It was Trump who lied nonstop for 4 years. More than 25,000 big lies to the American people.

In his speech to the Senate Mitt Romney suggested that it was time for the Republican party to stop lying to the people. He said “we could tell them the truth”. It’s been a long past time for the Republican party to tell the American people the truth

 

[Lesh]

Looking at edited videos of something you don't understand in the first place and forming an "opinion" from that is what an intellectually honest person would do?

Who said they were edited? You? Or your betters? I understand quite well- you're intellectually DIShonest-

Unlike yourself I actually pay attention to shit.

Post your edited video and I'll post the full one.

 

[Seawytch]

Trump lied about the election being stolen. Trump’s sycophants lied about the election being stolen. Trump’s media lied about the election being stolen.

And now they are facing real consequences for it.

American Thinker and contributors Andrea Widburg, R.D. Wedge, Brian Tomlinson, and Peggy Ryan have published pieces on www.AmericanThinker.com that falsely accuse US Dominion Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively “Dominion”) of conspiring to steal the November 2020 election from Donald Trump. These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently. ​

​

These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims. ​

​

It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error. ​

Retraction

We received a lengthy letter from Dominion's defamation lawyers explaining why they believe that their client has been the victim of defamatory statements. Having considered the full import of the letter, we have agreed to their reques...

www.americanthinker.com

Money talks. Bullshit walks.

I think Trump really believes the election was stolen.

But I do agree with this. There was never any evidence against Dominion. I agree with this.

Doesn't change the fact Democrats lied non-stop for 4 years, or the fact they engaged in open terrorism to win. But yes, this claim against Dominion was false.

Yeah, I think Trump really believes it was stolen. Self-delusion is certainly one of the many symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

What I'm not sure about -- outside of the rank & file obedient Trumpsters who will believe anything -- is whether GOP politicians and media types believe it.

Well just ask yourself, how many believed Jussie Smollett? How many believed Blaisy Ford?

I think most of the people in the media and the politicians are not really believing the crap, but rather they are choosing to believe it, because it is politically advantageous to do so.

Blasey-Ford was never proven to have lied. In fact, other people had similar stories of Brett O'Kavanaugh's youthful excesses.

Nobody still believes Smollett...why do the psychophants still believe Trump?

 

[Free man]

Trump lied about the election being stolen. Trump’s sycophants lied about the election being stolen. Trump’s media lied about the election being stolen.

And now they are facing real consequences for it.

American Thinker and contributors Andrea Widburg, R.D. Wedge, Brian Tomlinson, and Peggy Ryan have published pieces on www.AmericanThinker.com that falsely accuse US Dominion Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively “Dominion”) of conspiring to steal the November 2020 election from Donald Trump. These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently. ​

​

These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims. ​

​

It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error. ​

Retraction

We received a lengthy letter from Dominion's defamation lawyers explaining why they believe that their client has been the victim of defamatory statements. Having considered the full import of the letter, we have agreed to their reques...

www.americanthinker.com

Money talks. Bullshit walks.

YOU are lying right here/now. Of course the election was stolen. Hundreds of witnesses (at risk of perjury) signed legal affidavits, and testified about the fraud (some of whom were frauders themselves) openly, on TV. I watched and heard them for hours, in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, & Nevada.

You are brainwashed.

How about the videos and 4 am mail trucks! Bull

 

[Lesh]

How about the videos and 4 am mail trucks! Bull

Probably should have brought those videos to court and introduced them as evidence huh?

I wonder why that didn't happen.

Total bullshit? Ordinary events intentionally misinterpreted?

Yea...

 

[playtime]

American Thinker



Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks.

Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[2]

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On top of that MBFC is just plain dishonest in its criticisms as pointed out in this article entitled:

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest? - Just Facts

“Media Bias Fact Check,” a media outlet that claims to be “dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices,” is either inept or dishonest.

www.justfactsdaily.com

So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...

uh-huh. you do realize that wiki cannot be used as a reliable source in university research papers because the 'info' contained within can be edited/revised/altered to reflect a biased view & offers 'alternative facts'.

lol - remember sarah palin's tale of paul revere? yaaaaaaaaaaaa............ that ended up in wiki just as she said!

<psssst> so when MBFC reports that MSNBC is liberal, they are wrong?

when they report that the WSJ leans right - - - they are wrong?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.

Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to + 42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being the most neutral and/or balanced.

 

[hjmick]

Trump lied about the election being stolen. Trump’s sycophants lied about the election being stolen.

Why the use of the past tense? They are still lying about it and show no indications that they are prepared to stop. My guess is, it will be years before the past tense of "lie" can be applied to Trump and his sycophants in regard to the topic of whether or not the election was stolen. Possibly never...

 

[playtime]

Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. Any reasoned person has skepticism

I'm very skeptic- especially on the internet- and anything from the MSM, or anything called official-

you should be skeptic. never believe anything at first read or if you hear a soundclip. that's why you havta seek them out & research on your own ... with credible unbiased sources. most mainstream newspapers are accurate. there's no differance between the NYT, WaPo & the WSJ as far as factual news ... only the OP/EDs are what is 'biased'. plus youtubes are good when you see videos in their entirety - rather than snippets.

 

[playtime]

Trump lied about the election being stolen. Trump’s sycophants lied about the election being stolen. Trump’s media lied about the election being stolen.

And now they are facing real consequences for it.

American Thinker and contributors Andrea Widburg, R.D. Wedge, Brian Tomlinson, and Peggy Ryan have published pieces on www.AmericanThinker.com that falsely accuse US Dominion Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively “Dominion”) of conspiring to steal the November 2020 election from Donald Trump. These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently. ​

​

These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims. ​

​

It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error. ​

Retraction

We received a lengthy letter from Dominion's defamation lawyers explaining why they believe that their client has been the victim of defamatory statements. Having considered the full import of the letter, we have agreed to their reques...

www.americanthinker.com

Money talks. Bullshit walks.

I think Trump really believes the election was stolen.

But I do agree with this. There was never any evidence against Dominion. I agree with this.

Doesn't change the fact Democrats lied non-stop for 4 years, or the fact they engaged in open terrorism to win. But yes, this claim against Dominion was false.

Yeah, I think Trump really believes it was stolen. Self-delusion is certainly one of the many symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

What I'm not sure about -- outside of the rank & file obedient Trumpsters who will believe anything -- is whether GOP politicians and media types believe it.

Well just ask yourself, how many believed Jussie Smollett? How many believed Blaisy Ford?

I think most of the people in the media and the politicians are not really believing the crap, but rather they are choosing to believe it, because it is politically advantageous to do so.

Blasey-Ford was never proven to have lied. In fact, other people had similar stories of Brett O'Kavanaugh's youthful excesses.

Nobody still believes Smollett...why do the psychophants still believe Trump?

there were plenty of witness' to back up ford's accusations of brett's behavorial history - but surprise surprise! those that contacted donny's dept of justice's FBI wanting to speak with them, were never interviewed.

 

[j-mac]

American Thinker



Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks.

Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[2]

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On top of that MBFC is just plain dishonest in its criticisms as pointed out in this article entitled:

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest? - Just Facts

“Media Bias Fact Check,” a media outlet that claims to be “dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices,” is either inept or dishonest.

www.justfactsdaily.com

So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...

uh-huh. you do realize that wiki cannot be used as a reliable source in university research papers because the 'info' contained within can be edited/revised/altered to reflect a biased view & offers 'alternative facts'.

lol - remember sarah palin's tale of paul revere? yaaaaaaaaaaaa............ that ended up in wiki just as she said!

<psssst> so when MBFC reports that MSNBC is liberal, they are wrong?

when they report that the WSJ leans right - - - they are wrong?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.

Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to + 42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being the most neutral and/or balanced.

The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

I am not a big fan of supposed fact checkers, or bias measures....I think we all come to this world with our bias, and that can't be seperated from what we do...

MBFC is no different...

 

[playtime]

American Thinker



Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks.

Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[2]

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On top of that MBFC is just plain dishonest in its criticisms as pointed out in this article entitled:

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest? - Just Facts

“Media Bias Fact Check,” a media outlet that claims to be “dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices,” is either inept or dishonest.

www.justfactsdaily.com

So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...

uh-huh. you do realize that wiki cannot be used as a reliable source in university research papers because the 'info' contained within can be edited/revised/altered to reflect a biased view & offers 'alternative facts'.

lol - remember sarah palin's tale of paul revere? yaaaaaaaaaaaa............ that ended up in wiki just as she said!

<psssst> so when MBFC reports that MSNBC is liberal, they are wrong?

when they report that the WSJ leans right - - - they are wrong?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.

Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to + 42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being the most neutral and/or balanced.

The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

I am not a big fan of supposed fact checkers, or bias measures....I think we all come to this world with our bias, and that can't be seperated from what we do...

MBFC is no different...

how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

now - if you can find that there di-rect quote from the CJ own website, that would carry weight. did you click on the CJ link from wiki? cause it doesn't bring you to CJ's site - only their own (wiki's) write up on CJ.

 

[j-mac]

American Thinker



Share:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks.

Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Ownership Transparency
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
American Thinker - Media Bias Fact Check

^^^ & there ya go ^^^

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[2]

Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On top of that MBFC is just plain dishonest in its criticisms as pointed out in this article entitled:

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest? - Just Facts

“Media Bias Fact Check,” a media outlet that claims to be “dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices,” is either inept or dishonest.

www.justfactsdaily.com

So, please in the future playtime, try and use less bias sources...

uh-huh. you do realize that wiki cannot be used as a reliable source in university research papers because the 'info' contained within can be edited/revised/altered to reflect a biased view & offers 'alternative facts'.

lol - remember sarah palin's tale of paul revere? yaaaaaaaaaaaa............ that ended up in wiki just as she said!

<psssst> so when MBFC reports that MSNBC is liberal, they are wrong?

when they report that the WSJ leans right - - - they are wrong?

lol...

is this wrong?


The following are American Thinker’s overall bias and reliability scores according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 19.64

Bias: 29.74

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.

Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to + 42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being the most neutral and/or balanced.

The quote from Wiki was actually a direct quote from the Columbia Journal Review, are you saying that they are wrong?

I am not a big fan of supposed fact checkers, or bias measures....I think we all come to this world with our bias, and that can't be seperated from what we do...

MBFC is no different...

how do you KNOW it's a di-rect quote? 'cause it was in wiki?

now - if you can find that there di-rect quote from the CJ own website, that would carry weight. did you click on the CJ link from wiki? cause it doesn't bring you to CJ's site - only their own (wiki's) write up on CJ.

Jesus H. Fricken Christ! Liberals really are a lazy bunch of lying sacks of shit! This took me all of 30 seconds to pull up, you feckless POS....

"
The armchair academics
Amateur attempts at such tools already exist, and have found plenty of fans. Google “media bias,” and you’ll find Media Bias/Fact Check, run by armchair media analyst Dave Van Zandt. The site’s methodology is simple: Van Zandt and his team rate each outlet from 0 to 10 on the categories of biased wording and headlines, factuality and sourcing, story choices (“does the source report news from both sides”), and political affiliation.

A similar effort is “The Media Bias Chart,” or simply, “The Chart.” Created by Colorado patent attorney Vanessa Otero, the chart has gone through several methodological iterations, but currently is based on her evaluation of outlets’ stories on dimensions of veracity, fairness, and expression.

Both efforts suffer from the very problem they’re trying to address: Their subjective assessments leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in. Compared to Gentzkow and Shapiro, the five to 20 stories typically judged on these sites represent but a drop of mainstream news outlets’ production."

We can probably measure media bias. But do we want to?

Twitter is excellent at capturing a moment in time—and that’s part of its problem. On the day Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced charges against Paul Manafort in the Trump-Russia investigation, some people on Twitter took perverse glee in sharing the story Fox & Friends previewed at 8:13am...

www.cjr.org

Now, quit wasting everyones time in here and use a few keystrokes before you get the whole plate of egg thrown at you....