This is important context to today's news. You have a questionable story published by a paper funded by a right wing billionaire. And some of the people making the most noise arguing the story is legit are also possibly being funded by a right wing billionaire.
Based on my mentions, a lot of folks are confusing the Federalist Society and the Federalist. It's an easy mistake to make! Both are backed by, as @SenWhitehouse put it yesterday, "big anonymous money." google.com/amp/s/slate.co…
And that gets to one of the most important things I realized after moving to DC from Brooklyn in 2017. There is a whole ecosystem of ideological organizations and media outlets here that aren't funded through commercial means or grassroots support.
A lot of these groups that shape the contours of our political discourse are funded by ideological oligarchs. Today is a phenomenal example of how they are truly able to steer the conversation.
If you're hearing about the "secret emails" story or even the meta debate where people at places like the Federalist and the Daily Caller are complaining that it's being censored, it's a conversation heavily driven by a pair of right wing billionaires.
These folks pay legions of talented people who urge you not to trust any other media while going to great lengths to hide their own motivations and backers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The reality is no journalist should be having to deal with potential misinformation and foreign intervention. The people ultimately to blame here are dirty tricksters, not solid reporters trying to figure out how to fairly deal with this stuff.
I have the luxury of not having to write a newsletter multiple times a day and also have spent a lot of time thinking about things like the dossier and hacked emails. I don't know what call I'd make in a different situation.
So, let me get this right, a computer shop owner in Delaware saw a Biden sticker on a laptop, went through their customers private correspondence, and turned it over to Rudy Giuliani and the feds? google.com/amp/s/nypost.c…
Hunter Biden's business dealings are absolutely a little swampy and gross. We've known this without needing another batch of questionably obtained emails.
I am generally opposed to bringing up Trump's issues whenever people talk about Biden but it feels important in this case
The claim that @CoryBooker didn't live in Newark was a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory that was spread by his first Senate opponent and far right activist Chuck Johnson who worked for both the Daily Caller and an anti-Booker PAC.
And if you'd like to learn a bit about one of the guys who first spread this Cory Booker conspiracy theory that Trump is reviving, check out this story. talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/top-aide-be…
Sending me crude DMs this morning was the final straw on this one. I rarely do this but it was overdue and definitely the right call.
He's one of the folks who thinks it's somehow a giant gift to Biden to say that Biden's evasive answers on "court packing" actually constitute clear position - he's not ruling it out and it should be followed up on and covered as such.
I remain confused why some conservatives think it's somehow good for Biden to focus on the fact he's clearly leaving this option on the table rather than pretending there's nothing to glean from his answers.
I understand Biden hasn't directly answered the question on "court packing," but his position actually seems pretty clear to me?
Biden is clearly indicating he's open to court reform. He's not ruling it out or taking it off the table. Biden is indicating frustration with what happened with MerricK Garland and now Coney Barrett. It seems like his ultimate position may be defined by how that unfolds.
It's not the most direct or transparent answer in the world, but it's also not the black box of utter mystery some reporters frame it as. I suspect it's kind of reaching to find something to hammer Biden on amid continued relentless questions for Trump on taxes and COVID tests.