There’s an obvious problem with the subscription business model. While most people will listen to a song they like an untold number of times, people may listen to a podcast episode once; maybe twice? And then all it does is take up space. Not exactly a good use of valuable and expensive storage space and now the geniuses at these businesses are taking notice.

Apple has quietly tightened its reporting of how many people listen to podcasts, sending shock waves through an embattled audio industry still reeling from the end of the COVID-era production bubble. The shift, Apple wrote in a blog post, was technical: The dominant podcasting platform had begun switching off automatic downloads for users who haven’t listened to five episodes of a show in the last two weeks.

But while few users noticed the shift, some of the biggest podcasts in the world saw their official listener numbers drop dramatically. Long-running shows that publish frequently were hit particularly hard. A user who listened to a show like The New York Times’ The Daily a few times, subscribed, but stopped listening would continue to count as a download indefinitely.
— Semafor, 1/14/24

I’ve commented on, what I consider, the failed subscription business model because while you pay for certain things you like, you’re also forced to pay for many more things you don’t. In this case, you may have a person you enjoy hearing from but you’re also paying for the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Meghan Markle, and almost every cable news personality and it’s doubtful anything you hear makes you want to hear it over and over again.

Even podcast executives believe the changes are part of a necessary shakeout in an industry whose bubbly inflation helped create the industry’s recent boom and bust.

But privately, reactions to the change have ranged from mild annoyance to legitimate alarm. Some advertising deals were inked under the assumption that shows had audiences they no longer have. The update also means that some shows could struggle to meet minimum download agreements. The fact that no major podcasts would talk about how much they lost is a sign that many big shows aren’t ready to admit how much their audiences have shrunk.

This could create some real problems in an industry that, in some cases, paid hefty up-front money to “personalities” and at some point will have to have awkward discussions with narcissists involving pay restructure because few are really rushing to hear what they say.

But even if it is not responsible for a sudden drop, podcast publishers are bracing themselves for a decline. “From our detailed analysis, these adjustments will largely impact download numbers on back catalog episodes, which are typically categorized as content older than 7 days,” Acast CEO Ross Adams wrote in a blog post on Thursday.‍ “However, it’s important to note that these adjustments do not reflect a change in the unique audience a podcast has, simply the number of downloads per user. On the whole, this will mean more accurate measurement and a more efficient depiction of a podcast’s total listens.”

You know who loves accuracy? Advertisers. And you know who doesn’t love paying for impressions that aren’t really impressions? Yeah, you get the drift. As this plays out, I will be interested to see how advertisers react to these changes.
— The Verge, 10/17/23

I can’t imagine how much a publisher pays on a monthly basis for storage, or if they own their own servers, how much it’s going to cost to expand, but if you’re having trouble getting advertisers or can’t tell them accurately what the reach to consumers is, that could be a problem.

It appears it now is.

Granted, a lot of the discussion centers around their reach to a smartphone, which nowadays also connects and sends content to automobiles (that strategically stopped putting CD players in them a few years ago). When phone manufacturers upgrade, it creates havoc downwind and that’s part of the problem.

Again, the subscription business model was ripe for those who wanted to take a website public, make a gob of money off screwed content creators, hire hundreds of employees, meanwhile forcing their consumers to pay for programming they like and programming they never consume. That is a model doomed for failure and it’s only a matter of time, especially when consumers revolt.

The geniuses as NBC decided to buck tradition, screw over the millions of football fans who already paid for cable subscriptions, and made the Miami Dolphins, Kansas City Chiefs playoff game available only to those who bought a subscription to Peacock, and went as far as openly bragging about it. Yet another act of public relations arrogance, thus stupidity.

And if it’s any consolation….

Peacock finished the June quarter with 24 million subscribers, up from 22 million at the end of March — but the streamer lost $651 million over the same three months.

Sadly, those losses have pretty much become par for the course. The NBCUniversal streaming platform lost $704 million in the prior quarter (and $467 million in Q2 2022). The company expects to post “peak” losses from streaming — to the tune of $3 billion — in 2023. Good thing Comcast is soon to come into about $9 billion in streaming bucks through the sale of its Hulu stake to Disney.
— Yahoo! Entertainment, 7/27/23

Chances are very good that once their tech-challenged, NFL playoff broadcasts are over, Peacock subscription will be cancelled en masse and they have it coming.

It’s no surprise the podcast industry is cratering. Most of those, who deem themselves important, aren’t creative enough to find new ways to talk about the same thing. They seem to believe an audience will be perpetually enamored simply because they said it. But they are still a part of what we used to refer to as the “entertainment business”. With few exceptions, people talking isn’t really all that entertaining.

Especially when it comes to people who have nothing else of value to give the world.

Amazon has blacklisted the Amanda Milius-directed documentary The Plot Against the President by removing the title from its Prime Video streaming service without explanation.

Consumers are no longer able to digitally rent or purchase The Plot Against the President from the platform.
— Breitbart, 11/22/23

UPDATE

Will all of the recent #RussiaGate revelations released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, many have been once again vindicated after years of being called conspiracy-theory Putin stooges, and even today (again) being called a product of Kremlin fiction.

The Plot Against the President can be viewed below for pertinent review.

The prosecution may well have terrible consequences beyond the department for our politics and the rule of law. It will probably inspire ever more aggressive tit-for-tat investigations of presidential actions in office by future Congresses and by administrations of the opposing party, to the detriment of sound government.
— New York Times, 8/8/23

A little late for cautionary introspection.

Then again, such a “tit-for-tat” would be of concern if Republicans had balls, which obviously is a tall order.

Imagine the shit storm that would ensue had a Republican DA indicted Hillary Clinton in 2015 regarding her unprotected server and the deletion of thousands of subpoenaed emails. The Democrats would be screaming about “election interference”, the media would be whining about the appearance of partisan lawfare, and her supporters would engage in their tradition of “mostly peaceful” protests resulting in hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars in private and public property damage, not to leave out injury and possible deaths.

The most recent indictment of Trump swirls around his audacity to question the results of the 2020 election; an election we’re all told was on the up-and-up and we must accept it because Democrats say so. Most laughable is that some, demanding we accept election results, are the media sanctimonious; many of them forgiven-and-employed wife beaters, substance abusers, repeat plagiarists, and Lucite block awarded gaslighters. Media persons had no problem cheerleading Democrat efforts to overturn the election victories of Republicans, including those where recounts proved they still won.

If this is the new metric, then all of the following Democrats MUST be indicted and tried for election denial conspiracy and attempting to overturn a certified election. Citing the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act would be a nice touch.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Barbra Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), President Joe Biden, Al Gore, Tipper Gore, former President Bill Clinton, former President Jimmy Carter, former Governor Terry McAuliffe, Rev. Jessie Jackson, Sr., former DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), former Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), former Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), former Rep. Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH), Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), former Senator John Kerry, Teresa Heinz Kerry, former DNC Chairman Howard Dean, former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), former Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), former Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), former Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), former Sen. Barrack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), former House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Danny Davis (D-IL), former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), former Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-CA), Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), former Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., former Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA), former Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Stacey Abrams, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Attorney General Eric Holder, Andrew Gillum, former Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-NY), former State Sen. Rita Hart (D-IA), Vice President Kamala Harris (D), Biden Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Kamala Harris’ Communications Director Jamal Simmons, Biden HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge (D-OH) and more should all be indicted for conspiracy to sow the seeds of mistrust in our election system and overturning the results of an election.

Okay, we can give the dead a pass with honorable mentions.

And seeing how the notion of the “statute of limitations” would be suggested to shield them from legal unpleasantries, the Constitutionality of such protection would also need be questioned since that phrase appears nowhere in our founding document and articles.

I don’t recall any battle or war ending just because the side on the offensive met little to no resistance. Democrats need to actually suffer the ramifications of their bully tactics and if that means they face possible personal financial devastation because of legal defenses, so be it. If some have to actually do jail time, boo fucking hoo. How does it feel?

The political purge of Donald Trump is not the beginning but also a warning to all Americans by an unrestrained Democrat left. They won’t call off their dogs until those at their top suffer and the only thing stopping that is the fact too many elected Republicans, who could return the favor, are too chicken shit to do so.

We can only pray that one day changes.

It’s been a constant as far back as most of us can remember that Democrats have been playing fast and loose with their variation of the sociopathic mental disorder known as projection: disparaging others for doing what they knowingly do themselves.

Today’s Democrat Party and their media depend on the cultivated ignorance of their voters to portray Republicans as extremists for daring to look into numerous, blatant irregularities in the 2020 election while demanding the American people accept Democrat victories as legit and final simply because they say so. No denial is tolerated when the Democrat wins.

However, it IS standard operating procedure for Democrats to reject Republican victories despite their convenient denials….

Biden and Democrats have a long history of contesting election outcomes.

Many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barbara Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), have cast doubt on every single Republican presidential victory in the last two decades.

Every single Democrat president since 1977 has cast doubt on the legitimacy of U.S. elections.

As recently as this year, Biden cast doubt on the legitimacy of the upcoming 2022 midterms.

DEMOCRATS CALLED THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ‘STOLEN’, ‘FRAUDULENT’, AND A ‘COUP D’ETAT’

For years, Democrats have refused to accept the results of the 2000 presidential election.

Al Gore repeatedly claimed that he was the real winner of the 2000 election.

In 2002, Gore claimed he “would have won” if every vote in Florida was counted and that he “absolutely” believed he would become president after the ordered recount.

Gore’s wife, Tipper, said that “I still believe we won“.

In 2016, Gore brought up the 2000 election during a rally for Hillary Clinton and did not refute chants from the audience saying he won.

In 2017, Gore implied Jeb Bush “may have had something” to do with him losing Florida.

Gore, in 2017: “Actually, I think I carried Florida.”

Hillary Clinton, more than once, questioned the legitimacy of the 2000 election.

In 2002, Clinton said Bush had been “selected” and not elected president.

In 2016, Clinton said that the Supreme Court “took away a presidency” in Bush v. Gore.

Then-President Bill Clinton in 2001 claimed that Gore actually won the election, suggesting that all the votes in Florida were not counted and that the Supreme Court had altered the outcome.

Clinton: “The only way [Republicans] could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida.”

Former President Jimmy Carter has repeatedly denied the results of the 2000 election.

Carter, in 2005: “There is no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president“.

Carter, in 2014: “I don’t think that George W. Bush won the election in 2000″.

Terry McAuliffe repeated claims that the 2000 election was “stolen” for over two decades.

Repeatedly in 2001, then-DNC Chairman McAuliffe claimed that Al Gore won the election.

In 2004, McAuliffe falsely accused Republicans of “stealing” the 2000 presidential election.

In 2008, McAuliffe accused Republicans of “stealing” the 2000 election in his autobiography.

In 2017, McAuliffe once again claimed that Al Gore “did win the election“.

In 2021, McAuliffe doubled down on his previous “stolen” election claims and refused to say that Bush won the 2000 election.

Former presidential candidate Rev. Jessie Jackson, Sr. said Gore’s election was “essentially taken and stolen“.

Former DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) in 2016 said that Al Gore won Florida.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the January 6^th Committee, has repeatedly suggested the 2000 election was illegitimate.

In 2002, Raskin wrote that the Supreme Court had “[frozen] the election results” in an “outrageous assault on democracy,” saying the Court had “determine[d] the outcome of a presidential election“.

In 2003, Raskin called Bush America’s first “court-appointed president.”

15 House Democrats even objected to counting Florida’s electoral votes.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) questioned the 2000 Florida election results, calling them “fraudulent” and staging a walkout of the House chamber.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) questioned the integrity of the election and “the future of our democracy“.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) claimed that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Bush did not win the 2000 election and vowed there would be “no peace” as a result.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) called the Florida electoral count “inaccurate“.

Former Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) said that Bush “was not elected,” saying in 2004 that Bush was chosen by the Supreme Court and that the election was stolen in a “coup d’état“.

DEMOCRATS REPEATEDLY CAST DOUBT ON THE LEGITIMACY OF THE 2004 ELECTION

The election in 2004 was no different than 2000, with Democrats once again denying the results of an election they did not agree with.

In 2005, then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and then-Rep. Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH) filed an objection to the certification of Ohio’s electoral college votes.

31 House Democrats voted to reject electoral votes from the state of Ohio, including Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), James Clyburn (D-SC), and now-Senator Ed Markey (D-MA).

In 2005, House Democrats authored a report claiming there were “‘numerous, serious election irregularities” in Ohio’s presidential vote.

John Kerry raised questions about the election on multiple occasions, claiming that many voters were “denied their right to vote; too many who tried to vote were intimidated”.

In November 2005, New York University professor Mark Crispin Miller said that John Kerry told him he thought “the election was stolen”.

Kerry’s wife Teresa Heinz Kerry also claimed the presidential election could have been hacked and stolen.

In 2004, then-DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe commissioned a “comprehensive investigative study on election practices in Ohio” to address “legitimate questions and concerns”.

In 2006, then-DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated that he was “not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided” in 2004.

In 2008, Dean accused Republicans of stealing elections and inferred they stole the election in 2004.

Then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) questioned the “integrity” of electronic voting machines in the 2004 election.

In January 2005, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) claimed there were many “legitimate” questions regarding the “accuracy” and “integrity” of the 2004 election.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) applauded objections to the 2004 election and thanked Sen. Boxer for objecting to Ohio’s electoral votes, saying voters can’t be confident their vote will be counted.

Then-Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) applauded Sen. Boxer and Rep. Tubbs Jones for objecting to Ohio’s electoral votes, calling their objections an “important service for American democracy”.

Harkin also accused Republicans of a “concerted effort to suppress the vote” and suggested electronic voting machines could lead to “serious fraud”.

Then-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in 2005 applauded Democrat efforts to contest the 2004 election, called the election “flawed,” and suggested problems may have been the result of “manipulation”.

Then-Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) alleged “systematic voter disenfranchisement” and faulty voting machines in the 2004 election.

In September 2008, then-Sen. Barrack Obama (D-IL) joked about the 2004 election, saying it helps that in Ohio “Democrats are in charge of the [voting] machines” in the upcoming election.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) questioned the use and efficacy of electronic voting machines in the 2004 election.

In January 2005, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) praised Sen. Boxer’s challenge of the election, saying the debate is “fundamental to our democracy”.

Pelosi said it is “appropriate” to have the debate concerning the 2004 election and claimed that there were “legitimate concerns” regarding the “integrity” of U.S. elections.

Then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) argued the 2004 election was “riddled with unnecessary problems”.

Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) claimed the 2004 election contained widespread “fraud”.

Then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) claimed that “dirty tricks occurred across the state” of Ohio in the 2004 election.

Then-Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) blamed “inadequate and malfunctioning” electronic voting machines for “numerous irregularities”.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) claimed democracy was once again “thwarted” in 2004 and blamed the use of electronic voting machines for voter suppression.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said, “the system of voting broke down Nov. 2, 2004” and called for an independent audit of discarded ballots.

Jackson Lee then said, “we cannot declare that the election of November 2^nd, 2004 was free and clear and transparent and real for all of those who attempted to vote”.

Then-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-CA) in 2005 attacked the efficacy of voting machines saying they “can’t be trusted.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) repeatedly claimed there were irregularities in the 2004 election.

In November 2004, Nadler said that “we are requesting an investigation into all the allegations, of irregularities with respect to the electronic and other voting machines”.

In November 2004, Nadler said that “well, we have received…any number of communications, e-mails, everything about all kinds of irregularities”.

In December 2004, Nadler said that “paper ballots are extremely susceptible to fraud”.

In January 2005, Nadler said the right to vote was “stolen” from voters.

Then-Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) cast doubt on the security of electronic voting machines in the 2004 election saying he was “worried” that some machines do not have a paper trail.

Then-Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said Boxer And Tubbs performed a “very valuable public service” and stated he was concerned with all “reports of voting problems in many parts of the country”.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said the problems with the Ohio election could have been “outcome determinative”.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in 2006 wrote an op-ed claiming that Republicans “stole” the 2004 election.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. “questioned the legitimacy” of the election and suggested the Bush victory was the result of “fraud and stealing”.

Of course when their guy won, Democrats had nothing but uniform praise for the integrity of the 2008 and 2012 elections. Michelle Obama was finally proud of her country.

But when Donald Trump won in 2016….

DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF THE 2016 ELECTION

In 2017, seven House Democrats tried to object to the 2016 election electoral votes.

After President Trump’s victory in 2016, 67 Democrats boycotted his inauguration, with many “claiming his election was illegitimate“.

After the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the election and claimed the election was stolen from her.

In September 2017, Hillary Clinton said she would not “rule out” questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election.

In March 2019, Clinton smiled in agreement when former State Sen. Hank Sanders (D-AL) said the election was stolen from her.

In May 2019, Clinton said the 2016 election was “stolen” from her.

In September 2019, Clinton dismissed Trump as an “illegitimate president” and said “he knows” he stole the 2016 presidential election.

In October 2019, Clinton said that Trump knows that he is “an illegitimate president“.

In December 2019, Clinton nodded in agreement that she won the election.

In July 2020, Clinton said Trump is scared for Americans to see “how illegitimate his victory” was.

In October 2020, Clinton claimed that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying, “we still don’t really know what happened“.

Former President Jimmy Carter said he believed that “a full investigation” would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said “I believe” Russian interference altered the outcome of the election.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) dodged answering whether Trump was “a legitimate president“.

Rep Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said the “legitimacy is in question” of Trump’s presidency.

Then-Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) said he did not believe President Trump is a “legitimate president“.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) “applauded” John Lewis and said that he was “right on target”.

Then-Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) said that John Lewis’ remarks on Trump not being legitimately elected “are reasonable”.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) said “there absolutely is a cloud of illegitimacy” to Trump’s presidency.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said that Trump’s election was “illegitimate” and that Trump “is an illegitimate president“.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) justified his decision to object to certification saying Republicans engaged in “deliberate voter suppression … in numerous swing states“.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) refused to attend President Trump’s inauguration ceremony because Trump’s election victory was “tainted” by “foreign interference and voter suppression”.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) refused to say if Trump was a “legitimate president“.

DEMOCRATS HAVE CONTINUED TO CAST DOUBT ON OTHER ELECTIONS SINCE 2016

In 2018, Stacey Abrams refused to concede after losing the Georgia governor’s race and repeatedly challenged the “legitimacy of the election” after her loss.

Following her defeat, Abrams never conceded and continued to argue that she truly won the election.

Abrams said she would not concede a race that was an “erosion of our democracy,” was “not a free and fair election,” and was simply “not just“.

She called her defeat “fully attributable to voter suppression” and argued there was widespread voter disenfranchisement.

Many other prominent Democrats supported Abrams in her stolen election claims:

Hillary Clinton said Stacey Abrams “would have won” Georgia’s gubernatorial race “if she had a fair election” and that Stacey Abrams “should be governor” but was “deprived of the votes [she] otherwise would have gotten.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said “I think that Stacey Abrams’s election is being stolen from her“.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said that “if Stacey Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it“.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said “the evidence seems to suggest” the race was stolen from Stacey Abrams.

Former Vermont Governor and DNC chair Howard Dean said Abrams “should not concede” and that the election was “almost certainly stolen”.

Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said “I tend to think Stacey Abrams won that election“.

After losing his Florida gubernatorial race in 2018, Andrew Gillum withdrew his concession and pointed to “questions over the handling of the vote” in certain counties.

In 2020, after losing his House race, former Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-NY) called for authorities to investigate voting irregularities and issues of “massive disenfranchisement of voters“.

Former State Sen. Rita Hart (D-IA) contested the election results of her House race loss in 2020, arguing that ballots were improperly rejected.

BIDEN AND HIS OFFICIALS HAVE PUSHED STOLEN ELECTION CLAIMS

In both 2013, and in 2016, Biden claimed that Gore won the 2000 presidential election.

In May 2019, Biden said he “absolutely agrees” that Trump is an “illegitimate president“.

Kamala Harris has repeatedly cast doubt on election results over the years.

Following the Georgia gubernatorial race in 2018, Kamala Harris claimed that “without voter suppression, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia” and that Gillum would be “the governor of Florida”.

In 2019, Harris agreed that Trump was an “illegitimate president“.

Multiple Biden administration officials have a history of denying election results.

For nearly two decades, Biden’s Chief of Staff Ron Klain claimed that Al Gore won the 2000 election.

Biden Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre tweeted that the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race was stolen.

Jean-Pierre also cast doubt on the 2016 election, tweeting “stolen election …..welcome to the world of #unpresidented Trump”.

Kamala Harris’ Communications Director Jamal Simmons for years tweeted that Bush “stole” the 2000 election.

Cedric Richmond – Biden’s former Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement – said that John Lewis’ remarks on Trump not being legitimately elected were “reasonable”.

Then-Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), now Biden’s HUD Secretary, said that Trump “may not be a legitimate president“.

And there’s probably more to come after every election Democrats lose from here on, so Joe Biden should be careful when he refers to “election deniers” being “enemies of the state”.

Liberals may be numerically-challenged when convenient.

Republicans can count and that’s what they’re afraid of.

First, a few notable quotes from the “Soul of the Nation” speech, which was a sorry exercise in projection for Trump-hating dimwits who watch CNN, MSNBC and subscribe to the New York Times and Washington Post.

They [MAGA Republicans] refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.
— Joe Biden, 9/1/22

It all depends if previous elections have truly been “free” from undo interference.

79% say ‘truthful’ coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop would have changed 2020 election
FBI says it ‘routinely notifies’ social media firms of ‘potential threats’ as it hits back at Mark Zuckerberg’s claim on Joe Rogan that Facebook quashed Hunter Biden laptop stories for seven days after warning from the agency
Groups with strong liberal ties funneled massive 2020 election grants to Democrat-rich districts
Ballot Harvesters in Georgia Stopped at Democrat Offices In between Runs to Drop Boxes During 2020 Election

Yep, it was the most secure election in history. Except for that Russian interference in both 2016 and 2020. Unfortunately, one accusation turned out to be a Hillary Clinton/DNC dirty trick and the other turned out be a cover story to mask an embarrassment to the Democrat candidate so patterns need be taken into account.

Back to Biden’s rantings, when it comes to repeatedly refusing to accept the results of a free and fair election, Donald Trump and his supporters need to get to the back of the line.

9/26/19: Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’

In 2000, Al Gore (D) and his fellows contested the results all the way to the Supreme Court before conceding. And, of course, there’s 2016. How many leftists have there been who still don’t accept the defeat of Hillary Clinton? Good grief! After all this time, Hillary herself still hasn’t accepted the outcome. In fact, Hillary Clinton is the only person I’ve heard to openly advocate for a losing presidential candidate to not accept the election results. Hillary’s exact words were, “Joe Biden should not concede [the election] under any circumstances … he will win if we don’t give an inch…”
— Baltimore Sun, 10/27/20

But wait; there’s more!

5/31/19: Why Stacey Abrams Is Still Saying She Won
5/9/22: Biden’s New Press Secretary Is A ‘Stolen Election’ Conspiracy Theorist Who Called Trump An ‘Illegitimate President’

In fact, Democrats routinely attempt to decertify Republican president-elects which ironically brings us back to Biden’s words in Philadelphia where he said, “Democracy cannot survive when one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election: either they win or they were cheated.”

Projection.

1/6/17 House Democrats fail to muster support to challenge Trump’s Electoral College win

It was a rather disorganized and pitiful display.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee said in a phone interview that she as many as 10 colleagues plan to challenge the validity of electoral votes in multiple states, where she argued voter suppression tactics may have tainted the outcome. The maneuver to impede Trump’s election also faces another potentially crippling problem: challenges to electoral votes require the support of at least one member of both House and the Senate. So far, Jackson Lee said, no senators have stepped forward to join the effort.
— Politico, 1/6/17

This was also standard operation procedure for the Democrats.

Democrats Objected to Electoral Vote Certification in 2000, 2004, 2016

There are dozens of instances and venues where Democrats have refused to accept their respective election defeats. Nothing from Joe Biden or Karine Jean-Pierre on that and there are Democrats who are doing all possible to work with compliant Democrat state legislatures to change voting rules, in some cases, months before an election.

5/9/22: Eric Holder on gerrymandering: “Republicans have to cheat in order to win” elections

Of course when Democrats do it, it’s called “redistricting”. Meanwhile, when it comes to the outrageous and unfounded criticism of the accuracy of voting machines…

Marc Elias, a prominent Democratic election attorney, argued in a court filing this week that faulty voting machines may have misread thousands of votes in a House election in upstate New York, a claim similar to the debunked allegation some Republicans pushed regarding the 2020 presidential election.
— Daily Caller, 2/5/21

If it helps Democrats defeat Republicans, they will create new illusions on the “free and fair” election that ultimately benefits them.

Ranked-choice voting
Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate receives more than 50% of first-place votes after the first tabulation, then they win, but if there is no majority winner, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated.  In the next tabulation, voters who chose the eliminated candidate as their top pick will have their votes go to their second-place pick. This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority of the votes.
— Fox News, 9/1/22

Watch how quickly the left will call ranked-choice voting unconstitutional once their candidates lose in this system.

Biden rambled on.

They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country. They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on January 6th — brutally attacking law enforcement — not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger to the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots.

Democrats conveniently dismiss any attempt to compare the January 6 foolishness to the liberal Democrat 2020 “Summer of Love” Black Lives Matter/Antifa rioting that occurred in hundreds of American cities and cost many lost enforcement personnel and citizens their lives, not to mention billions in private and public property damage.

But the takeover of a “People’s House” didn’t occur for the first time ever in Washington, D.C. after the 2020 election. Leftists have shot up and bombed the Capitol before, but let’s not get all distracted by the past. Actually, the takeover of a legislature building is a rather common occurrence when Dems don’t get their way, want something, and most of the time without a permit.

Liberal Democrats are encouraged and allowed to occupy government spaces but when the right protests, Democrats call the cops to have the gathering declared an “unlawful assembly”.

And they see their MAGA failure to stop a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections.

Democrats denied Republicans the opportunity to celebrate Inauguration Day 2017 and Biden will never mention the attempted assassination of Republicans at a baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia by a Bernie Sanders supporter. Political violence has been extremely rare on the right and routine from the left.

They tried everything last time to nullify the votes of 81 million people. This time, they’re determined to succeed in thwarting the will of the people. I will not stand by and watch — I will not — the will of the American people be overturned by wild conspiracy theories and baseless, evidence-free claims of fraud. 
— Joe Biden, 9/1/22

Before we blindly agree that the 2020 election was on the up-and-up just because they told us so, don’t forget the growing number of instances where we were told to accept something the left and their media insisted was truth that had to be acted on just to find out it was either very wrong or an intentional lie. Remember those in the Trump administration and/or supporters who’ve been arrested (and in some cases financially ruined defending themselves against federal law enforcement) while Democrats who have genuinely broken the law get the customary wrist slap if any punishment at all.

Seeing how the United States is a constitutional republic, the only threat to “democracy” is the fact that most of the word Democrat is in it. Biden’s vindictive policies have been so destructive to Americans, he’s doing all he can to keep what semblance of a base he has left because when Republicans take the majority in 2022 and Trump gets back in the White House in 2025, there will be a reckoning.

It will be very ugly and well-deserved.

How’s that working for ya?

It’s almost at the point when the media demands we must accept what they tell us as truth, the polar opposite should rightfully be prioritized. Not just because those proclamations erroneously influenced popular opinion (including federal elections), but because those who are overpaid to distribute “news” can’t justify their pay if they have to admit to their employers and millions of people they were very wrong.

So they won’t.

Here are some blatant examples of important stories they got wrong and have yet to formally apologize to the public and the aggrieved….

PolitiFact: 2017 Lie of the Year: Russian election interference is a ‘made-up story’
USA Today: Hillary Clinton says Trump associates helped Russia meddle in the 2016 election
NY Times: Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence
Washington Post: Hillary Clinton just accused Trump associates of collusion with Russia
Politico: Schiff: There is now ‘more than circumstantial evidence’ of Trump-Russia collusion
MSNBC: Team Trump sees imaginary ‘evidence’ of Clinton, Russia collusion

And some even received formerly-prestigious awards for what they got very wrong.

Reuters: Washington Post, NY Times win Pulitzers for work on Trump, Putin

Almost every news outlet provided near 24-7 coverage of “Trump collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election” for close to five years.

CNN: Hillary Clinton personally approved plan to share Trump-Russia allegation with the press in 2016, campaign manager says
Bloomberg: Hillary Clinton Approved Trump-Russia Leak to Media, Her Campaign Manager Says

Confirmation to all those “conspiracy theorists” who insisted the whole Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign-DNC hit job was essentially a one day story and no apologies should be expected.

Media-imposed censorship took a precedent-setting turn during the 2020 election.

Variety: Twitter Still Blocking a NY Post Story Based on Alleged Hunter Biden Emails, Newspaper’s Account Remains Frozen
Politico: Insisting that the Hunter Biden laptop is fake is a trap. So is insisting that it’s real.
Rolling Stone: Twitter, Facebook Allow Pizzagate-Esque Conspiracy Theories to Spread About Hunter Biden
Fortune: Facebook moves to limit spread of dubious Biden laptop story
PolitiFact: Fact-checking unproven claims about Hunter Biden and child pornography

The media’s declarations have been so blatant that they’ve begun to, literally, pay the price for the harm caused.

CNN: The Washington Post settles lawsuit with Nick Sandmann after viral March for Life controversy
Law & Crime: Covington Catholic’s Nick Sandmann Settles $275 Million NBC Lawsuit for ‘Confidential’ Amount
Reuters: CNN settles defamation lawsuit with Kentucky teen in Lincoln Memorial case

There are numerous stories that the media insisted we blow off as “conspiracy theories” that have turned out to be true, and controversies arise that make no sense until common sense is deployed.

Add it all up and you’ll understand why CNN+ crashed and burned so quickly. Fewer accept what the media tells us as worthy of their time, let alone having their intelligence constantly insulted.

Cision’s annual State of the Media report, which looks at the key challenges journalists face today, is drawn from responses from over 3,800 journalists across 17 global markets. The number one challenge journalists cited? Maintaining credibility.

According to the report, 32% of those surveyed said that they struggle to combat accusations of fake news and remain a trusted news source; and 57% feel that the public has lost trust in the media over the past year.
— PR Week, 5/24/22

So when the media insists you believe there was no “widespread vote fraud” during the 2020 election, don’t expect any mea culpas as this script flips.

2020

FactCheck.org: Baseless Conspiracy Theory Targets Another Election Technology Company

2022

CBS news: U.S. finds no evidence flaws in Dominion voting machines were ever exploited
Uncover DC: CISA Advisory Report Admits Voting Machine Vulnerabilities: Denies Exploitation

The media will blatantly lie to your face because for some reason, once someone is granted employment in the entertainment industry, he or she is now about 60 I.Q. points higher than the American population average. These people have unbridled disdain for their viewers and if you have any doubts, look at the dumbed-down nature of their broadcast programming. If they consider you a moron in their primetime divisions, the newsrooms really think you’re stupid, thus their insistence you take their word for it.

“If Biden got in, you’d be paying $7, $8, $9,” Trump said the day before Election Day at a rally in Grand Rapids, Mich. “Then they’d say, ‘Get rid of your car.’”
— Washington Post, 11/12/20

So, make it easy. Whatever the media declares fact you must accept and believe, think the opposite and you’ll sleep easier.

Especially, if you’re a lawyer….

The first courtroom test for Special Counsel John Durham ended in defeat Tuesday as a federal jury found a Democratic attorney not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI about allegations of computer links between Donald Trump and Russia. The jury deliberated for about six hours before acquitting Michael Sussmann, 57, on the single felony charge he faced: that he lied when he allegedly denied he was acting on behalf of any client in alerting the FBI to claims that a secret server linked Trump and a Moscow bank with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
— Politico, 5/31/22

Since the early days of the Donald Trump campaign, transition, and term in office, we’ve all seen one constant when it comes to the Democrat Party, federal officials and employees, their activists, and their media: they lie and get away with it.

In the Sussmann case, we had an Obama-appointed judge, jurors who managed to be seated despite clear conflicts of interest, and we were all supposed to take their word that they’d be fair and impartial.

Yeah, right.

As many as three Hillary Clinton donors — including one who also supported US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — are among the prospective jurors for former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann’s trial. Special counsel John Durham’s team objected to putting one Clinton contributor on the panel after the man said he would “strive for impartiality as best I can.”

But the prosecution was overruled by Washington, DC, federal Judge Christopher Cooper, who said the man — who works in public policy for Amazon and appeared to be in his 40s — “expressed a high degree of confidence” that he could be impartial. Cooper, nominated by former President Barack Obama, also said Durham’s prosecutors could use one of its peremptory challenges to strike him from the panel for the trial, the first to result from his three-year probe into the government’s investigations of purported ties between former President Donald Trump and Russia.
— New York Post, 5/16/22

Again having to replay that stupid scenario, what if this were a trial against a Republican defendant in a red state, the judge was appointed by President Donald Trump and prospective jurors were found to have donated to his campaign. First off The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and MSNBC would have prefaced their coverage with “conflict of interest” shrieks and demands to begin with a change of venue and dismissal of obvious biased jury members. But the legacy media most hid the partisan nature of the court proceedings so the trial result would appear on the up-and-up.

A Clinton supporter, a former bartender who appeared to be in her 20s, said she’d also donated to progressive firebrand Ocasio-Cortez (D-The Bronx, Queens) but was put on the panel after a Sussmann defense lawyer told her that neither Clinton nor former President Donald Trump were on trial and asked if she could be impartial.

“Yes, knowing that,” she said.

Yes, even though we’re talking about a culture where 51 intelligence “experts” can knowingly lie with impunity to the public, take their word for it.

Another woman, who appeared to be in her 40s, said she likely donated to Clinton’s 2016 campaign but wasn’t entirely sure.

Who could forget that?

Although the woman told prosecutor Michael Keilty that she had “a strong preference of one candidate over the other” in the election, she insisted she could be impartial.

Take her word for it.

A prospective juror who works at an engineering firm and appeared to be in her 30s said that her husband worked for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign but was allowed to remain on the panel after saying it wouldn’t affect her ability to be impartial

Take her word for it.

Another prospective juror who works for the Sierra Club and appeared to be in her 30s was questioned by Keilty about saying on a pre-screening questionnaire that she thought the criminal justice system was racist and “the police should be defunded.”

But her ideology wouldn’t have any effect during possible deliberations in a trial involving a Democrat. And we all know the wall-to-wall second-guessing that would occur during the evening opinion shows on CNN and MSNBC had a pro-Trump juror been a parent whose child hung out with the defendant’s child.

But the reverse was allowed to happen here.

A federal judge in the criminal trial of Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann denied a prosecution request Thursday to remove a juror whose daughter plays on the same high school sports team as the defendant’s daughter.

A woman, identified as Juror #5, came forward Thursday morning to tell the court that she only recently discovered that her daughter and Mr. Sussmann’s daughter play on the same high school crew team.
— Washington Times, 5/19/22

Americans should have a reasonable expectation to a fair trial and should not have to be wary of the appearance of a clearly rigged system that favors one ideology over another, and there are takeaways we should never forget going forward….

Federal officials and employees (the deep state) lie and will get away with it.

Lawyers lie and will get away with it. On the rare occasions they’re busted, they will be sentenced with genuine leniency.

Jurors lie so they can determine preferable, partisan outcomes.

I don’t think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI. It was the government’s job to prove it, and they succeeded in some ways and not in others. We broke it down, and it did not pan out in the government’s favor.
— Jury Forewoman

And Hillary Clinton remains legally unscathed but some of the stink will stick.

Hillary Clinton personally approved her campaign’s plans in fall 2016 to share information with a reporter about an uncorroborated alleged server backchannel between Donald Trump and a top Russian bank, her former campaign manager testified Friday in federal court.
— CNN, 5/20/22

As we can’t recall one instance where it’s been proven that conservative Republicans in those positions have done the same, it can rightly be concluded that liberal Democrats willfully lie in government and the legal system.

There’s your “threat to democracy”.

Also to this day, Trump is criticized for his demeanor while in office. Well, if you had to fend off a hostile media, opposition party and federal employee obstructionists pushing false accusations for years, you might have a burr up your ass, that is if you could have survived it.

In some sports if a previous play is in question, the game is halted, the officials gather, replays are watched and if there’s enough evidence to overturn a call, the outcome of the play can either stand or be reversed. However in today’s brand of politics, if the fans see a play as going one way at home or on the stadium big screen and the officials (and media) see it another, there is no replay review offered and the fans and candidate are told to shut up and deal with it.

Such is what happened after the 2020 presidential election. The electorate saw one candidate clearly outplaying the other during the long campaign season. During the championship game one team was clearly winning, we have a commercial time-out and when the game resumed all see the score has been changed, the team that was losing is now winning; a lead that would not be relinquished by the media’s preferred team.

Too many in the media and pundit class are still too eager to insist Donald Trump shut and get over his “loss” to Joe Biden, but it’s easy to talk. If they actually had the guts to be a candidate for any public office, they’d understand why it’s not easy to just up and walk away from a long, hard campaign you believe you couldn’t have and didn’t lose.

Being a candidate takes more than just getting on a ballot and running a campaign.

Prior to, there are many discussions had between immediate family members and friends because depending on the office sought, there are profound ramifications for all involved including intrusions of varying intensity into personal lives by the media and opposition elements.

After a campaign is set up, trusted people have to be brought on to give of their paid and/or volunteer time, and depending on the office, can take months if not years of their time and energy. Significant financial structures have to be created and maintained to meet media and government scrutiny. And most notably, if you’re not in the good graces of the media on all levels, your political and personal life will be made hell during and after the campaign despite the result.

Those who are quick to jump on Donald Trump are mostly those who, despite having mouths of varying sizes, were and are too chicken shit to take a strong position they are willing to defend, create a platform that can withstand appropriate inspection, and stick their own necks out and run for office themselves. Most probably know they have too many skeletons in their sanctimonious closets that are best left closed. Most are shallow enough that their positions can and will vary depending on who is issuing their present paycheck. And some have specious public speaking skills that would be open to mass mockery once displayed and recorded.

These people are like the sports blabbermouths who are quick to criticize and athlete or team despite never having the guts or talent to put on a uniform and compete against other very talented people. Donald Trump decided to do something he really didn’t have to do. He had a very successful and physically comfortable life. He was very popular amongst his political and media peers until he decided to temporarily give it all up and serve his country when it was clearly going in the wrong direction.

He was also met with pushback by the mediocres in government whose personal interests were greater than obeying the orders of their new boss, media-stoked unprecedented hate fueled by cowards on social media and in the streets, and of course the dirty tricks by an opponent that was amplified to derail his agenda. And when Trump ran for reelection against an inferior candidate and “lost”, he justifiably continues to remind us that the whole process stunk and he has every right to do so, especially when the Democrat media continues to laud the sore-loser whining of stolen elections spewed by Stacey Abrams and Hillary Clinton to this day.

Until you are a candidate, you can’t understand the pain of a loss that you know wasn’t.

Until you are a candidate, you are no one to tell a candidate to get over it.

Bob Parks was a California candidate for United States Congress in 2002 and Massachusetts candidate for State Representative in 2008.

Nina Jankowicz is President Joe Biden’s pick to serve as executive director of the Department of Homeland Security’s new Disinformation Governance Board—and her appointment has already met with some controversy.
— Newsweek, 4/28/22

“Controversy” is an understatement.

Psaki claimed Nina Jankowicz is an ‘expert’ with ‘extensive qualifications’ to lead DHS’ Governance Board
Biden ‘disinfo’ czar Nina Jankowicz ripped over cringeworthy Mary Poppins TikTok

Yes, it was that bad….

Nina Jankowicz is a classic test case for the liberal affliction known as psychotic “projection”.

So, who exactly is Nina Jankowicz? Certainly, not a person with any concerns about preserving freedom of speech or expression. A quick look at her Twitter history is enough to dispel that. When Facebook permanently banned Donald Trump from its service, Nina was in the wings complaining that this punishment was not harsh enough. Through a metaphor, Nina explained that only mass bans on hundreds or thousands of accounts would be enough to “fix” the disinformation “problem.”
— Revolver News, 4/29/22

So, why this now? Why is Joe Biden okay with forming such an ominous-sounding agency within DHS. Knowing Joe as we all do, it CAN’T be Joe’s idea or regarding Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. What is this really about?

Could it be between now and the midterm election, a couple of major players in the Democrat Party could be at the center of uncomfortable attention; a couple of Democrats who MUST be protected at all costs?

During a speech at Stanford University on Thursday, former U.S. President Barack Obama presented his audience with a stark choice: “Do we allow our democracy to wither, or do we make it better?” Over the course of an hour-long address, Obama outlined the threat that disinformation online, including deepfake technology powered by AI, poses to democracy as well as ways he thought the problems might be addressed in the United States and abroad.
— Stanford News, 4/21/22

The committee for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign is seeking to block Special Counsel John Durham from obtaining certain documents related to law firm Perkins Coie and its work with the campaign, the Democratic National Committee and opposition research firm Fusion GPS. Hillary For America and the DNC are the holders of the privileges at issue, according to the filing.
— Fox News, 4/29/22

Interesting how this “disinformation” topic came out of nowhere and considering how many media outlets still have egg crusts on their faces for distributing Hillary’s Trump-Russia-collusion bullshit for four-plus years that distracted a presidential campaign, hampered a transition team, and kneecapped a presidency. It had to have been green-lighted by Hillary and Obama had to have known.

John Durham knows. He just has to have every i dotted and t crossed before he certifies proof of the greatest political scandal in American history. And when that happens, all involved in the conspiracy can’t depend on the legacy media to do all the heavy lifting. They’ll need something more and this is where Nina Jankowicz comes in.

Of all the old-and-reliable useful idiots Biden (or whomever) could have appointed for this DHS gig, he chose an expendable nutcase who’ll fit nicely under the bus when she goes after anyone and everyone who reports what may be coming from the special counsel. As usual when in the company of the like-minded, people like Jankowicz feel free to tell the truth about who they are, what they want, and what they’re willing (or not) to do to get it….

President Biden’s new disinformation czar Nina Jankowicz once belted out a raunchy parody version of a Christmas song — changing the lyrics to ask who she needed to “fuck” to be “famous and powerful,” according to resurfaced YouTube footage. “I want to be rich, famous, and powerful! Step on all my enemies and never do a thing,” Jankowicz sang in the clip from 2015.
— New York Post, 4/30/22

Looks like she got what she wanted. How…? We won’t ask.

Instead of being banned from a social media cite, Jankowicz could conceivably send goons with sub-machine guns kicking in the doors of Americans who shared a post embarrassing to Joe, Barack, Hillary, and Democrats as a whole.

After all, some things take relatively small amounts of intelligence to pull off.

So while it will be formerly known as the Disinformation Governance Board, it’s really going to be Disinformation Projection Board because like most of the so-called scandals specifically blamed on President Donald Trump, it turns out the Democrat left actually did the things the accused others of doing with no accountability.

For now.

UPDATE

It would appear the bully got too much a taste of her own medicine, and like most bullies, she ran away.

The Biden administration has “paused” its controversial plans to create a Disinformation Board, causing its would-be leader to resign.

In a statement Wednesday, Nina Jankowicz, the “disinformation expert” tapped to head the panel, said that “[w]ith the Board’s work paused and its future uncertain, and [sic] I have decided to leave DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] to return to my work in the public sphere.” Jankowicz’s departure and the decision to scrap the board was first reported by the Washington Post.

Whenever a liberal claims to be “mischaracterized”, it means uncomfortable truth was made public.

Jankowicz’s idea of standing up for the First Amendment included letting “verified” Twitter users “edit” other users’ tweets if the blue-checked chosen think they’re misleading. Jankowicz also repeatedly tried to spread doubt about The Post’s own reporting about Hunter Biden’s notorious laptop, telling the Associated Press in October 2020 that it should be viewed as “a Trump campaign product.” In addition, Jankowicz pushed the since-debunked claim in 2016 that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump had a tie to Kremlin-linked Alfa-Bank, an allegation at the center of an ongoing trial of a Clinton campaign lawyer accused by special counsel John Durham of lying to the FBI.

The misinformation maven was also ripped for a bizarre TikTok performance from February 2021 in which she altered the lyrics to the “Mary Poppins” song “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” to be about fake news.
— New York Post, 5/18/22

Jankowicz probably had been working on a landing spot long before her “announcement”. She’ll be back at work creating musical, pro-Democrat misinformation soon enough. After all, it IS what Nina does best.

But things in the party, especially in the Democrat-mismanaged state of New York, aren’t as peachy as the media would have America believe. Hochul’s moment in the sun was hardly one of “unconditional love” but obscured by audible, very real internal storm clouds….

It took the discipline of a professional politician to maintain composure during an acceptance speech while there were clearly a vocal many who opposed her. These are the same people Hochul will need to defeat a Republican this fall, especially in a climate where millions of Democrats nationally are suffering because of the malevolent actions of the Democrat president Joe Biden and things are going to get a whole lot worse before the first votes are cast in November.

Good luck with that.