4 ms·

Your article's flat out lying about the facts. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/03/politics/vdare-brimelow-letitia-james-lawsuit https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/03/polit

by nemo 1y ago

Your article's flat out lying about the facts. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/03/politics/vdare-brimelow-letitia-james-lawsuit https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/03/politics/vdare-brimelow-letit...

like_any_other 1y ago
Please look at the publication date before accusing them of lying. The article I linked was published April 3, 2024. VDARE was charged in September 2025 (and suspended work due to the ruinous financial cost of the prosecution in July 2024). So which facts is my article lying about? Or are you simply presuming that the accusation must be true, despite no verdict yet?
- nemo 1y ago
  Your article mischaracterizes the facts in a way that I sincerely believe could only have been a result of a dishonest party. You might claim that it's the VDARE fraudsters who lied and the publication didn't apply any diligence into actually reading the charges filed or investigating, and simply credulously repeated a story that was contradicted by the facts at the time of their writing. However you want to frame it, there's a kernel of deceit.
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    > the publication didn't apply any diligence into actually reading the charges filed or investigating When that article was published, there were no charges filed. It was more than a year later that they were charged. And I'll ask again: which facts were false or mischaracterized? Can you be specific? The essence of the article I linked was that: 1) Letitia's investigation was drawn out and financially ruinous. 2) She demanded all of their email records, which would have doxxed their writers. 3) The Brimelows are being investigated for using funds donated to their charity for personal expenses, which they deny. The CNN article, as far as I could tell, contradicts none of these points. But perhaps I missed something?
    - nemo 1y ago
      You seem incapable of either speaking or comprehending truth, please let's never speak again.
      - like_any_other 1y ago
        Twice I've asked you which facts the article is lying about, and twice you've refused to answer, instead merely rephrasing your accusation ("mischaracterizes the facts"). Perhaps I am incapable of comprehending truth, but for the sake of others reading this, can you tell them what precisely the lies were?

by nemo 1y ago

Your article's flat out lying about the facts. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/03/politics/vdare-brimelow-letitia-james-lawsuit https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/03/politics/vdare-brimelow-letit...

like_any_other 1y ago

Please look at the publication date before accusing them of lying. The article I linked was published April 3, 2024. VDARE was charged in September 2025 (and suspended work due to the ruinous financial cost of the prosecution in July 2024). So which facts is my article lying about? Or are you simply presuming that the accusation must be true, despite no verdict yet?

nemo 1y ago
Your article mischaracterizes the facts in a way that I sincerely believe could only have been a result of a dishonest party. You might claim that it's the VDARE fraudsters who lied and the publication didn't apply any diligence into actually reading the charges filed or investigating, and simply credulously repeated a story that was contradicted by the facts at the time of their writing. However you want to frame it, there's a kernel of deceit.
- like_any_other 1y ago
  > the publication didn't apply any diligence into actually reading the charges filed or investigating When that article was published, there were no charges filed. It was more than a year later that they were charged. And I'll ask again: which facts were false or mischaracterized? Can you be specific? The essence of the article I linked was that: 1) Letitia's investigation was drawn out and financially ruinous. 2) She demanded all of their email records, which would have doxxed their writers. 3) The Brimelows are being investigated for using funds donated to their charity for personal expenses, which they deny. The CNN article, as far as I could tell, contradicts none of these points. But perhaps I missed something?
  - nemo 1y ago
    You seem incapable of either speaking or comprehending truth, please let's never speak again.
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      Twice I've asked you which facts the article is lying about, and twice you've refused to answer, instead merely rephrasing your accusation ("mischaracterizes the facts"). Perhaps I am incapable of comprehending truth, but for the sake of others reading this, can you tell them what precisely the lies were?