TDS totally not happening

[Biker]

Special Counsel Jack Smith Sought Info On Anyone Who ‘Favorited Or Retweeted’ Trump Tweets

Special Counsel Jack Smith hunted information on X users who liked or retweeted posts published by former President Donald Trump, according to redacted search warrants and other documents released Monday.

According to the heavily redacted document issued to then-Twitter in January, the court ordered the social media giant to forfeit a bevy of information regarding Trump’s account, including “advertising information, including advertising IDs, ad activity, and ad topic preferences,” as well as IP addresses “used to create, login, and use the account” and privacy and account settings.

The warrant also demanded information such as Trump’s search history, direct messages, and “content of all tweets created, drafted, favorited/liked, or retweeted” by his account from October 2020 to January 2021.

Though the warrant was first covered in August, it was again released as part of a court order after numerous media organizations filed to obtain the document to shed light on the Smith-led special counsel’s “investigation into Trump’s actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol,” according to the New York Post. Smith previously indicted Trump in August on several bogus charges related to the former president’s challenging of the 2020 election results in the lead-up to Jan. 6, 2021.

But it wasn’t just Trump’s Twitter account that Smith and his cronies were targeting. The special counsel’s warrant also sought data on Twitter users who interacted with the former president’s account. Among the information Smith sought was a list of every user Trump “followed, unfollowed, muted, unmuted, blocked, or unblocked” during the aforementioned timeframe. Smith similarly demanded that Twitter, which has since rebranded as X, fork over a list of users who took any of the same actions with Trump’s account.

[dot]

https://adfontesmedia.com/federalist-bi ... liability/

The Federalist Bias and Reliability

Overview
Ad Fontes Media rates The Federalist in the Hyper-Partisan Right category of bias and as Unreliable, Problematic in terms of reliability. The Federalist is an online magazine that focuses on politics, culture, national security and crime. Founded in 2013, it reaches its readers through its website and an emailed newsletter.

Overall Score
The following are the overall bias and reliability scores for The Federalist according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 22.64

Bias: 20.07

Panels of analysts from Ad Fontes Media regularly review representative sample content to rate it for reliability and bias. Each panel of analysts comprises one left-leaning, one right-leaning, and one center-leaning analyst.

The team considers a variety of factors when rating content. To determine its reliability score, we consider the content’s veracity, expression, its title/headline, and graphics. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the sample content’s overall reliability score.

To determine sample content’s bias score, we consider its language, its political position, and how it compares to other reporting or analysis from other sources on the same topic. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the content’s overall bias score.

The bias rating, demonstrated on the Media Bias Chart on the horizontal axis, ranges from most extreme left to middle to most extreme right. The reliability rating, demonstrated on the chart’s vertical axis, rates sources on a scale from original fact reporting to analysis, opinion, propaganda and inaccurate/fabricated information.

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 40 are generally good; scores below 24 are generally problematic. Scores between 24-40 indicate a range of possibilities, with some sources falling there because they are heavy in opinion and analysis, and some because they have a high variation in reliability between articles.

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 minimally biased, equally balanced, or exhibiting a centrist bias.

[Biker]

Cool, we’ll go straight to the source then

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... /#entry-22

[dot]

That mean you'll refrain from unreliable partisan news sources from now on or nah?

[Biker]

That mean you'll refrain from unreliable partisan news sources from now on or nah?

Tell us which part of the story is inaccurate. I’ll wait

[dot]

Nah, it is. What a shock.

[Biker]

Nah, it is. What a shock.

So nothing. Typical

[Reservoir Dog]

[stonedmegman]

[CHEEZY17]

Nah, it is. What a shock.

So nothing. Typical

dot with another swing and a miss.

[dot]

Sure about that? I'm not the one admitting to using unreliable partisan media and refusing to learn to do better.

[Biker]

Sure about that? I'm not the one admitting to using unreliable partisan media and refusing to learn to do better.

Primary sources aren’t partisan, ese

[dot]

So you don't read the Federalist? Cause it is unreliable. And partisan. But you already know that.

[Antknot]

https://adfontesmedia.com/federalist-bi ... liability/

The Federalist Bias and Reliability

Overview
Ad Fontes Media rates The Federalist in the Hyper-Partisan Right category of bias and as Unreliable, Problematic in terms of reliability. The Federalist is an online magazine that focuses on politics, culture, national security and crime. Founded in 2013, it reaches its readers through its website and an emailed newsletter.

Overall Score
The following are the overall bias and reliability scores for The Federalist according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 22.64

Bias: 20.07

Panels of analysts from Ad Fontes Media regularly review representative sample content to rate it for reliability and bias. Each panel of analysts comprises one left-leaning, one right-leaning, and one center-leaning analyst.

The team considers a variety of factors when rating content. To determine its reliability score, we consider the content’s veracity, expression, its title/headline, and graphics. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the sample content’s overall reliability score.

To determine sample content’s bias score, we consider its language, its political position, and how it compares to other reporting or analysis from other sources on the same topic. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the content’s overall bias score.

The bias rating, demonstrated on the Media Bias Chart on the horizontal axis, ranges from most extreme left to middle to most extreme right. The reliability rating, demonstrated on the chart’s vertical axis, rates sources on a scale from original fact reporting to analysis, opinion, propaganda and inaccurate/fabricated information.

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 40 are generally good; scores below 24 are generally problematic. Scores between 24-40 indicate a range of possibilities, with some sources falling there because they are heavy in opinion and analysis, and some because they have a high variation in reliability between articles.

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 minimally biased, equally balanced, or exhibiting a centrist bias.

People who can’t refute the facts and attack the source irk me. It’s a transparent attempt to deflect. Overused and not effective

[CHEEZY17]

So you don't read the Federalist? Cause it is unreliable. And partisan. But you already know that.

Intellectually dishonest. He gave you the primary source and yet youre STILL fucking arguing and trying to deflect because you cant stand it.

[dot]

Dishonest? I'm not the one hiding the source being quoted. But sure, keep throwing around labels as confessions.

[Biker]

So you don't read the Federalist? Cause it is unreliable. And partisan. But you already know that.

I cited the primary source, not the article. You do know what a primary source is, right?

[Reservoir Dog]

So you don't read the Federalist? Cause it is unreliable. And partisan. But you already know that.

I cited the primary source, not the article. You do know what a primary source is, right?

The primary source was The Federalist.

[dot]

I cited the primary source, not the article. You do know what a primary source is, right?

So we're supposed to ignore the post that started the thread? The one you took the time to quote, but curiously did not provide a link for?

[Reservoir Dog]

I cited the primary source, not the article. You do know what a primary source is, right?

So we're supposed to ignore the post that started the thread? The one you took the time to quote, but curiously did not provide a link for?

[dot]

Maybe he just forgot. Like when he forgot who Rittenhouse was despite donating to him.

[Biker]

So you don't read the Federalist? Cause it is unreliable. And partisan. But you already know that.

I cited the primary source, not the article. You do know what a primary source is, right?

The primary source was The Federalist.

Typical dumbass Ricky doesn’t know what a primary source is.

[Reservoir Dog]

So you don't read the Federalist? Cause it is unreliable. And partisan. But you already know that.

I cited the primary source, not the article. You do know what a primary source is, right?

The primary source was The Federalist.

Typical dumbass Ricky doesn’t know what a primary source is.

Then why isn't the primary source your original post in this thread?

[saltydog]

So you don't read the Federalist? Cause it is unreliable. And partisan. But you already know that.

I cited the primary source, not the article. You do know what a primary source is, right?

The primary source was The Federalist.

Typical dumbass Ricky doesn’t know what a primary source is.

Then why isn't the primary source your original post in this thread?

It never is, because he's a chicken shit.

[CHEEZY17]

The very first source in the Federalist article takes you to the link Biker already provided long ago. If any of you would have actually tried to actually read the article instead of just dismiss it offhand because ThE FedErAList!!!111!! you would have seen that.
You just want to dismiss anything that might challenge your worldview.
The article by Fleetwood is sourced by the official court documents and its right in the very first paragraph:
https://thefederalist.com/2023/11/29/sp ... mp-tweets/