politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
OK critical thinking, stay sharp people and yes I do reference this author a lot, however, where is the proof?
By Rachel Hurley:
The Soviets called it “dezinformatsiya.” We call it salting. And somebody just salted the shit out of the Epstein discourse.
Here’s how this trick works in spy school.
Take nine true things and one lie. When someone finds the lie, they throw out all ten. Or flip it: take nine lies and one verifiable truth. When someone confirms the truth, they assume the rest must be legit too.
This isn’t conspiracy theory.
The KGB literally had a department for this. A Czech intelligence defector named Ladislav Bittman wrote a whole book about it - said that for any disinfo campaign to work, “every message must at least partially correspond to reality.” You mix the poison with sugar so it goes down smooth. Churchill called it “a bodyguard of lies.”
Now. The Sascha Riley audio tapes.
If you’ve been anywhere near political social media this week, you’ve seen people losing their minds over these recordings. Supposedly a decorated Iraq War vet recounting childhood trafficking connected to Epstein, naming names including Trump, claiming he’s testified to the House Oversight Committee. People are crying. People are demanding investigations. The emotional temperature is through the roof.
One small problem.
Not a single claim has been verified by anyone. Not courts. Not law enforcement. Not the FBI. Not a single mainstream outlet.
The “journalist” who published the audio, Lisa Noelle Voldeng, has no verifiable professional background.
Fact-checkers have flagged mismatched dates, references to military figures who may not exist, and claims so “over the top” they’re raising red flags everywhere. When supporters demand proof, they point to… the audio itself. Which is not how evidence works.
I can t but keep asking - why would someone release so much unverifiable testimony right now?
Think about it. If you wanted to protect Trump from the actual Epstein evidence - the stuff that’s documented - what would you do?
You’d flood the zone with something so sensational it drowns out the receipts. You’d make the claims so extreme they can never be proven. Then when the whole thing collapses - and it will collapse if it’s fabricated - everyone who shared it looks like an idiot. Suddenly all Epstein investigation becomes “that conspiracy theory people fell for.” The real journalism gets buried under the rubble of something designed to blow up.
That’s salting. That’s the technique.
“But Rachel, survivors should be believed.”
Survivors with depositions and court records should absolutely be believed. Virginia Giuffre’s testimony withstood cross-examination. The victims in the Maxwell trial provided evidence that led to conviction. That’s what real survivor testimony looks like when it’s legitimate. It goes through legal process. It gets verified. It holds up.
Audio recordings published by someone with no credentials, containing allegations no outlet will touch, expecting you “just believe” without verification? That’s not survivor testimony. That’s a test of how gullible you are.
The reaction alone is a tell. “I listened and cried.” “I felt physically sick.” “I believe completely.” These are emotional responses, not evidentiary ones. And content that’s optimized for emotional virality rather than accuracy is… well, that’s exactly what disinfo looks like. The KGB would be so proud.
Here’s what I know for sure: the real Epstein evidence doesn’t need help from this story. The real connections are documented. The receipts exist. And anyone trying to get you to share unverifiable claims instead of documented evidence is either not paying attention or doing someone’s work for them.
You want to nail Trump on Epstein? Use the depositions. Use the flight logs. Use his own words on tape. Use the evidence that holds up.
You want to protect Trump on Epstein? Get everyone sharing sensational claims that collapse under scrutiny, then watch the whole discourse get dismissed as hysteria.
Know the difference. Please.
I believe that Sascha Riley believes what he is saying. But that doesn’t make it true.
And not one piece of evidence that he has shared proves a damn thing.
Periodt.
Sadly, those institutions can no longer be trusted to verify anything anymore. They are all captured, corrupt and/or complicit to some degree.
Great post btw, thanks
This, for sure. I listened to the first tape yesterday and he mentions Jane Goodall studying him because he was like a monkey. He was severely abused when he was young, that much is clear. The head trauma alone could cause all of this. I have my doubts.
yep. they're salting some fakes in and around the actual shit, trying to sour the entire topic in "well there's so much disinfo who can tell"
I mean release the files, unredacted so I can make up my mind for myself. This doesn't change anything. It still isn't released and it would be foolish to discount them until we have seen the evidence fully.
In addition to this, the Epstein Files are, collectively, everything that was reported about Epstein to the feds.
Say we released "The Obama files". Everything the feds collected about Obama. You'd find Larry Sinclair, who claims he did cocaine and had gay sex with Obama.
It's utter bullshit, but the feds still collected the reports on it.
Just because somebody said it and the FBI collected statements on it, doesn't make it factual. All they recorded was "hey, somebody said this."
I made a longer comment regarding possible issues with his report from a psychologist perspective. I have a masters in cognitive neuroscience and am finishing up my PhD. If you read it and have any thoughts, please reply to it.
I read your comment about how this person is intended to make further victim claims distrusted by the public. And I also did consider this too.
However I think this individual has some mental health problems. And I discuss why this is an issue with adult victims credibility as they often also have false memories that are proven false.
I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he believes what he said and wants people to be held accountable. But it's possible it's all a farse with the intent to keep other victims from being taken seriously.
People don't realize that there are a lot of mentally unstable people out there who have psychosis and can believe a lot of strange things. It's honestly not surprising that someone might believe they were trafficked by Epstein even though they lived in a different part of the country and time frames are questionable.
Good comment
Grok is probably salting twitter so that when someone is tired of all the lies and they leak real unredacted evidence the perps can point to Elon and say it’s just grok making stuff up
You could have just said it’s like that episode of The Office called “Gossip”.
Yeah you've got a point.
Not everyone watches or remembers that. This is an excellent write-up. Thank you!