Newly Declassified Documents Show Hillary May Have Set Up the Russia Hoax

Newly declassified documents from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe show former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have set up the 2016 Russia investigation into the Trump campaign. The information was released Tuesday afternoon in a letter written to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham.

“In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication,” the letter states.  “According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.’”

“On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding ‘U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server,’” the letter continues.

The information was released to the Committee after a request from Graham, who published the letter.

“I appreciate DNI Ratcliffe responding to my request for any information concerning all things Russia in the 2016 campaign, not just alleged Trump-Russia involvement. Director Ratcliffe will make this information available in a classified setting. I will try to review the material as early as today,” Graham released in a statement. “This latest information provided by DNI Ratcliffe shows there may have been a double standard by the FBI regarding allegations against the Clinton campaign and Russia. Whether these allegations are accurate is not the question. The question is did the FBI investigate the allegations against Clinton like they did Trump?  If not, why not?  If so, what was the scope of the investigation?  If none, why was that?”

“I look forward to speaking with Director Comey about this latest information, and many other topics, at tomorrow’s hearing,” Graham continued.

Comey will testify in front of the Committee Wednesday at 10 p.m. eastern. Townhall will have full coverage.

It’s almost like they know it’s a losing argument, so they have to obfuscate it? Strange.

Gun Control Group Opts for Healthcare Push in Swing States

Michael Bloomberg-founded Everytown for Gun Safety is opting to push healthcare instead of new gun laws in swing states as the November election approaches.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that Everytown launched an ad campaign in Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, and Minnesota, and there is zero mention of gun control. Instead, the ads make allegations that Republicans want to take away healthcare.

The NRA’s Amy Hunter responded to Everytown’s decision to forego a gun control push, saying, “This Bloomberg-funded organization knows Americans don’t want gun control and are less likely to vote for candidates who promise to impose it. That is why they have to engage in tactics like this — and also bribe felons to vote — to get their gun-control candidates elected. They hope these tactics will fool swing state voters but we hope voters will see right through their deception.”

On September 21, 2020, Breitbart News reported there was a 139 percent increase in ammunition sales nationwide during the first six months of 2020, when compared to the same time period in 2019. Those ammo sales were coupled with a 95 percent increase in gun sales, as compared to the same time frame in 2019.

Moreover, there was an 80 percent surge in gun sales in seven swing states. Those seven states include the five in which Bloomberg’s Everytown is forgoing a gun control push.

Opinion: The Steps Towards Revolution or Hostile Takeover From Within (Part I, Introduction)

There is an interesting graphic going around on Twitter. It appears to portray the levels and activities of civil uncoupling before open guerrilla warfare breaks out and we have a full-blown revolution happening. Here is the Tweet and the diagram.


You can see the pyramid has multiple levels showing activities that take place before there is an open, armed revolt against the constituted government. The yellow arrow points towards where (with some justification) the author of the Tweet believes we are right now.

Opinion: The Steps Towards Revolution or Hostile Takeover From Within (Part I, Introduction)

There is no doubt that in more than a few metropolitan precincts, the morale of police forces is in sharp decline. Just look at the spiking request for retirement numbers.

If you’ll note, the diagram in the tweet differs from the one on the masthead of this article. That one I took directly from the January 2013 edition of a U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) publication entitled: Human Factors Considerations Of Undergrounds In Insurgencies. The 2013 version is actually more up to date. Except as specifically noted, I’ll be using the USASOC version.

The Twitter version has an arrow pointing at just one level. On the USASOC version, I’ve circled a range of levels. On both, the designated areas are just short of the open and armed revolt or general uprising levels. It’s important to understand that these things don’t necessarily occur in a rigid sequence and, at the end, most of them will be occurring simultaneously.

Back in the day, I used to teach this at the JFK Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg. One thing that has stuck with me since that brief time in my life is a very hard truth and its even harder analog. The hard truth is that before the first guerrilla picks up a gun and kills a police officer or Soldier, the revolution or precursors to it, have been going for at least 10 years prior. Of course, the analog to that says that once you’ve defeated the insurgency, killed, captured, or jailed the leaders, there is still a decade or more of work to do to get back to a condition of popularly supported stability.

Over the next few days, we’ll explore the USASOC graphic. Continue reading “”

Jim Comey Fought to Include a Russian Spy’s Disinformation in the Report on Russian Election Interference

This is like a “Spy v. Spy” cartoon in Mad Magazine (does that reference date me?).

The revelation that Igor Danchenko, the “Primary Sub-Source” (PSS) upon which nearly all of the Steele Dossier memos were based, was likely a Russian intelligence asset is even more flabbergasting when you think back over the many episodes during which senior management of the FBI staked their reputations and careers on the allegations in that Dossier attributed to Danchenko — the Russian spy.

AFTER the effort to secure the FISA warrant, the FBI discovered that the PSS referenced in the Steele Dossier memos was Mr. Danchenko — the Russian spy — and FBI counterintelligence databases revealed that Mr. Danchenko — the Russian spy — had made a “pitch” to potential Obama Administration officials to sell classified information to “people he knew”.  It just so happened that in the time frame that Danchenko — the Russian spy — knew Russian intelligence agents stationed in the United States, and visited with one of them at the Russian Embassy.

AFTER they learned the PSS in Steele’s memos was Danchenko — the Russian spy — Jim Comey aggressively argued with the CIA to include information from the Steele Dossier memos sourced to Danchenko — the Russian spy — regarding the allegations that the Russians were engaged in a clandestine arrangement with Donald Trump to win the election over Hillary Clinton. Continue reading “”

And it’s not just that. Joe’s own ‘climate plan’ does have the GND in it. So either he’s lying in an attempt to conceal his econuttery, or he’s passed the point he can’t even remember the policies he’s running on.

Biden Interrupts Republican Voter, Tries To Rebut Her Question Before She Finishes It

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden interrupted a Republican voter trying to ask a question during his CNN town hall Thursday.

Biden started to answer, trying to dispute one of the things she had said before she finished laying our her question……………

According to Biden’s campaign website, Ballay was correct about his climate plan embracing the Green New Deal.

“Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected,” his website states.

In the day of being able to instantly pull up contradictory evidence, lying through your teeth, apparently believing people are stupid enough to swallow the lie, is in itself stupid. Of course, with Joe, he may simply be going off script……again.

Man Who Campaigns For Joe Biden Invited to CNN Town Hall – Then Cries as He Asks Biden Softball Question About Healthcare Workers

Anderson Cooper began by asking Joe Biden a softball question about Trump’s Coronavirus response.

Anderson Cooper then called on a questioner who just happened to be a Democrat from Dunmore, Pennsylvania the same town Biden’s dad is from — what a coincidence!


So, How Do They Dump Biden?

As the Democrat presidential campaign degenerates into “Weekend at Gropey’s,” a question arises: Assuming the Dems and their media minions somehow drag that rickety, basement-dwelling weirdo across the finish line, how do they get rid of him post-inauguration? Clearly, he would be a figurehead as Dr. Demento – sorry, Dr. Jill – and Kamala Harris joust for control before a backdrop of scheming pinko puppetmasters. But sooner or later, probably sooner, the Dem elite is going to try to put him out to pasture. How could they pull it off? And can they? Let’s see…

A few caveats: I think Donald Trump is going to win, so this is all hypothetical. The only bright spot for the Dems is the garbage polls his lying mainstream media allies keep pushing, and the liars are even having to concede that those are tightening, especially in states that matter. We’re days away from them pulling Grandpa Badfinger out of the debate. My money is still on the “I won’t normalize Trump’s racist cisgender sexism by appearing on stage with him” excuse, but “I fear the flu” is a close second. His recent catastrophic appearances outside his dungeon lair demonstrate that this guy couldn’t hack a debate if he was snorting rails of Namenda like Hunter hoovering blow on New Year’s Eve in Medellin. Trump holds an indisputable edge in other important areas, too, like enthusiasm, ground game, and continence. Continue reading “”

The “Escalator to Extinction” Myth

In Life on the Mississippi Mark Twain wrote, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” Unfortunately, conjecture based on limited facts has produced “research” trumpeting catastrophic fears of extinction. The “escalator to extinction” theory argues organisms must migrate to higher elevations where a cooler altitude will offset global warming temperatures. But there is scant evidence that is happening.

For example, in 1985 researchers spent 33 days surveying the wondrous bird diversity along a narrow ascending 5-mile trail in southern Peru. They recorded an amazing 455 unique species. In 2017 they repeated the survey, but for only 22 days. Still they observed 422 species consisting of 52 additional species never observed in 1985, but they also failed to detect 71 species that had been documented in 1985. Clearly, more extensive surveys are needed to accurately detect all species and determine their abundance. Nonetheless, because 8 ridgetop species (i.e. Crested Quetzal) that were previously observed only at the highest elevations but were not detected in 2017, researchers conjectured the “escalator to extinction” eliminated those 8 species. Additionally, they asserted similar local extinctions must be happening along ridgetops all across the earth’s tropical mountains.

Modeled temperatures had risen by 0.8°F between the two surveys, so they concluded those missing 8 species were extirpated by global warming because birds already at the ridgetop could no longer flee upwards to cooler temperatures.  For most people, the idea that a 0.8°F rise in ridgetop temperatures could be deadly greatly strains the imagination. Moreover researchers in nearby regions of Manu National Park, found the alleged “extirpated species” thriving at lower elevations where temperatures are 3-5 °F warmer than their ridgetop. Falsely asserting most Peruvian birds are “highly sedentary” and don’t migrate, the scientists argued it was unlikely they missed any birds during their 10 days on the ridgetop due to migration. Thus, the birds must be locally extinct.  Not having the critical eye of a Mark Twain, mass media journalists – BBCthe Atlantic, and Yale Environment 360 – promoted those extinction fears. Regretfully only good investigative journalism has become extinct.

It is well documented that about 24% of Peru’s birds are “elevational migrants”. Elevational migrants are typically on the move between different elevations during August and September, the same months of the 1985 and 2017 surveys. The high chance of not observing randomly migrating species prudently explains why their short-term surveys each missed detecting 12% and 16% of the region’s species. And there’s good news to counter their extinction conclusions. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature determined those “extinct” 8 species are relatively abundant elsewhere and categorized as species of Least Concern.

global warming explanation only obscures complex movements within ecosystems elsewhere. Researchers comparing early 20th century bird surveys in California’s mountains found as many species were moving downslope as species “fleeing” upslope. Furthermore, the same species moved differently in different regions. But fearmongering media journalists don’t find such facts newsworthy.

The theory that global warming relentlessly pushes species up mountain slopes to their eventual extinction, has been preached by climate scientists like James Hansen to add urgency to his catastrophic theories.  Unfortunately, such theories have constrained the objectivity of several researchers to the point they manipulated observations to fit the theory.

For example, pika are rabbit-like creatures that live in rockslides of western America’s mountains. By comparing the elevations of territories documented in the early 1900s to their current elevation Dr. Beever argued global warming was causing a “five-fold increase in the rate of local extinctions.” However, of the 25 pika territories surveyed, 10 were now inhabiting lower and warmer elevations. To preserve a scary theory, Beever eliminated those observations from his calculations, guaranteeing a statistical upslope retreat. But recent US Forest Service surveys also found 19% of the currently known pika populations are at lower elevations than documented during the cooler 1900s, as well as a few thriving pika territories that Dr. Beever had deemed locally extinct.

Dr. Camille Parmesan’s 1994 Edith’s Checkerspot butterfly study made her an icon for climate change catastrophe. Featured on the Union of Concerned Scientists’ website Parmesan stated,  “The latest research shows clearly that we face the threat of mass extinctions in coming years,” For promoting global warming catastrophe, she earned an invitation to speak at the Clinton White House and to join the IPCC. I tried to replicate her study, but she refused to supply the necessary data and she never published a methods section. However,  it was privately admitted the Checkerspot butterfly had been increasing through the 2000s and many butterfly colonies she designated extinct, were now thriving. But such good news was never published. What is truly worrisome is all these misleading  claims have duped the public into a hysteria regards climate “extinctions”.

What’s a ‘consensus’ got to do with an election? Nothing in my book.

ZUCKERBERG: Election May Take ‘Weeks’ And Cause ‘Civil Unrest’ Until Media Creates ‘Consensus’ On Next President
The Facebook CEO warns of civil unrest after an election that may take weeks to determine a winner

In a recent appearance on Axios on HBO, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg suggested that his company and “and other media” should work to convince the American public there is nothing illegitimate, strange, or suspect about the results upcoming presidential election taking days or weeks to be tabulated due to mail in voting.

Zuckerberg stressed that Facebook is preparing Americans to accept that election results may take weeks after November 3 to be tabulated, and explained that Facebook will add “informational context” to posts by any candidate who attempts to declare victory in an election before a media “consensus result” has been established.

“One of the things that I think we and other media need to start doing is preparing the American people,” said Zuckerberg, is “That there’s nothing illegitimate about this election taking additional days or even weeks to make sure that all the votes are counted, in fact, that may be important to be sure that this is a legitimate and fair election.”

Zuckerberg explained that Facebook will use “a bunch of of different messaging around that, just so people know that that’s normal.”

Then, Zuckerberg explained that “If one of the candidates, in any of the races, claims victory before there’s a consensus result, then we’re going to add some informational context to that post directly, saying that there’s no consensus result yet.” Continue reading “”

He knows if he tells the truth, it’s over and he probably knows he’s not a good enough liar to get away with it if he lies, and it’s over. That’s when you wind up getting this ‘non-answer answer’ from a – one might suppose – incompetent hack, which then tells everyone the accusation is true.
On the other hand——–
A really cynical person might think that was the plan, as we’ve seen so many unforced errors in the Biden campaign to make one conclude some of his team are purposefully trying to sink SloJoe with something like ‘death of a thousand cuts’.
But that’s just me.


Jeffrey Goldberg’s claim that President Trump disparaged American soldiers who died in Normandy is collapsing. As we have noted, John Bolton, no friend of Trump, was present when the president allegedly made the comment. Bolton says it didn’t happen.

Similarly, former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Zach Fuentes, who was also in the room, denies that Trump made the remarks attributed to him. He says:

I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather [in France]. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let anyone call fallen Marines losers?

Of course not. Fuentes, by the way, is unhappy with Trump over his treatment of Gen. Kelly. Thus, Fuentes has no incentive to defend Trump in this matter, other than regard for the truth.

Dan Rather inadvertently provides further evidence that Goldberg’s claim is falling apart. Earlier, as we noted, Rather tweeted that the story had seemingly been “confirmed” by other sources. Now, Rather is falling back on a variation of “fake but accurate” — the “defense” of Rather’s 2004 story about George W. Bush’s military service.

“Whether [Trump] said it or not, it is believable,” Rather told callers to a show he was hosting. Later, Rather cited the “terrible things” Trump said about Senator John McCain.

But Trump had a beef with McCain, whom he regarded as a rival and then a foe. Trump often disparages rivals and foes. There is no pattern of him disparaging bystanders, much less brave soldiers who have been dead for many decades.

In any case, the standard in journalism shouldn’t be whether a story is believable, but whether it is supported by non-fabricated evidence. Dan Rather was fired because he didn’t honor this distinction.

Clearly, he hasn’t learned his lesson. But then, he has little to lose these days.

…’s important to understand how the coverage you are getting is being shaped, and by whom.

‘You’re Not Allowed To Film’: The Fight To Control Who Reports From Portland.

“YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO FILM!” is a cry you hear incessantly at protests in Portland, Oregon, always shouted at close range to your face by after-dark demonstrators. You can assert that, yes, you can film; you can point out that they themselves are filming incessantly; you can push their hands away from covering your phone; you can have your phone record them stealing your phone—all of these things have happened to me—and none will have any impact on their contention that “YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO FILM” and its occasional variation, “PHOTOGRAPHY EQUALS DEATH!”

I cannot say who came up with these anti-camera battle cries. But it’s easy to understand why protesters use them: to shape the narrative the country sees about the protests. And that narrative, in my estimation after many weeks covering street clashes in a city where I lived for 15 years, is 90 percent bs.

I wondered, the first time I attended the protests at the federal building back in July, who all these young people with PRESS emblazoned on their jackets or helmets were. I asked one such guy who he worked for.

“Independent Press Corps,” he told me. As it turned out, dozens of other young PRESS people happened to work for the same outfit, which I at first assumed was a fancy way of saying “I want to report stuff and stream it on my Instagram.”

This turned out to be naive. The IPC is an organized group in league with the activists, and it is usually their footage you see streamed online and recycled on the news: mostly innocent protestors being harassed and beaten by police. Continue reading “”

Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite.
Outlets claiming to have “confirmed” Jeffrey Goldberg’s story about Trump’s troops comments are again abusing that vital term

ONE OF THE MOST HUMILIATING journalism debacles of the Trump era played out on December 8, 2017, first on CNN and then on MSNBC. The spectacle kicked off on that Friday morning at 11:00 a.m. when CNN, deploying its most melodramatic music and graphics designed to convey that a real bombshell was about to be dropped, announced that anonymous sources had provided the network with a smoking gun proving the Trump/Russia conspiracy once and for all: during the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump, Jr. had received a September 4 email with a secret encryption key that gave him advanced access to WikiLeaks’ servers………

IT SEEMS THE SAME MISLEADING TACTIC is now driving the supremely dumb but all-consuming news cycle centered on whether President Trump, as first reported by the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, made disparaging comments about The Troops. Goldberg claims that “four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day” — whom the magazine refuses to name because they fear “angry tweets” — told him that Trump made these comments. Trump, as well as former aides who were present that day (including Sarah Huckabee Sanders and John Bolton), deny that the report is accurate.

So we have anonymous sources making claims on one side, and Trump and former aides (including Bolton, now a harsh Trump critic) insisting that the story is inaccurate. Beyond deciding whether or not to believe Goldberg’s story based on what best advances one’s political interests, how can one resolve the factual dispute? If other media outlets could confirm the original claims from Goldberg, that would obviously be a significant advancement of the story.

Other media outlets — including Associated Press and Fox News — now claim that they did exactly that: “confirmed” the Atlantic story. But if one looks at what they actually did, at what this “confirmation” consists of, it is the opposite of what that word would mean, or should mean, in any minimally responsible sense. AP, for instance, merely claims that “a senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press,” while Fox merely said “a former senior Trump administration official who was in France traveling with the president in November 2018 did confirm other details surrounding that trip.”

In other words, all that likely happened is that the same sources who claimed to Jeffrey Goldberg, with no evidence, that Trump said this went to other outlets and repeated the same claims — the same tactic that enabled MSNBC and CBS to claim they had “confirmed” the fundamentally false CNN story about Trump Jr. receiving advanced access to the WikiLeaks archive. Or perhaps it was different sources aligned with those original sources and sharing their agenda who repeated these claims. Given that none of the sources making these claims have the courage to identify themselves, due to their fear of mean tweets, it is impossible to know. Continue reading “”

Since I can remember, a standard ploy by demoncraps is to say that the Republicans threaten to cut Social Security, hoping the elderly will be stampeded into voting for them. When even the Washington Post,  an enemy of all things conservative, give their highest – 4 Pinocchios – indictment for lying to their beloved candidate, well………………..

WaPo Fact Checks Biden on Misleading Ad About Trump’s Plans for Social Security

The Washington Post called the Biden campaign’s bluff on a new ad that makes some lofty accusations about President Trump’s plans for Social Security.

Trump recently signed an executive order that would suspend the payment of payroll taxes until the end of the year starting on September 1. The majority of Social Security is financed through the payroll tax. Of course, taxpayers would still be expected to pay at a later date. The deferral was intended to help Americans who are struggling through the coronavirus pandemic, the White House explained. Trump also said that, if re-elected, he would aim to end the payroll tax altogether.

Here’s how the Biden camp spun it in their new ad, “Depleted.”

“The chief actuary of the Social Security Administration just released an analysis of Trump’s planned cuts to Social Security,” the ad claims. “Under Trump’s plan, Social Security would become permanently depleted by the middle of calendar year 2023. If Trump gets his way, Social Security benefits will run out in just three years from now. Don’t let it happen. Joe Biden will protect Social Security.”

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler is here with the fact check.

Given that few lawmakers supported temporarily suspending the Social Security payroll tax, it’s a stretch to think Trump would win enough support to permanently suspend it — even if that were his policy. But if he wins reelection, it’s fair to think he could win congressional approval to cover the few months of payments owed by the Americans covered by his executive order………….

“The president was referring to making forgiveness of the temporary payroll tax deferral permanent,” said White House spokeswoman Sarah Matthews. “President Trump wants to fully fund and protect Social Security as he has stated numerous times.”

The ad asserts that if “Trump gets his way,” benefits will run out. But actually the letter says if transfers are made from general funds, no benefits would run out. That, at least at the moment, is what Trump says he would do.

That adds up to Four Pinocchios.

If there is a conspiracy to remove President Trump from office even if he wins, they’re telling you about it precisely to get you ready for it, so that when it happens you won’t think it was a conspiracy; you’ll blame the president.
Don’t be fooled.

The Coming Coup?

Democrats are laying the groundwork for revolution right in front of our eyes.

As if 2020 were not insane enough already, we now have Democrats and their ruling class masters openly talking about staging a coup. You might have missed it, what with the riots, lockdowns and other daily mayhem we’re forced to endure in this, the most wretched year of my lifetime. But it’s happening.

It started with the military brass quietly indicating that the troops should not follow a presidential order. They were bolstered by many former generals—including President Trump’s own first Secretary of Defense—who stated openly what the brass would only hint at. Then, as nationwide riots really got rolling in early June, the sitting Secretary of Defense himself all but publicly told the president not to invoke the Insurrection Act. His implicit message was: “Mr. President, don’t tell us to do that, because we won’t, and you know what happens after that.”
All this enthused Joe Biden, who threw subtlety to the winds. The former United States Senator (for 26 years) and Vice President (for eight) has not once, not twice, but thrice confidently asserted that the military will “escort [Trump] from the White House with great dispatch” should the president refuse to leave. Another former Vice President, Al Gore, publicly agreed.

One might dismiss such comments as the ravings of a dementia patient and a has-been who never got over his own electoral loss. But before you do, consider also this. Over the summer a story was deliberately leaked to the press of a meeting at which 100 Democratic grandees, anti-Trump former Republicans, and other ruling class apparatchiks got together (on George Soros’s dime) to “game out” various outcomes of the 2020 election. One such outcome was a clear Trump win. In that eventuality, former Bill Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, playing Biden, refused to concede, pressured states that Trump won to send Democrats to the formal Electoral College vote, and trusted that the military would take care of the rest. Continue reading “”

Worth pointing out
The Atlantic is owned by a Biden megadonor.

Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, is the majority stakeholder in the publication. Powell Jobs was named by The New York Times among those who financed at least $500,000 of then-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s campaign in the 2nd quarter this year.