Fact Check: We have about five years to cut emissions in half.

Fact Check: We have about five years to cut emissions in half.

Published June 21, 2025
VERDICT
True

# Fact Check: "We have about five years to cut emissions in half." ## What We Know The claim that "we have about five years to cut emissions in half"...

Fact Check: "We have about five years to cut emissions in half."

What We Know

The claim that "we have about five years to cut emissions in half" is supported by multiple authoritative sources. According to a recent report from the United Nations, limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels necessitates a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the report states that emissions must be cut by approximately 50% by 2030 to stay within this critical temperature threshold. This aligns with findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which emphasizes that immediate and large-scale adoption of renewable energy and other mitigation strategies is essential to achieve this goal.

In addition, the U.S. government's climate strategy outlines a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 as part of its broader commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. This target reflects a growing consensus among scientists and policymakers regarding the urgency of climate action.

Analysis

The assertion that we have about five years to cut emissions in half is corroborated by credible scientific reports and governmental strategies. The IPCC's synthesis report, which is based on extensive research and contributions from numerous scientists worldwide, highlights the necessity of halving emissions by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This report is considered a cornerstone of climate science and is widely respected for its rigorous methodology and comprehensive assessment of climate change impacts and mitigation strategies.

Moreover, the U.S. government's commitment to reducing emissions aligns with the findings of the IPCC, indicating a coordinated effort among nations to address climate change. The Inflation Reduction Act is a significant legislative effort aimed at achieving these emissions targets and demonstrates a commitment to climate action at the national level.

While there are some critiques regarding the pace of progress and the adequacy of current measures, the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that immediate action is required. Reports indicate that without drastic changes in energy consumption and a shift towards renewable technologies, achieving these targets will be exceedingly challenging (NPR, AP News).

Conclusion

Verdict: True
The claim that "we have about five years to cut emissions in half" is accurate based on the current scientific consensus and policy frameworks. The urgency of this timeline is underscored by the need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as outlined by the IPCC and supported by U.S. climate policy. The evidence from credible sources indicates that immediate and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are necessary to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change.

Sources

  1. The Climate Crisis: Working Together for Future Generations
  2. New UN Report: Limiting Global Warming to 1.5 Degrees ...
  3. U.N. report warns world needs to rapidly cut emissions to limit climate ...
  4. Most nations miss deadline for plans to fight climate change. UN says ...
  5. Urgent climate action can secure a liveable future for all
  6. Climate change: The IPCC summarized 5 years of reports | World Economic ...
  7. Climate misinformation turning crisis into catastrophe

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Austrian law allows revocation of refugee status within five years of granting.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Austrian law allows revocation of refugee status within five years of granting.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Austrian law allows revocation of refugee status within five years of granting.

Jul 3, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
Are Trump's approval ratings in
the tank? Let's check it out. I
mean every politician would
like this number here
especially to see it go up. How
about compared to other
presidents who are Republicans?
Yeah. It's history making. It's
history making. What are we
talking about here? So why
don't we look back? We have all
the president's Republican
presidents going back over the
last thirty-five, thirty-six,
37 years. What are we talking
about? GOP who strongly
approved 5 months in. Look at
this. George, HW Bush, Bush
forty1, 46%. Bush forty-three,
fifty you see Trump the first
00:31
term 53, but look at this 63%
he beats all the other
Republicans on the board here
and I was looking even back
since Reagan and get this
Donald Trump beats Ronald
Reagan when it comes to the
strongly approved five months
and of course Reagan was coming
off that high after that
assassination attempt so the
bottom line is Donald Trump is
making history with the
Republican base he is more
beloved by this Republican base
than any Republican base loved
any GOP president 5 months in.
It is history making. Even CNN
01:03
is telling the truth. Feels
like hell might be freezing
over.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 Are Trump's approval ratings in the tank? Let's check it out. I mean every politician would like this number here especially to see it go up. How about compared to other presidents who are Republicans? Yeah. It's history making. It's history making. What are we talking about here? So why don't we look back? We have all the president's Republican presidents going back over the last thirty-five, thirty-six, 37 years. What are we talking about? GOP who strongly approved 5 months in. Look at this. George, HW Bush, Bush forty1, 46%. Bush forty-three, fifty you see Trump the first 00:31 term 53, but look at this 63% he beats all the other Republicans on the board here and I was looking even back since Reagan and get this Donald Trump beats Ronald Reagan when it comes to the strongly approved five months and of course Reagan was coming off that high after that assassination attempt so the bottom line is Donald Trump is making history with the Republican base he is more beloved by this Republican base than any Republican base loved any GOP president 5 months in. It is history making. Even CNN 01:03 is telling the truth. Feels like hell might be freezing over.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 Are Trump's approval ratings in the tank? Let's check it out. I mean every politician would like this number here especially to see it go up. How about compared to other presidents who are Republicans? Yeah. It's history making. It's history making. What are we talking about here? So why don't we look back? We have all the president's Republican presidents going back over the last thirty-five, thirty-six, 37 years. What are we talking about? GOP who strongly approved 5 months in. Look at this. George, HW Bush, Bush forty1, 46%. Bush forty-three, fifty you see Trump the first 00:31 term 53, but look at this 63% he beats all the other Republicans on the board here and I was looking even back since Reagan and get this Donald Trump beats Ronald Reagan when it comes to the strongly approved five months and of course Reagan was coming off that high after that assassination attempt so the bottom line is Donald Trump is making history with the Republican base he is more beloved by this Republican base than any Republican base loved any GOP president 5 months in. It is history making. Even CNN 01:03 is telling the truth. Feels like hell might be freezing over.

Aug 4, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
911 was a false flag. For the
first 10 years, I did not think
anything other than the
official narrative then after
being shown a video, a close up
video of building number seven
coming down and that got me
going because it's obvious to
me that building seven was was
a controlled demolition because
the building collapses from the
bottom down. The trade centers
were unique in that they were
designed to withstand the
00:33
impact of a a a jet. From what
I understand the the outer
skeleton of the building. The
outer columns was like a a fish
net and you had these inner
core columns which was
substantial thick steel beams
to withstand four or five times
what the loads were. Got it.
The engineers always over
design a building. No steel
frame building has ever
collapsed before or since 9/
eleven. So that should say
something right there. And it
said that building seven it was
01:05
aggressive collapse that it was
caused by fire but progressive
collapse unlike the twin
towers, the twin towers
collapse from the top down.
That's a progressive collapse.
Sure. Floor by floor by floor.
But if you look at the videos
of building seven collapsing,
it collapses uniformly, it's
collapsing from the bottom, the
building stays intact all the
way to the bottom of the ground
and you could see the sides
caving in on it. For a building
to collapse uniformly which the
video show all the load bearing
it would have to have failed
01:36
simultaneously. Now, fire
doesn't act like that. I came
across an analogy of the twin
towers and if you could
visualize cast iron stoves
stacked. One on top of each
other. The stoves up at the
top. Yes, there's fire and
they've been damaged but the
stoves on the bottom, they
haven't been damaged. Okay. So,
the structure underneath all of
that is intact. So, it's
impossible for a building to
collapse near free fall speed
and increase. Without a
02:07
controlled demolition. You're
running into the path of most
resistance. I something else is
going on. I don't believe that
it was just the planes or the
fires I think that and they
examine the dust and they found
what they call thermitic
material which is like a
explosive incendiary which was
in the dust samples and that's
documented. There were reports
of the buildings were
undergoing a extensive elevator
renovation in the two or three
years prior to all kinds of
02:40
workers they had access to the
the core the cores of the
building and on the day of the
attack the the elevator company
would not assist in the
operations of the elevators and
the elevator company was the
elevator company it
subsequently went out of
business and a couple of years
after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 For all of their strutting about protesting that they support democracy. Not a one of them gave a damn about democracy when they pulled Biden off the ballot and dropped Kamala Harris in without a single Democrat primary voter voting for him. And you know what? Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years. They knew Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was 00:34 mentally not competent to do the job. The White House Press Secretary. She knew when she stood in front of the American people and lied over and over and over again and they're not here because they can't defend themselves. It wasn't a surprise for four years the White House hid President Biden from Republican Senators. Would not let him meet with us. He served 40 years in this body. We all know him. And they deliberately lied and by the way Jake Tapper had a bombshell 01:08 book exposing the incredible scandal that Biden's mental decline was covered up by Jake Tapper. There's a Yiddish word and that truly is how dare we lie and cover up what we all knew. Now I have been asked literally a thousand times by Texans. Was running the country? And I'm going to give 01:40 you the most terrifying answer. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. And not a single Democrat here cares. The most telling proof of Biden's decline came with the signature of the president. The symbol of executive authority that was outsourced to a machine. Mister Wald you're a lawyer who served in the White House Council's Office. You understand the gravity of presidential action. Does the president's signature 02:10 carry legal and constitutional weight under article two? Yes. Is the act of signing an executive order or signing a law or granting a pardon a delegable duty of the president. Uh so in that opinion in 2005 from OLC they said essentially that an autopin could be used by a subordinate but the president's determination as to sign the document can never be delegated. Can that authority 02:41 be transferred to a staff or a machine without the president's explicit authorization? Never. And if you look at the statistics, the statistics are stunning. In 2021, President Biden issued 78 executive orders. None were signed with an auto pen. That first year the presidency, Biden I suppose was relatively lucid and 78 executive orders he signed by hand. The second year, however, we see the auto pen emerged. 03:15 The first auto pen executive order was issued on 15th 2022. After that day 100% of the executive orders issued in 2022 were signed by an autopen. In 2023 Biden issued twenty-four executive orders. 16 were auto penned. In 20twenty-four Biden issued 19. 14 were auto penned. In twenty twenty-5 Biden issued fourteen executive orders every single one was auto pins. 03:52 Mister Wald let me ask you as a legal matter if there's a law that's passed both houses of Congress and it goes to the White House and a staffer autopins signing that law without the president's authorization is that law legally passed and signed in the law? No. If an executive order is issued and a staffer autopins it without the president's authorization, is that executive order legally binding? No. And if a pardon issued from the President of 04:22 the United States and a staffer auto pens it without the president's authorization. Is that pardon legally binding? No. Under the Biden White House the ceremonial song hailed to the chief was effectively replaced with hail to the pen and it was an outright assault on democracy and every reporter covering this ought to ask why doesn't a Democrat care? We heard about the moral responsibilities of a staffer. 04:54 How about an elected senator who knows damn well that if we get into a war and Iran is preparing to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States that the commander in chief is busy playing with his jello and he's not competent to defend ourselves and every member of the cabinet, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the members of Congress who lied about this on a daily basis with the press's complicity. They are all responsible for subverting democracy. Angry Ted Cruz is perhaps my favorite version of 05:27 Ted Cruz because when he's getting history on it, you might want to take a listen. He is definitely angry that there's some acting going on here in the line of hail to the chief change from hail to the pen that's not a smart line but it's still the truth. The truth is in this video right here ladies and gentlemen. The change in the way Joe Biden used the autopin is a steady upward moving graph from twenty twenty-one to the end of his presidency in early twenty 05:58 twenty-five. Okay? That is a noticeable issue. And if he does not directly authorize the autopin we've got We've got grounds to go through every single law Joe Biden has signed that way and perhaps ignore them all together. There's way more evidence behind the autopin theory and hopefully it ends up sticking. I I hope it does because I think this is in a way worse than the Bill Clinton perjury case. Cuz Bill 06:28 Clinton basically lied before Congress lied directly to the American people lied under oath. This is worse in a way. Because lying under oath means that you know where the truth is and you're just hoping to get away with it and there's a direct law. This however Signing with the auto pin is more opaque. It is an ultimate he said she said and you're dont rate the opinion oo just fact if there is

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 For all of their strutting about protesting that they support democracy. Not a one of them gave a damn about democracy when they pulled Biden off the ballot and dropped Kamala Harris in without a single Democrat primary voter voting for him. And you know what? Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years. They knew Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was 00:34 mentally not competent to do the job. The White House Press Secretary. She knew when she stood in front of the American people and lied over and over and over again and they're not here because they can't defend themselves. It wasn't a surprise for four years the White House hid President Biden from Republican Senators. Would not let him meet with us. He served 40 years in this body. We all know him. And they deliberately lied and by the way Jake Tapper had a bombshell 01:08 book exposing the incredible scandal that Biden's mental decline was covered up by Jake Tapper. There's a Yiddish word and that truly is how dare we lie and cover up what we all knew. Now I have been asked literally a thousand times by Texans. Was running the country? And I'm going to give 01:40 you the most terrifying answer. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. And not a single Democrat here cares. The most telling proof of Biden's decline came with the signature of the president. The symbol of executive authority that was outsourced to a machine. Mister Wald you're a lawyer who served in the White House Council's Office. You understand the gravity of presidential action. Does the president's signature 02:10 carry legal and constitutional weight under article two? Yes. Is the act of signing an executive order or signing a law or granting a pardon a delegable duty of the president. Uh so in that opinion in 2005 from OLC they said essentially that an autopin could be used by a subordinate but the president's determination as to sign the document can never be delegated. Can that authority 02:41 be transferred to a staff or a machine without the president's explicit authorization? Never. And if you look at the statistics, the statistics are stunning. In 2021, President Biden issued 78 executive orders. None were signed with an auto pen. That first year the presidency, Biden I suppose was relatively lucid and 78 executive orders he signed by hand. The second year, however, we see the auto pen emerged. 03:15 The first auto pen executive order was issued on 15th 2022. After that day 100% of the executive orders issued in 2022 were signed by an autopen. In 2023 Biden issued twenty-four executive orders. 16 were auto penned. In 20twenty-four Biden issued 19. 14 were auto penned. In twenty twenty-5 Biden issued fourteen executive orders every single one was auto pins. 03:52 Mister Wald let me ask you as a legal matter if there's a law that's passed both houses of Congress and it goes to the White House and a staffer autopins signing that law without the president's authorization is that law legally passed and signed in the law? No. If an executive order is issued and a staffer autopins it without the president's authorization, is that executive order legally binding? No. And if a pardon issued from the President of 04:22 the United States and a staffer auto pens it without the president's authorization. Is that pardon legally binding? No. Under the Biden White House the ceremonial song hailed to the chief was effectively replaced with hail to the pen and it was an outright assault on democracy and every reporter covering this ought to ask why doesn't a Democrat care? We heard about the moral responsibilities of a staffer. 04:54 How about an elected senator who knows damn well that if we get into a war and Iran is preparing to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States that the commander in chief is busy playing with his jello and he's not competent to defend ourselves and every member of the cabinet, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the members of Congress who lied about this on a daily basis with the press's complicity. They are all responsible for subverting democracy. Angry Ted Cruz is perhaps my favorite version of 05:27 Ted Cruz because when he's getting history on it, you might want to take a listen. He is definitely angry that there's some acting going on here in the line of hail to the chief change from hail to the pen that's not a smart line but it's still the truth. The truth is in this video right here ladies and gentlemen. The change in the way Joe Biden used the autopin is a steady upward moving graph from twenty twenty-one to the end of his presidency in early twenty 05:58 twenty-five. Okay? That is a noticeable issue. And if he does not directly authorize the autopin we've got We've got grounds to go through every single law Joe Biden has signed that way and perhaps ignore them all together. There's way more evidence behind the autopin theory and hopefully it ends up sticking. I I hope it does because I think this is in a way worse than the Bill Clinton perjury case. Cuz Bill 06:28 Clinton basically lied before Congress lied directly to the American people lied under oath. This is worse in a way. Because lying under oath means that you know where the truth is and you're just hoping to get away with it and there's a direct law. This however Signing with the auto pin is more opaque. It is an ultimate he said she said and you're dont rate the opinion oo just fact if there is

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Donny’s sent Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to ‘interview’ Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving twenty years in prison for trafficking teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein.

wait, did I say Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche? I should have said Donny’s personal attorney Todd Blanche — because that’s what Todd was before Donny appointed him to the DOJ.

how convenient, to have one’s own personal attorney running interference as the second-in-command at the DOJ.

so Blanche is talking to Maxwell. here’s the adminstration’s official bullshit cover story, as dutifully stenographed by the worthless scribblers of The New York Times.

The interview with Ms. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, is part of the department’s effort to quell criticism that it is concealing details of Mr. Epstein’s crimes and interactions with high-profile figures, including President Trump.

oh, I see — they’re ‘quelling criticism.’ how in the holy name of fuck does that work?

does anyone believe that justice is what this is about? if you do, I have five bankrupt casinos in Atlantic City to sell you.

we all goddamn well know that Blanche is down there offering Ghislaine a deal. it’s probably something like ‘exonerate Donny. tell everyone he did nothing wrong, and Donny will pardon you on the spot.’

you’d be naive to think otherwise. because that’s how the most corrupt administration in the history of corruption rolls.

it’s a fucking cover-up, is what it is.

let’s go to Akaash Singh one more time:

‘they’re hiding something CRAZY.’
Partially True

Fact Check: Donny’s sent Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to ‘interview’ Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving twenty years in prison for trafficking teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. wait, did I say Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche? I should have said Donny’s personal attorney Todd Blanche — because that’s what Todd was before Donny appointed him to the DOJ. how convenient, to have one’s own personal attorney running interference as the second-in-command at the DOJ. so Blanche is talking to Maxwell. here’s the adminstration’s official bullshit cover story, as dutifully stenographed by the worthless scribblers of The New York Times. The interview with Ms. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, is part of the department’s effort to quell criticism that it is concealing details of Mr. Epstein’s crimes and interactions with high-profile figures, including President Trump. oh, I see — they’re ‘quelling criticism.’ how in the holy name of fuck does that work? does anyone believe that justice is what this is about? if you do, I have five bankrupt casinos in Atlantic City to sell you. we all goddamn well know that Blanche is down there offering Ghislaine a deal. it’s probably something like ‘exonerate Donny. tell everyone he did nothing wrong, and Donny will pardon you on the spot.’ you’d be naive to think otherwise. because that’s how the most corrupt administration in the history of corruption rolls. it’s a fucking cover-up, is what it is. let’s go to Akaash Singh one more time: ‘they’re hiding something CRAZY.’

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Donny’s sent Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to ‘interview’ Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving twenty years in prison for trafficking teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. wait, did I say Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche? I should have said Donny’s personal attorney Todd Blanche — because that’s what Todd was before Donny appointed him to the DOJ. how convenient, to have one’s own personal attorney running interference as the second-in-command at the DOJ. so Blanche is talking to Maxwell. here’s the adminstration’s official bullshit cover story, as dutifully stenographed by the worthless scribblers of The New York Times. The interview with Ms. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, is part of the department’s effort to quell criticism that it is concealing details of Mr. Epstein’s crimes and interactions with high-profile figures, including President Trump. oh, I see — they’re ‘quelling criticism.’ how in the holy name of fuck does that work? does anyone believe that justice is what this is about? if you do, I have five bankrupt casinos in Atlantic City to sell you. we all goddamn well know that Blanche is down there offering Ghislaine a deal. it’s probably something like ‘exonerate Donny. tell everyone he did nothing wrong, and Donny will pardon you on the spot.’ you’d be naive to think otherwise. because that’s how the most corrupt administration in the history of corruption rolls. it’s a fucking cover-up, is what it is. let’s go to Akaash Singh one more time: ‘they’re hiding something CRAZY.’

Jul 26, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Nearly 90% of democratic U-turns since 1994 failed to sustain democracy for five years.
Partially True

Fact Check: Nearly 90% of democratic U-turns since 1994 failed to sustain democracy for five years.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Nearly 90% of democratic U-turns since 1994 failed to sustain democracy for five years.

Jul 9, 2025
Read more →