2025 U.S. - Venezuela conflict

[Altair]

Gonna be very interesting seeing what comes out of House and Senate Armed Services Committees on this. They should be able to get the full imagery, audio, logs, who ordered what, how, etc.

This is the president who pardoned blackwater guards for the Nisour Square killings.

The only thing that's interesting is how fast the pardons get issued.

 

[brihard]

This is the president who pardoned blackwater guards for the Nisour Square killings.

The only thing that's interesting is how fast the pardons get issued.

I recognize the likely inevitability of that. It will still be good to see whatever shred of accountability this administration is capable of.

Those responsible may also have limited their options for international travel post-office.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Only the best people.

That chopper is fucked. Along with the turtle.

A prediction?

 

[Czech_pivo]

I recognize the likely inevitability of that. It will still be good to see whatever shred of accountability this administration is capable of.

Those responsible may also have limited their options for international travel post-office.

Maybe, hopefully.
The US did allow both Putin and Bibi into their country without being bundled off to Den Hague.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

He's not been found guilty yet. Nor do we have all the facts. Speculation and innuendo are not reasonable doubt or absolute truth. We should put the torches and pitchforks away until the story develops further.

 

[brihard]

He's not been found guilty yet. Nor do we have all the facts. Speculation and innuendo are not reasonable doubt or absolute truth. We should put the torches and pitchforks away until the story develops further.

I’m taking WaPo’s reporting at face value. They’re solid and have broken a number of stories from inside the pentagon in the past year that proved accurate. Much of this story is already admitted or corroborated. They’re a hell of a lot more credible than the current administration. The White House spokeswoman today admitted, after explicit denials by DoD, that the bulk of the substance of the second strike allegations and simply tried to claim it was legal. We have numerous lawyers offering informed input on the legality of such a strike. We have the early resignation of the SOUTHCOM commander. We have several members of committees who have access to classified reports urging US s vice members to disobey illegal orders just weeks after this. We have the video of the first strike where the target bot was very clearly dead and burning. We have bipartisan support from the armed services committees of both houses of Congress for getting to the bottom of this.

We have enough audible quacking and visibly waddling waterfowl to say there’s a duck here. Who, specifically, individually ordered what and is accountable for what remains to be seen, but every credible interpretation at this point is that there has been a crime of some sort committed.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I’m taking WaPo’s reporting at face value. They’re solid and have broken a number of stories from inside the pentagon in the past year that proved accurate. Much of this story is already admitted or corroborated. They’re a hell of a lot more credible than the current administration. The White House spokeswoman today admitted, after explicit denials by DoD, that the bulk of the substance of the second strike allegations and simply tried to claim it was legal. We have numerous lawyers offering informed input on the legality of such a strike. We have the early resignation of the SOUTHCOM commander. We have several members of committees who have access to classified reports urging US s vice members to disobey illegal orders just weeks after this. We have the video of the first strike where the target bot was very clearly dead and burning. We have bipartisan support from the armed services committees of both houses of Congress for getting to the bottom of this.

We have enough audible quacking and visibly waddling waterfowl to say there’s a duck here. Who, specifically, individually ordered what and is accountable for what remains to be seen, but every credible interpretation at this point is that there has been a crime of some sort committed.

I'll stick with my distrust of the MSM. The 'Seditious 6', in my mind, are not credible. They are just democrats with a soapbox that, like most democrats, despise the fact that Trump was elected by a majority of Americans.

I remember people siding with the biden administration, swearing up and down, based on media reports that the Mar-a-Lago raid was 100% legal and warranted. That Trump had met his Waterloo. That there was so much he did illegally, it was a slam dunk. We know now it was vindictive, wrought with illegalities and nothing more than a blatant attempt to stop Trump running for a second term. Smith turned out to be crooked as a dogs leg. The same can be said for Bragg, James and Willis. Soros syncophants who had their markers called in and told to drum up charges. There were lots of people counting ducks on that one also.

CNN, as much as they can be believed, have reported a 43% approval rating for Trump. The highest this century. Eclipsing Bush and Obama with there 30+%.

If Hegseth is guilty, I'm sure he'll be dealt with. I can't even imagine that the House will allow Articles of Impeachment to go forward against Trump.

Time will tell though. There are enough high level democrats, in and out of government, that see their future in prison stripes. Given what they've tried in the past, and failed, nothing should be seen as to radical or illegal enough to stop them from using it against Trump.

I just can't get wrapped around the axle with speculation. No matter how excited and convinced others are in there hopes to see the Trump administration dismantled.

 

[brihard]

I'll stick with my distrust of the MSM. The 'Seditious 6', in my mind, are not credible. They are just democrats with a soapbox that, like most democrats, despise the fact that Trump was elected by a majority of Americans.

I remember people siding with the biden administration, swearing up and down, based on media reports that the Mar-a-Lago raid was 100% legal and warranted. That Trump had met his Waterloo. That there was so much he did illegally, it was a slam dunk. We know now it was vindictive, wrought with illegalities and nothing more than a blatant attempt to stop Trump running for a second term. Smith turned out to be crooked as a dogs leg. The same can be said for Bragg, James and Willis. Soros syncophants who had their markers called in and told to drum up charges. There were lots of people counting ducks on that one also.

CNN, as much as they can be believed, have reported a 43% approval rating for Trump. The highest this century. Eclipsing Bush and Obama with there 30+%.

If Hegseth is guilty, I'm sure he'll be dealt with. I can't even imagine that the House will allow Articles of Impeachment to go forward against Trump.

Time will tell though. There are enough high level democrats, in and out of government, that see their future in prison stripes. Given what they've tried in the past, and failed, nothing should be seen as to radical or illegal enough to stop them from using it against Trump.

I just can't get wrapped around the axle with speculation. No matter how excited and convinced others are in there hopes to see the Trump administration dismantled.

The White House literally said it happened and claimed it was legal. Not sure what else to tell you.

 

[Lumber]

We know now it was vindictive, wrought with illegalities and nothing more than a blatant attempt to stop Trump running for a second term.

Jesus Christ, did you even just browse the indictment? Or the DOJ also part of your vindictive "seditious 6" willing to just make up evidence?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I'll stick with my distrust of the MSM. The 'Seditious 6', in my mind, are not credible. They are just democrats with a soapbox that, like most democrats, despise the fact that Trump was elected by a majority of Americans.

I remember people siding with the biden administration, swearing up and down, based on media reports that the Mar-a-Lago raid was 100% legal and warranted. That Trump had met his Waterloo. That there was so much he did illegally, it was a slam dunk. We know now it was vindictive, wrought with illegalities and nothing more than a blatant attempt to stop Trump running for a second term. Smith turned out to be crooked as a dogs leg. The same can be said for Bragg, James and Willis. Soros syncophants who had their markers called in and told to drum up charges. There were lots of people counting ducks on that one also.

CNN, as much as they can be believed, have reported a 43% approval rating for Trump. The highest this century. Eclipsing Bush and Obama with there 30+%.

If Hegseth is guilty, I'm sure he'll be dealt with. I can't even imagine that the House will allow Articles of Impeachment to go forward against Trump.

Time will tell though. There are enough high level democrats, in and out of government, that see their future in prison stripes. Given what they've tried in the past, and failed, nothing should be seen as to radical or illegal enough to stop them from using it against Trump.

I just can't get wrapped around the axle with speculation. No matter how excited and convinced others are in there hopes to see the Trump administration dismantled.

The “Seditious 6” merely reminded US Armed Service members where they swore allegiance (to the Constitution) and that manifestly unlawful orders are not to be carried out (well, no shit).

That isn’t sedition, that is an annual refresher on the LOAC.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I’m taking WaPo’s reporting at face value. They’re solid and have broken a number of stories from inside the pentagon in the past year that proved accurate.

Some may beg to differ. We know that MSM doesn’t make corrections unless someone notices the falsehoods. Then they bury in the back section of the Sunday addition.
[/QUOTE]



GROK -
How many times has the Washington Post had to make corrections or retractions based on false information they published about Trump and his administration from 2015 until today.

Searching the web

37 results

Searching on X

34 results

Overview - Quantifying the exact number of corrections or retractions by The Washington Post (WaPo) for false information about Donald Trump and his administration from 2015 to December 1, 2025, remains imprecise due to WaPo's lack of a comprehensive, searchable public archive dedicated to such errors. WaPo's corrections policy requires updates for factual inaccuracies, but these are often appended quietly to articles or listed on a general corrections page without thematic categorization. Based on cross-referenced reporting from media watchdogs, conservative outlets (e.g., Fox News, Heritage Foundation), neutral fact-checkers (e.g., Poynter), and recent White House critiques under Trump's second term, there have been at least 35 documented instances of significant corrections, retractions, or editor's notes tied to Trump-related stories. This count emphasizes cases where WaPo explicitly admitted errors due to unverified or false information, resulting in changes to headlines, text, or content removal.This tally excludes WaPo's own fact-checks of Trump's statements (e.g., their database of over 30,000 false or misleading claims by Trump during his first term) and focuses on WaPo's reporting errors. It also omits minor clarifications or opinion pieces. The number likely undercounts minor updates, as some (e.g., in 2025) are disputed by the White House as "bias" rather than outright falsehoods. Post-2021 corrections surged with investigations like the Durham Report, while 2025 saw new scrutiny amid Trump's return to office, including a White House "Media Offenders" tracker listing WaPo as the top offender for alleged inaccuracies.Key Themes in CorrectionsCorrections peaked during Trump's first term (2017–2021) amid Russia probes and election controversies, with a resurgence in 2025 tied to policy and foreign affairs reporting. Below is a breakdown:Theme
Approximate Count
Examples
Russia Collusion / Steele Dossier
18+ (including cascading updates)
In December 2021, WaPo retracted large sections of two major articles (2017 and 2019) falsely identifying Sergei Millian as a Steele dossier source on Trump-Russia ties, admitting the paper could "no longer stand by the accuracy." This led to editor's notes in 14+ related stories, e.g., "Trump’s First 100 Days: An investigation" and "All the known times the Trump campaign met with Russians." Earlier (2017): Retracted a story claiming Russia hacked Vermont's electric grid (no penetration occurred).

sharylattkisson.com +2

Election Interference (e.g., Georgia Calls)
3–4 (direct; influenced impeachment coverage)
March 2021: 129-word correction to a January story misquoting Trump as telling investigator Frances Watson to "find the fraud" and she'd be a "national hero" (based on faulty anonymous source Jordan Fuchs). Headline and text updated after audio release; Democrats cited it in impeachment docs.

thehill.com +4

2025: White House flagged WaPo story on dropped Georgia charges as misleading.

washingtonpost.com

FBI / Investigations & Whistleblowers
3
May 2021: Retracted (with NYT/NBC) claim that FBI warned Rudy Giuliani about Russian disinformation in 2019 (sources incorrect). 2023: Corrected story on FBI whistleblower Stephen Friend's Trump ties. 2019: Retracted email story implying Trump Jr. had advance WikiLeaks notice (date wrong; led to CNN resignations but WaPo also updated).

sharylattkisson.com +2

COVID-19 & Health Policy
2
2021: Corrected multiple pieces dismissing Wuhan lab-leak as "debunked conspiracy" after evidence emerged. 2020: Updated Hunter Biden laptop coverage as "not Russian disinformation" after initial skepticism.

@GeralynSculley

Immigration / Policy & Foreign Affairs
4+
2025: WaPo corrected story on Trump-Putin call misstating territorial demands in Ukraine (offered exchange, not surrender).

@officialrnintel

October 2025: Retracted claim DHS used misleading old footage for immigration ops success.

washingtonpost.com

2018: Freelance piece on tax cuts had 15 errors, including family impact misattributions. 2017: Corrected DNI threat to quit over whistleblower (false per Maguire).

sharylattkisson.com

November 2025: Flagged for false Coast Guard "hate symbols" policy shift (reversed after publication).

Other (e.g., Jobs Data, Misc.)
5+
2017: Multiple corrections in "first 100 days" database for inflated jobs claims (e.g., counting pre-inauguration data).

washingtonpost.com

2019: Retracted Russian investment fund ties story (echoed CNN). 2025: Corrected BLS jobs report revisions as "normal" not fraud.

@blameebner

2018: Misreported Ivanka as "wife" in graphic.

sharylattkisson.com

Context and Broader ImpactScale and Timing: Most (25+) occurred 2017–2021, often 1–3 years post-publication, triggered by leaks, audits, or reports (e.g., Durham on Russia origins). 2025 added ~5–7 amid Trump's second term, per White House tracker (WaPo tops "Hall of Shame" 0with 10+ flagged stories on immigration, Ukraine, and "illegal orders").

dw.com +3

No full retractions (story withdrawals) since 2017; most are updates/notes.
Why the Exact Number is Elusive: WaPo's corrections page lists ~600–700 annually (higher than NYT's ~200), but not Trump-specific.

@GeralynSculley

Critics like Sharyl Attkisson tally "dozens" for WaPo alone in her 2025 "Media Errors" list.

sharylattkisson.com

X discussions highlight Georgia/Steele as "hoaxes."

Stakeholder Perspectives:Conservative View (e.g., Fox, Heritage): Errors like Georgia fueled "anti-Trump hysteria," influencing impeachments and eroding trust; anonymous sources (often officials) created "deep-fake" narratives.

heritage.org +4

Liberal/Mainstream View (e.g., Poynter, WaPo op-eds): Shows accountability; errors rarely altered "core facts" (e.g., Trump still pressured officials, just misquoted).

washingtonpost.com +3

WaPo's Trump fact-checks (30k+) outweigh its mistakes.
Neutral Analysis: 2021 Intercept report noted WaPo profited from viral false stories before quiet fixes, amplifying temporary misinformation. 2025 White House tracker escalates tensions but includes non-falsities (e.g., "bias").

thehill.com +1

These errors underscore journalism's pitfalls with leaks in polarized eras, but WaPo's post-2021 transparency (e.g., faster updates) has improved. For specifics on 2025 cases or deeper archives, WaPo's site or FOIA could yield more.

34 posts

37 web pages

The White House literally said it happened and claimed it was legal. Not sure what else to tell you.

There's nothing there to tell me. You're just regurgitating information, that you've read or heard that fits your bias. I never denied it happened. Is it legal? I don’t know. That is the stuff I want to see and hear before I start tying a hangmans noose. The best place to do that is watching the televised Committee Hearings. Not from newspapers, The View or the plethora of democrats that can get themselves on Kimmel or Colbert. That's where I am on it. I never did an investigation based soley on rumour, speculation, innuendo or second hand info. You need to interview the principles. And no, Im not telling you how to suck eggs

We have numerous lawyers.........
We have the early resignation ..........
We have several members of committees.........
We have the video .........
We have bipartisan support ...........
We have enough audible quacking .............

I have to wonder, are all those We's a Royal We?