One of the better examples - she describes in dizzying detail the Project Veritas sting in MN, whereby they film an individual claiming to know about a cash for votes scheme (edit: more of an illegal ballot harvesting scheme) orchestrated by the Ilhan Omar campaign. She buries you in pages of detail, but somehow, in all that detail, she never even mentions that the subject of that PV video claimed that he was offered $10,000 to say all that, and that the video was edited to make it appear he was saying things he was not.

That is plain vanilla propaganda. She didn’t say one false thing. In fact she told the story in so much detail it makes your eyes water. Detail like that tends to lend an air of credibility. But somehow, in all that detail, not one mention of the subject’s claim about being paid off. That’s a dictionary example of one single detail that changes the entire story.

That’s not Mollie just expressing an opinion, like that she believes the guy lied about the bribe he was offered. She just didn’t mention it at all. That’s Mollie the propagandist. It’s dangerous, because most of those she preaches to take her at her word, as she is kind of the priestess of election fraud fantasies.
[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 01/07/2022 4:02PM]