INGERSOLL: The Latest (And Lamest) Anti-Trump Psyop Collapses
Ingersoll ridicules Slotkin’s participation in the video and argues that she did not identify recent illegal military orders.
SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYThe Daily Caller is an established political news publisher, but this is an openly partisan opinion column rather than independent reporting. The named author and clear column format improve transparency, while the polemical approach and limited sourcing reduce confidence in the publisher for this piece.
- Source type — An established political outlet, but this specific piece is opinion rather than straight reporting.
- Editorial standards — The sharply partisan presentation limits its value as a neutral reporting source.
- Author attribution — The column identifies its author.
The piece identifies the lawmakers’ video and refers to media reports about the boat strike, but relies heavily on the columnist’s assertions and ridicule. It does not provide the video’s full context, detailed evidence about the alleged orders, or substantive responses from the people criticized.
HOW WE SCORE ↗This opinion column is overwhelmingly critical of Kelly and Slotkin and gives no meaningful counterargument or response from them. Its ridicule and dismissive language make the presentation highly one-sided.
- Counterarguments presented — The lawmakers’ rationale is briefly summarized, but their case is not developed and no response is included.
- Loaded language — Repeatedly uses mocking and insulting descriptions of the lawmakers and their message.
- Source diversity — The piece mainly advances the columnist’s interpretation, with few attributed claims from other sources.
The column is strongly pro-Trump and sharply hostile to the Democratic lawmakers. Its insults and repeated dismissal of their message make the partisan framing explicit.
- Language tone — Uses insults such as “dumbest,” “lump,” and “jokers” for the lawmakers and their message.
- Framing — Frames the lawmakers’ video as a reckless anti-Trump operation and treats its premise as baseless.
- Source selection — Presents the columnist’s judgments without a substantive response from the lawmakers or other supporters of the video.
Geoffrey Ingersoll attacks Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin over a video urging service members to refuse illegal orders, arguing they could not identify recent illegal orders. He also dismisses the controversy over a U.S. strike on a Venezuelan boat and connects the debate to an attack on National Guard members in Washington.
Ingersoll mocks Kelly and Slotkin for a video in which they and other veterans and intelligence professionals told military personnel they could refuse illegal orders. He says Kelly and Slotkin could not name recent orders they believed were illegal, and he characterizes Kelly’s suggestion that illegality might be discovered later as a threat of future arrests. Those are Ingersoll’s claims and interpretation.
Ingersoll then discusses reports about a second strike on a Venezuelan drug boat, including conflicting accounts of whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or an admiral gave the order. He argues the legality debate was misplaced, and says the attack on National Guard members in Washington undercut the lawmakers’ message. He also compares the lawmakers’ conduct to Hillary Clinton’s past efforts to challenge a presidency.
Community verdict
8 VOTES
- Readers of left-leaning coverage: not enough votes yet
- Readers of right-leaning coverage: 57% good look
People in this story
SWIPE →Senator and participant in the video urging service members to refuse illegal orders
Senator and participant in the video urging service members to refuse illegal orders
Kelly's version of this story ↗
President whose administration and military action are discussed
Secretary of Defense discussed in conflicting reports about who ordered the second strike
Former president blamed by the columnist for allowing the Afghan man into the country
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…