The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The article is clearly biased against conservative viewpoints and conservative action groups. Either eliminate it or do a lot of work to show a balanced picture. Danleywolfe ( talk) 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is liberal propaganda. I bet if I edit it to be more balanced that I will catch a warning F. L. ( talk) 19:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
WRONG! Tom Fitton is a racist, far right ideologue. I have just received a piece of garbage from him and his deplorable organization. Only his ilk would question a well balanced article like the wikipedia. Try to read articles on his far left counterparts. If anything Wikipedia articles are way too nice to both fringe-end political activists. Read the far left activist Michael Moore's: < /info/en/?search=Michael_Moore>. Communists and nazis should be called what they are. 2601:600:A380:690:48B9:C5A2:FEFB:2935 ( talk) 02:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It's tragic to see how Wikipedia has been ruined by American left wing activist editors. This article is absurd. Nothing but left-wing attacks, backed up by left-wing sources, against Tom Fitton. Not a word about his accomplishments, or the many accomplishments of Judicial Watch. I have mostly given up on Wikipedia myself due to the extreme bias that has evolved since around 2015, after being an editor under multiple aliases for around 20 years. Anyone attempting to comment on or edit politically sensitive articles in a neutral and balanced way these days will be quickly locked out by left wing editors. FindTheBalance ( talk) 22:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
about his accomplishments, or the many accomplishments of Judicial Watchsoibangla ( talk) 23:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Fitton's claims about voter fraud are "alarmist", and should be described as such. Fitton's idiotic claims about climate change amount to a "rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change", and should be described as such. This is consistent with WP:FRINGE where Wikipedia editors should identify fringe theories as such. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
One editor removed PolitiFact's finding that Fitton lied about the Obama administration, opting instead to just leave Fitton's lies standing without any correction. Can the editor explain the thinking behind this edit? [6] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 07:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This article reads less as a bio on Fitton and more like an article on Judicial Watch. That needs to be remedied. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
There is POV edit warring with a hint of WP:OWN going on at this BLP. [7] Looks like it's been going on for a while, same editor. Pinging Meatsgains and FreedomGonzo as having been down this road at this article previously. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 10:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Why does the intro paragraph say that Judicial Watch is a "self-styled" watchdog group?
The WaPo and the Hill have both called JW a watchdog group in print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingle22 ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I also notice that not one example of JW’s successes in exposing govt misconduct is in the article. Very telling https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/tag/success/ F. L. ( talk) 19:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This is very simply. Fitton's claims that there is a coup against Trump are false (per RS). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The claims are not false. The article is biased to say that they are. Editorializing should not be allowed on Wikipedia. This is why you're not credible.-- AnalyticalChick ( talk) 04:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph of the article about Tom Fitton there is a statement regarding the Mueller investigation that "[h]e has falsely claimed that the investigation is a "coup" against US President Donald Trump and called for it to be shut down." The word "falsely" should be omitted because it reflects the author's opinion which is refuted by the following statements:
28 CFR § 600.6 is a regulation which authorizes the attorney general, or in the event of his recusal, the deputy attorney general, to appoint a special prosecutor who can exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any US attorney within the scope of his jurisdiction. After AG Jeff Sessions recused himself DAG Rod Rosenstein appointed SP Robert Mueller to just uncover evidence of President Trump's alleged collusion with the Russians. Mueller, in fact, went way beyond the original scope of his jurisdiction which was to find evidence of collusion, not to investigate an alleged "cover-up."
United States attorneys are principal officers of the federal government and in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Clearly, Mueller and his team of lawyers clear violated 28 CFR § 600.6, and by allowing Mueller to exercise the investigative and prosecutorial powers of a US attorney - see above paragraph's last sentence - Rosenstein and Mueller violated 5 US Code § 1211(b) which states that a special counsel shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
A number of online dictionaries define "coup" as a sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover. Some definitions include the words "illegal" and/or "violent" but it can also be bloodless (see /info/en/?search=Nonviolent_revolution). (I won't get into the legal vs. illegal debate here.) Additionally a coup need not be successful so one can have an "attempted" coup.
Most of the attorneys on Mueller's team were Democrats and many of them contributed money to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Many if not all are partisans and prone to bias against Trump - they simply could not be impartial.
I have read the Mueller report. No evidence of collusion was found and so stated by Mueller. Mueller then went on to say say that although he did not charge Trump he did not exonerate him either. It is not the job of a prosecutor to exonerate anyone - only a court of law can do that. Moreover, Trump cannot defend himself because he cannot cross-examine Mueller as he could do in a court of law. So Mueller's remark was damaging the Trump.
Andrew McCabe, the fired former Deputy Director of the FBI, admitted that he tried to drum up support to sideline Trump using the 25th Amendment. It is not the mandate of the FBI to do such a thing. Some very powerful Democrats in the Democrat-controlled House are calling for Trump's impeachment, which would not remove him but would further damage him in advance of the 2020 election and possibly contributing to his defeat.
All of the above certainly appears to be part of a larger movement to remove a legitimately elected President from office prior to the election of 2020; this amounts to something more than an attempted coup - it can be argued that it is an ongoing attempted coup.
"Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts." -Bernard Baruch-
The author who used the word "falsely" in this article must now admit that the facts are in dispute so he cannot use the word "falsely." So this word must be removed.
Q.E.D. 74.67.47.35 ( talk) 16:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article has a noticable democratic slant...we need to get a rebuttal. 72.168.177.18 ( talk) 19:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
His drumbeat on Fox Lou Dobbs Wikipietime ( talk) 01:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Exert; “ Jenna Ellis, the Trump campaign adviser, reposted a tweet Thursday from Tom Fitton, the president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, in which he asked whether Harris is "ineligible to be Vice President under the U.S. Constitution's 'Citizenship Clause'" and shared an op-ed from John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University, published in Newsweek.” Needs inclusion
Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-vice-president-eligibility-birther-conspiracy-trump-campaign/ Wikipietime ( talk) 02:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Accolades at 2020 Council for National Policy. August 21 2020, cspan Wikipietime ( talk) 16:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Someone tried to add references to the opening paragraph and produced gibberish instead. I have no idea what they were trying to say. They should try again or delete the addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkC162 ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
The opening paragraph makes statements about Mr Fitton via a narrative that seems obviously designed to present him and Judicial Watch in a negative light. The use of absolute statements to describe Fitton are misleading at best.
There seems to be a conscious choice to focus on a a few topics related to Mr Fitton and present this info in way to unfairly paint him as a racist, far right... This is supported by the irresponsible response of one reader who blatantly called Fitton “a racist and far right ideologue”.
This article should be totally removed and rewritten with an effort to be less biased and hyperbolic, and actually share current and legit information about Mr Fitton. His work at Judicial watch is significant and should be included, but presented in a way that is an accurate and balanced account. 2601:681:4B03:7A0:E56E:9141:2E82:1A3E ( talk) 22:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
is this the same Tom Fitton mentioned in recent coverage of the Jan 6 hearings? 166.196.107.57 ( talk) 18:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Fitton was a central figure in the Mar a Lago espionage and document theft case. From NYT:
Suggest a section on Fitton's role in this and other advice to Trump that led to criminal investigations. MBUSHIstory ( talk) 17:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Fitton suggested denying election loss before the election. From Mother Jones -
Suggest new section on Fitton's role in advice to Trump that led to criminal investigations. MBUSHIstory ( talk) 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The article is clearly biased against conservative viewpoints and conservative action groups. Either eliminate it or do a lot of work to show a balanced picture. Danleywolfe ( talk) 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is liberal propaganda. I bet if I edit it to be more balanced that I will catch a warning F. L. ( talk) 19:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
WRONG! Tom Fitton is a racist, far right ideologue. I have just received a piece of garbage from him and his deplorable organization. Only his ilk would question a well balanced article like the wikipedia. Try to read articles on his far left counterparts. If anything Wikipedia articles are way too nice to both fringe-end political activists. Read the far left activist Michael Moore's: < /info/en/?search=Michael_Moore>. Communists and nazis should be called what they are. 2601:600:A380:690:48B9:C5A2:FEFB:2935 ( talk) 02:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It's tragic to see how Wikipedia has been ruined by American left wing activist editors. This article is absurd. Nothing but left-wing attacks, backed up by left-wing sources, against Tom Fitton. Not a word about his accomplishments, or the many accomplishments of Judicial Watch. I have mostly given up on Wikipedia myself due to the extreme bias that has evolved since around 2015, after being an editor under multiple aliases for around 20 years. Anyone attempting to comment on or edit politically sensitive articles in a neutral and balanced way these days will be quickly locked out by left wing editors. FindTheBalance ( talk) 22:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
about his accomplishments, or the many accomplishments of Judicial Watchsoibangla ( talk) 23:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Fitton's claims about voter fraud are "alarmist", and should be described as such. Fitton's idiotic claims about climate change amount to a "rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change", and should be described as such. This is consistent with WP:FRINGE where Wikipedia editors should identify fringe theories as such. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
One editor removed PolitiFact's finding that Fitton lied about the Obama administration, opting instead to just leave Fitton's lies standing without any correction. Can the editor explain the thinking behind this edit? [6] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 07:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This article reads less as a bio on Fitton and more like an article on Judicial Watch. That needs to be remedied. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
There is POV edit warring with a hint of WP:OWN going on at this BLP. [7] Looks like it's been going on for a while, same editor. Pinging Meatsgains and FreedomGonzo as having been down this road at this article previously. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 10:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Why does the intro paragraph say that Judicial Watch is a "self-styled" watchdog group?
The WaPo and the Hill have both called JW a watchdog group in print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingle22 ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I also notice that not one example of JW’s successes in exposing govt misconduct is in the article. Very telling https://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/tag/success/ F. L. ( talk) 19:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This is very simply. Fitton's claims that there is a coup against Trump are false (per RS). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The claims are not false. The article is biased to say that they are. Editorializing should not be allowed on Wikipedia. This is why you're not credible.-- AnalyticalChick ( talk) 04:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph of the article about Tom Fitton there is a statement regarding the Mueller investigation that "[h]e has falsely claimed that the investigation is a "coup" against US President Donald Trump and called for it to be shut down." The word "falsely" should be omitted because it reflects the author's opinion which is refuted by the following statements:
28 CFR § 600.6 is a regulation which authorizes the attorney general, or in the event of his recusal, the deputy attorney general, to appoint a special prosecutor who can exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any US attorney within the scope of his jurisdiction. After AG Jeff Sessions recused himself DAG Rod Rosenstein appointed SP Robert Mueller to just uncover evidence of President Trump's alleged collusion with the Russians. Mueller, in fact, went way beyond the original scope of his jurisdiction which was to find evidence of collusion, not to investigate an alleged "cover-up."
United States attorneys are principal officers of the federal government and in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Clearly, Mueller and his team of lawyers clear violated 28 CFR § 600.6, and by allowing Mueller to exercise the investigative and prosecutorial powers of a US attorney - see above paragraph's last sentence - Rosenstein and Mueller violated 5 US Code § 1211(b) which states that a special counsel shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
A number of online dictionaries define "coup" as a sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover. Some definitions include the words "illegal" and/or "violent" but it can also be bloodless (see /info/en/?search=Nonviolent_revolution). (I won't get into the legal vs. illegal debate here.) Additionally a coup need not be successful so one can have an "attempted" coup.
Most of the attorneys on Mueller's team were Democrats and many of them contributed money to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Many if not all are partisans and prone to bias against Trump - they simply could not be impartial.
I have read the Mueller report. No evidence of collusion was found and so stated by Mueller. Mueller then went on to say say that although he did not charge Trump he did not exonerate him either. It is not the job of a prosecutor to exonerate anyone - only a court of law can do that. Moreover, Trump cannot defend himself because he cannot cross-examine Mueller as he could do in a court of law. So Mueller's remark was damaging the Trump.
Andrew McCabe, the fired former Deputy Director of the FBI, admitted that he tried to drum up support to sideline Trump using the 25th Amendment. It is not the mandate of the FBI to do such a thing. Some very powerful Democrats in the Democrat-controlled House are calling for Trump's impeachment, which would not remove him but would further damage him in advance of the 2020 election and possibly contributing to his defeat.
All of the above certainly appears to be part of a larger movement to remove a legitimately elected President from office prior to the election of 2020; this amounts to something more than an attempted coup - it can be argued that it is an ongoing attempted coup.
"Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts." -Bernard Baruch-
The author who used the word "falsely" in this article must now admit that the facts are in dispute so he cannot use the word "falsely." So this word must be removed.
Q.E.D. 74.67.47.35 ( talk) 16:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article has a noticable democratic slant...we need to get a rebuttal. 72.168.177.18 ( talk) 19:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
His drumbeat on Fox Lou Dobbs Wikipietime ( talk) 01:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Exert; “ Jenna Ellis, the Trump campaign adviser, reposted a tweet Thursday from Tom Fitton, the president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, in which he asked whether Harris is "ineligible to be Vice President under the U.S. Constitution's 'Citizenship Clause'" and shared an op-ed from John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University, published in Newsweek.” Needs inclusion
Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-vice-president-eligibility-birther-conspiracy-trump-campaign/ Wikipietime ( talk) 02:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Accolades at 2020 Council for National Policy. August 21 2020, cspan Wikipietime ( talk) 16:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Someone tried to add references to the opening paragraph and produced gibberish instead. I have no idea what they were trying to say. They should try again or delete the addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkC162 ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
The opening paragraph makes statements about Mr Fitton via a narrative that seems obviously designed to present him and Judicial Watch in a negative light. The use of absolute statements to describe Fitton are misleading at best.
There seems to be a conscious choice to focus on a a few topics related to Mr Fitton and present this info in way to unfairly paint him as a racist, far right... This is supported by the irresponsible response of one reader who blatantly called Fitton “a racist and far right ideologue”.
This article should be totally removed and rewritten with an effort to be less biased and hyperbolic, and actually share current and legit information about Mr Fitton. His work at Judicial watch is significant and should be included, but presented in a way that is an accurate and balanced account. 2601:681:4B03:7A0:E56E:9141:2E82:1A3E ( talk) 22:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
is this the same Tom Fitton mentioned in recent coverage of the Jan 6 hearings? 166.196.107.57 ( talk) 18:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Fitton was a central figure in the Mar a Lago espionage and document theft case. From NYT:
Suggest a section on Fitton's role in this and other advice to Trump that led to criminal investigations. MBUSHIstory ( talk) 17:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Fitton suggested denying election loss before the election. From Mother Jones -
Suggest new section on Fitton's role in advice to Trump that led to criminal investigations. MBUSHIstory ( talk) 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)