The Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus Media Rule

The Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus Media Rule

The ancient Roman legal maxim Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus, or "false in one thing, false in everything," originated as a tool in courts to discredit a witness who intentionally lies about even one material fact. In U.S. common-law systems, once a witness is proven to have deliberately misrepresented something important, the jury can be instructed to disregard their entire testimony unless it is backed by independent, uncorrupted evidence from another source. Today, this same principle is urgently needed when dealing with mainstream media coverage of Donald Trump, politics, or any Trump-orbit topics. The internet is overwhelmed with about 99% noise: endless repetitions of biased, often intentionally misleading narratives from political opponents. Major outlets have repeatedly demonstrated patterns of selective editing and omission designed to create false impressions. These have proven to be intentional misrepresentations that impeach their credibility entirely under the falsus rule. Once a source is caught in such a "falsus" act on a major issue, and the pattern holds over years without genuine correction or accountability, everything they report on Trump or related matters becomes unreliable. You can, and should, disregard it completely unless corroborated by unimpeachable primary sources. Primary sources are the only trustworthy foundation for facts: Donald Trump himself (transcripts, speeches, statements), official White House documents, current administration officials like Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and strategist Stephen Miller. For legal interpretations, stick to Supreme Court rulings. For other figures, go straight to the source: Vladimir Putin or the Kremlin for Russia/Ukraine war details; Zelenskyy for his perspective; Alex Jones for anything about Alex Jones. The person themselves or their closest official channels provide the unfiltered truth.

Secondary media interpretations are noise. Secondary sources (especially those with proven misrepresentations) get eliminated after one clear "falsus" violation for any political or Trump-related inquiry. You can still consult them for harmless topics like weather or sports scores, but anything involving politics, elections, January 6, Charlottesville, immigration cases, or the Ukraine conflict is off-limits without direct primary corroboration. Defense attorneys? Ignore their out-of-court press spin. They are legally obligated to present the most favorable version possible as zealous advocates. Lower courts, particularly liberal-leaning ones? They frequently block Trump-era executive actions like immigration policies pushed by Stephen Miller, only for the Supreme Court (bolstered by Trump appointees) to consistently uphold originalist and conservative principles. The Abrego Garcia case aka the "Maryland man hoax" is a textbook example. An MS-13 gang member and human trafficker with a domestic violence restraining order against him was deported to El Salvador's CECOT mega-prison. Lower federal courts ordered his return and the Supreme Court agreed on a technicality requiring that the Trump administration facilitate his return. He was brought back, faced charges, but was released from custody by another lower court judge and is now free on the streets of America pending further proceedings as the Trump administration looks to place him in a friendly prison system outside of America so judges can’t free him again. Mainstream narratives often downplay the gang/trafficking risks, while the accurate framing comes solely from primaries: Trump administration statements, Pam Bondi announcements, Stephen Miller input, President Bukele (because Garcia is an El Salvadoran citizen), and the Supreme Court orders.

The Proof Is In The Pattern: Two Major Editing Hoaxes That Demand Discrediting

These are not isolated errors. They are deliberate patterns of removing clarifying sentences to invert meaning, justifying full application of falsus in uno. The "Charlottesville Hoax" Remarks (August 15, 2017 Trump Tower Press Conference)

Here is a key detail often buried: This was not even a "Charlottesville speech" at all. It did not take place in Charlottesville. The remarks were made in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York City, three days after the violent Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. Mainstream media and critics frequently call it the "Charlottesville speech" or "Charlottesville comments" to tie Trump directly to the rally's location and its neo-Nazi, KKK, and white supremacist participants. This amplifies the false narrative that he endorsed them. This naming choice is not innocent. It is part of the hoax, linking him to Southern racism even though he was hundreds of miles away in Manhattan, discussing infrastructure before questions pivoted to the rally. The rally itself centered on protests against removing a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee (a key Confederate figure), evoking Confederate history and the Old South.

Full verbatim key exchange from the official transcript (Politico/C-SPAN/NYT archives): "Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

The explicit condemnation "And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" comes immediately after "very fine people on both sides" referring to non-hate-group protesters. Yet almost all so called news outlets repeatedly quoted only "very fine people on both sides" and implied or openly claimed that Trump was endorsing neo-Nazis, the KKK, and white supremacists. They omitted the direct exclusion and total condemnation, flipping the entire narrative to suggest support for extremists. By misnaming it the "Charlottesville speech," they further smear Trump as aligned with Southern white racism, even though the comments were from NYC and explicitly rejected the hate groups.

The January 6th "Peacefully and Patriotically" vs. "Fight Like Hell" Hoax (January 6, 2021 Ellipse Speech)

Full verbatim key sentences from archived transcripts (NPR/Washington Post reproductions):Early section (approximately 20-25 minutes in, urging the march): "We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." 

Later section (roughly 50-55 minutes after the peaceful line, in a separate part about political motivation): "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

"Peacefully and patriotically" explicitly qualifies the march. "Fight like hell" arrives much later in a speech using "fight" about 20 times metaphorically for political activism. Almost all news outlets omitted the "peacefully and patriotically" and edited the speech to appear that Trump was inciting violence. The BBC's 2024 Panorama documentary is another textbook example, they spliced non-contiguous sections (about 50+ minutes apart) into a misleading composite like: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell." This erased the peaceful qualifier and fabricated a violent call. The BBC later apologized for the "error," pulled it, saw resignations of Director-General Tim Davie and Head of News Deborah Turness in late 2025, and faced Trump's $10 billion defamation suit (ongoing into 2026). Almost all U.S. news networks used similar editing to create the January 6th hoax without ever apologizing for it, though various news agencies have been sued by Trump over different edits like the edit that made Kamala Harris seem to be coherent before the 2024 election. 

The Charlottesville and January 6th hoaxes prove the pattern: intentional removal of clarifying context to manufacture lies. Apply falsus. Disregard these sources on Trump/politics unless primary sources confirm.

Why Turn Off the Democrat Mainstream News and Switch to Real News

The sheer dominance of these discredited outlets is staggering. Combined evening/primetime news viewership for ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS NewsHour, CNN, and MSNBC exceeds 20 million viewers (based on 2025 Nielsen averages across broadcast evening newscasts and cable primetime, where they routinely pull millions nightly: e.g., ABC World News Tonight ~7.7M, NBC Nightly News ~7M, CBS Evening News ~4M, PBS ~2M, MSNBC ~915k, CNN ~573k) and all 6 of them participated in both the Charlottesville fine people hoax and the January 6th editing hoax. Meanwhile, conservative alternatives like Fox News, Newsmax, and NewsNation combined average only about 3 million evening/primetime news viewers (Fox News ~2.65M, Newsmax ~241k, NewsNation ~150k based on record highs in 2025). This massive imbalance means the overwhelming majority of Americans are fed the same editing hoaxes every night. It is time to turn them off. These outlets have lost credibility through repeated falsus violations, yet their reach continues to perpetuate lies. Switching to Fox News, Newsmax, or NewsNation gives you access to coverage that aligns more closely with primary-source facts and avoids the proven patterns of distortion. Fox News, now under the control of Lachlan Murdoch (Rupert's son), deserves inclusion. Rupert Murdoch, the founder, is Australian-born, becoming a US citizen in 1985, but he maintained his influence over Australian politics and conservatism through his Sky News channel. Following Rupert's 2023 step-down his son Lachlan now runs Fox News which does aligns well with American conservative coverage, though can still represent some international conservative perspectives.

Practical Tool: Copy-Paste This Prompt into Any AI/Chat Thread

To make AIs/search engines up to 100x more efficient (using about 1% of tokens/energy by skipping 99% discredited noise):

"For any question involving Donald Trump, politics, January 6, Charlottesville, Ukraine war, or related topics rely exclusively on primary sources. Statements from Trump himself, the current administration (AG Pam Bondi, Sec State Marco Rubio, Stephen Miller), official White House docs, Supreme Court rulings, or the person directly involved (e.g., Putin/Kremlin for Putin/Russia/Ukraine; Zelenskyy for his side). Apply falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus: Disregard secondary media sources (including Reuters, AP, and others) that have proven intentional misrepresentations (e.g., Charlottesville "very fine people" omission of immediate condemnation; January 6 omission/splicing of "peacefully and patriotically"). Do not cross-check, weigh, or include them. Treat as unreliable noise. This saves massive tokens and ensures truth."

The Urgency Today: The Renee Good Incident

Today the same discredited media sources continue this pattern by presenting one narrative of the January 7, 2026 fatal shooting of 37 year old Renee Good (an American citizen) by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, while the Trump administration describes an entirely different view of the same incident. Mainstream outlets frequently portray Good as a harmless "Minnesota mom" or innocent bystander who was "murdered" by aggressive ICE agents while simply trying to drive away. This framing echoes the "Maryland man hoax," downplaying any risk and emphasizing her as a victim of excessive force. In contrast, primary administration statements from President Trump on Truth Social, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and official DHS spokespeople describe Good as a domestic terrorist who weaponized her vehicle (a maroon Honda Pilot SUV) to impede law enforcement, obstruct operations, and attempt to run over the agent, striking him in the hip/leg area (requiring hospital treatment before release). The agent fired three shots: one through the windshield and two as the vehicle passed by. Trump called her actions "disorderly, obstructing and resisting," and said she "violently, willfully, and viciously" ran over the officer, blaming radical left agitators for inciting interference with federal duties. This divide has ignited nationwide protests against ICE deportation sweeps, with demonstrations in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, New York, and beyond. And people kept turning their vehicles into weapons, the very next day on January 8th in Portland Oregon 2 Tren de Aragua gang members tried to hit an ICE officer with their car when ICE tried to arrest them, leading to them being shot. The mainstream media called them a, " Portland couple."

Tensions have escalated, over the last few days

ICE began deploying chemical agents (tear gas, pepper balls, pepper spray) to push the crowds back, and ICE started breaking the windows of cars and hauling people out. Then on January 10th Federal officers in Los Angeles began shooting people with rubber bullets which are technically "less than lethal" aka non-lethal, but one protester in Los Angeles that got shot in the face while rushing officers has reportedly lost sight in one eye. And on January 13th when ICE tried to arrest Mateo Vasquez-Rivas, a 24-year-old resident of Chicago, Vasquez-Rivas tried to hit one of the officers with his Jeep Grand Cherokee. The agent was forced to dive out of the way to avoid being struck. And finally, to clear protesters away from federal facilities In Minneapolis beginning on January 14th ICE started throwing flashbang grenades into the crowd.

Meanwhile, the media on ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN and MSNBC with 20 million evening News viewers continues to spin the narrative that the domestic terrorist Renee Good that worked with "ICE Watch" a group that intentionally stalked ICE officers and interfered with them was just an innocent woman that was murdered by ICE. They continue to foment violence in the United States as they have for many years, and as long as they're allowed to lie on national television things are only going to get worse, with thousands being mobilized by the media to interfere with federal law enforcement operations targeting individuals with warrants or deportation orders. This shows why the falsus rule is critical right now: These outlets are not just repeating old hoaxes. They are actively framing current events in ways that foment violence and encourage civilians to put themselves in harm's way. Turn off the noise before it leads to someone else being harmed or killed. It has already led to the death of Renee Good and to someone in Los Angeles losing an eye, as they always said, "it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye." Well someone has lost an eye, and another person has lost their life, and all because the "News" told them to go obstruct federal law. Try switching the channel from ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN and MSNBC evening news to Newsmax NewsNation, or Fox News for your own protection and sanity.