Conservative 
Search
Trending
Current News
We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.
Ana Navarro made a bizarre claim to support her widely mocked claim that that a fictional relative of Woodrow Wilson was pardoned in the wake of the Hunter Biden scandal.
On Monday, Dec. 2, Navarro posted on X outlining her support for the President’s decision. “Woodrow Wilson pardoned his brother-in-law, Hunter deButts. Bill Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger. Donald Trump pardoned his daughter’s father-in-law, Charlie Kushner. And just appointed him Ambassador to France. But tell me again how Joe Biden ‘is setting precedent’?” she wrote on the site, accompanied by two laughing emojis.
The name Hunter deButts sounds made up – though there actually are people named that – but her claim was 100% made up. Woodrow Wilson did not have a brother named Hunter deButts.
Additionally, Clinton’s pardon of his brother Roger was in January 2001 – for a 1985 cocaine possession and drug-trafficking conviction that he had already served time in federal prison for.
Notably, liberal pundit and Occupy Democrats editor Grant Stern made similarly dubious claims without bothering to do even a quick Google search.
Responses were spectacular, with some sharing clips of Navarro previously praising Biden for his initial reluctance to pardon his son. The goalposts certainly have been moved.
The backlash clearly irked the broadcaster, who, some 22 hours later, posted “evidence” of her claims with a screenshot of ChatGPT – admitting that she asked the AI platform for help and then copy and pasted from it without checking whether or not the claims were true.
As the community note highlighted, “ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) are prone to “hallucinating” details, wherein false or misleading information is presented as fact. Given the unreliability of LLMs, they should not be relied on for fact-checking.”
for example, disgraced lawyer Michael Cohen was caught relying on AI in a court case because the program cited fictional cases in a filing submitted to a judge.
This “evidence” also surprised many who responded accordingly.
Others called Navarro’s fact-checking “lazy”.
