ProPublica's Susan Collins Bribery Story Relies on Discredited Sources and Reflects Anti-Republican Bias
Source: Brianna Lyman. "Discredited Activists At ProPublica Concoct Susan Collins Hit Piece." September 23, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that ProPublica's story accusing Senator Susan Collins of a bribery scheme shouldn't be believed because it relies on a convicted felon looking to reduce his prison sentence and an FBI agent with a history of pursuing Republicans. She also points out that ProPublica has a track record of biased, sometimes inaccurate reporting on conservatives, which she says further undermines the story's credibility.
Conclusion
ProPublica's story alleging Sen. Susan Collins engaged in a pay-to-play bribery scheme is not credible and should be dismissed as a politically motivated hit piece.
Premises
- The story's central allegations come from Martin Kao, a convicted felon (guilty of money laundering, wire fraud, bank fraud, and FEC violations) who had strong incentive to shift blame to reduce his prison sentence
- ProPublica itself acknowledged Kao had 'credibility issues' as a felon trying to avoid a lengthy sentence, yet still built the story around his claims
- The story also relies on former FBI agent Kevin Gounaud, who has a documented history of targeting Republicans, including seeking assignment to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and later recommending a criminal probe of Elon Musk
- The Biden-era FBI investigated the allegations and no one from Collins' team was charged, and Collins' office states her campaign was never even the target of the investigation
- ProPublica has a demonstrated pattern of publishing biased anti-Republican pieces, including flawed reporting on Clarence Thomas (omitting favorable facts) and a retracted false story about Pete Hegseth's West Point acceptance
- The investigators 'zeroed in' on Collins despite Kao allegedly having dealings with over a dozen members of Congress, suggesting selective targeting of a Republican
Assumptions
- A source's criminal record or personal motive to reduce punishment automatically disqualifies their testimony from being credible or worth investigating
- A journalist's or investigator's past involvement in Republican-related investigations (e.g., Crossfire Hurricane) proves bias rather than legitimate professional assignment
- An organization's past reporting errors or perceived ideological bias in other stories necessarily means a new, factually distinct story is also false
- The absence of criminal charges definitively proves innocence or the absence of wrongdoing
- Timing of the story relative to the midterms implies political motivation rather than coincidental publication timing