The Talarico campaign is hitting back at the rumor he was in mental health treatment in Ohio while he was missing from the campaign trail.
SCOOP: @nytimes reviewed time-stamped security camera images showing @jamestalarico was, in fact, at his home in Austin on Oct. 1-8. Gift link ➡️ #TXSEN https://t.co/x7Gp1jWTWD
— Bayliss Wagner (@baylisswagner) October 12, 2026
If you log into that story expecting to see footage to prove once and for all Talarico was in his home, don't get your hopes up. Talarico released the footage to the New York Times under the condition they would not share it with the public for 'safety' reasons. They want the public to take their word for it. Ok.
@nytimes @jamestalarico (I would explain why I went to the trouble of writing a story on this, but if you were on this website, you already know.)
— Bayliss Wagner (@baylisswagner) October 12, 2026
Everyone recognizes why Bayliss went to the trouble to write the story. She wants to clean up Talarico's mess. We get it.
It shouldn’t take a fake story about him disappearing to spur journalists to wonder why an otherwise healthy young man actually did disappear for *more days than I’ve been out of commission for childbirth* when he should be working harder than he’s ever worked in his entire life. Off the trail for 9+ days in October is a story. Aren’t y’all who support him the least bit annoyed he’s not mustering some Zoom calls during convalescence? This also sets up a pretty perverse incentive where making up stories about a story that should have already been covered gets you both clicks and the story covered in the NYT! I hate being gaslit by both the mainstream and the people with the fake recording on this.
— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) October 13, 2026
Journalists should have been on the story a long time ago. It shouldn't take 'rumors' on X to make them wonder why a candidate went missing and why he was canceling events.
could have been a look alike. you never know with those soros guys
— Sam Stein (@samstein) October 12, 2026
Congrats to @CarolineWren @nicksortor @RheinAmacher and all the chuds who humiliated themselves with their theories
— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) October 13, 2026
cc @nicksortor now is actually the ideal time to release the video proof you've been promising all day and absolutely kneecap the NYT -- if not now, when?
— Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) October 13, 2026
All the usual suspects are having a great time shaming the people who believed there was more than the 'flu' going on with Talarico.
Again, since the NYT won't share the footage, there are going to be a whole bunch of people who think this is just another example of them protecting a Democrat.
@baylisswagner @nytimes @jamestalarico Was it reviewed by 51 former intelligence agents?
— mmartillo (@mmartillo124027) October 13, 2026
@baylisswagner @nytimes @jamestalarico 🤣🤣 they reviewed the footage. But won’t release the footage to the public?! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
— Brooke (@brookevalley1) October 13, 2026
@baylisswagner @ChrisCillizza @nytimes @jamestalarico You mean the same @nytimes which: Lied about the border being secure Lied about Joe Biden’s Senility. Lied about Hunter Biden’s laptop Lied about COVID. Lied about the Russia Hoax Credibility. Pass it on.
— Camp David (@CampDavidAZ) October 13, 2026
It seems this secret footage is only going to appease the people who always believed the flu story anyway.
At the beginning of Bayliss Wagner’s post, she’s reporting that The New York Times reviewed time-stamped security-camera images of James Talarico. A time stamp alone doesn't establish when an image was actually captured, and even authentic footage places somebody only at a particular location and time but requires further scrutiny. In a court of law, this would never hold up as evidence. The key is understanding exactly what the Times examined and how it authenticated the IMAGES - because this is not FOOTAGE. Here's what the Times actually reported: According to its October 12 article, Republicans Promoted a False Rumor [not yet proven false] That James Talarico Was in Ohio: -The source: Talarico's own campaign supplied the security-camera images. -The dates: The images allegedly showed him at his Austin home between October 1 and October 8. -The RESTRICTION: The campaign provided them on the condition that the Times not publish them. And that last part matters. What is this? Be professional for God‘s sake. The Times says it reviewed the images, but the published account doesn't establish whether its reporters independently verified the original camera system, checked unaltered recordings, or examined metadata. The public is being asked to accept images from a friendly and partisan source that it cannot inspect themselves, supplied by the interested party. I'd be asking the Times one specific question: Did you independently authenticate the original security-camera recordings, or did you simply examine time-stamped images furnished by Talarico's campaign? And where is the evidence you must have diligently made sure you captured of the event. And why weren’t multiple news agencies invited to corroborate?
— Mia Sardinella (@MiaSardinella) October 13, 2026
And so the saga continues.