Total posts: 8,696
Posted in:
Only a post-Trump Republican could mistake a chant of "Fuck Joe BIden" for a political argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the 3.5 trillion is in addition to a separate infrastructure bill.
That's wrong- $2 trillion for American Jobs Plan (infrastructure) + $1.5 trillion for American Family Plan (most of which is probably already cut) =$3.5 trillion
The majority of the $3.5 trillion is the infrastructure bill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Don't believe the hype.
- Do you realize that the House just passed a budget bill that is twice as large as the American Job Plan and the American Family Plan put together? It's true.
- The Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, authorizing a total of $768 billion Defense spending next year passed Sept 24th on a 316-113 vote.
- Even if Biden got his full $3.5 trillion for both bills under consideration (currently its looking like about $2 trillion will pass) that amount is budgeted over ten years or $350 billion/year or 45% of the Defense Bill. At $2 trillion, it 26%.
- The Defense Bill is incredibly wasteful and corrupt. Billions are still being pumped into the F-35 program although we don't really need a gigantic jet fighter that is much slower than anything China is flying. Billions are still being pumped into Zumwalt destroyers although the Navy now admits it doesn't really need giant artilleries to bombard coastlines anymore. Huge amounts of this budget go straight into Republican pockets.
- Worst of all, this budget adds to the US debt and deficit. But passage of this bill barely made the news.
- The biggest line item in Biden's bill is replacing lead pipes across the country.
- There is NO universal childcare
- There is $200 billion in child care tax credits
- There is NO universal housing
- There is $200 billion for 2 million more units of public housing ($100,000 per house)
- There is NO universal tuition
- There is $200 billion in tax credits for all kids to attend nursery school (pre-K)
- There is $300 billion in grants and tax credits for high-schoolers to go to 2 yr Community college or trade schools
- (Personally, I think Google and Amazon should be footing this bill since corporations are howling about how inadequately trained the workforce is)
- There is a plan for universal broadband internet access.
- There is NO universal healthcare
- There is $200 in tax credits and subsidies to increase paid family leave and medical leave.
- Unlike the much more expensive Defense bill, these bills contain their own payment plans and do not add to the US debt or deficit to any substantial degree.
- They do significantly increase taxes on large corporation and the 1%.
- Trump and Republicans added $16 Trillion (by 2026) to the National Debt, doubling the size of our debt in 4 short years with not a single, solitary, god-damned improvement for the American people to show for all of that money. Most of that money was spent on the pandemic, the military, and outright graft. Republicans actually pulled $2 trillion out of spending on health, education, and familycare- creating the present crisis in unavailable workers.
- The GOP pisses away $16 trillion in four years and the media says nothing. Biden wants to recover a little of what has been taken from us, less than a quarter of what Trump threw away, and we have Democrats complaining about radical spending. Fuck that.
- By Biden's account, the Progressives are unhappy at how little we are doing to recover but they support the Democratic Party and are on board. Don't blame the Progressives, they are going along with the moderates.
- Now we are just trying to figure out what is motivating Sinema and Manchin in the hopes that they will help pass this bill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I don't like to cite CNN but I do agree with Brian Stelter's claims from a few months back that there is little daylight between the false claims of Alex Jones (who now stands destroyed by the malicious lies he told) and Tucker Carlson (the most popular source for television news today).
Is Carlson vulnerable to the same destruction by simply forcing him to admit under oath that he makes up fake news for money and power, as Alex Jones has done?
Carlson has recently argued in court and a Judge has agreed that Tucker is not stating actual facts engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' The Judge wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
Which rather begs the question, why do Trumpists rely on getting their facts from a source that denies any responsibility for telling the truth or accountability for his failure to tell the truth when he stands before a judge? Isn't it pretty clear that Trumpists know they are being lied to and wouldn't have it any other way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Anyhoo… yes, multiple fatalities at that event,
Which invalidates your OP
If not for Babbitt’s tragic death, our media would not be able to describe that occurrence as “the DEADLY January 6th capitol riot.”
Whether we're using my dictionary definition of DEADLY or your non-dictionary definition.
but only one *directly* caused by the event itself,
Another goalpost shift:
P1: One can't call an occurrence DEADLY unless that occurrence was the direct cause of death
P2: Ashli Babbitt was the only person to have died on Jan 6th whose death was directly caused by the event itself
C1: Therefore, if not for Babbitt one could not describe Jan 6th as DEADLY
But now P1 and P2 are both quite false. Mental illness is seldom the direct cause of death but few would argue that depression or sociopathy aren't therefore DEADLY conditions. Nor was Ashli Babbitt's death the only one directly caused by the rioting.
- The DC Coroner noted that five hours of mob violence and at least two bear spray attacks played a role in Officer Brian Sicknick's massive stroke less than 8 hours later.
- We can't know the degree to which the rioting prevented effective medical response to two heart attacks and one drug overdose but the coroner certainly noted the riots as the cause for the 90 minute delay between Roseanne Boyland's collapse and her arrival in an ER.
- At least four suicides by police officers in the aftermath seem directly precipitated by the attack.
- In the months after the civil disturbance at the Capitol, it was generally reported that the deaths of five people who were present have, to a varying degree, been related to the event. Some members of Congress and press reports included these two [the first two police suicides] in the number of fatalities, for a total of seven
and it was one of the rioters, not one of the people being… eh, rioted against?
Working pretty hard for a euphemism there. Try the United States Congress sitting in Joint Session by Constitutional mandate and the US Govt's duly appointed protective services. Those were the people Republicans were assaulting on Jan 6.
So, to put it a different way: the January 6 riot WAS deadly… to the rioters!
Rioters, Congressman, Police Officers. Seditionists specifically threatened to hang Mike Pence and put a bullet in Pelosi's head on live TV which meets the Wiktionary definition of DEADLY, "Aiming or willing to destroy; implacable; desperately hostile" as well as Mirriam-Webster's " very likely to cause death" distinction.
Remember the story that day about the policeman getting beaten with the fire extinguisher? Yes, it was an awful story. Good thing it wasn’t awfully true!
Retired firefighter Robert Sanford assaulted three police officer with a fire extinguisher on Jan 6th. Here is video of that assault:
We know that one victim of the assault was Ofc. WIlliam Young. We know that Brian Sicknick was part of Young's contingent of 22 CHP deployed to the lower West stairs but nobody has established whether Sicknick was one of the two other officers hit by that particular fire extinguisher. We know that the Coroner says that whether or not Sicknick was hit by an extinguisher that day, there was no indication of a blunt injury severe enough to by itself precipitate a stroke 8 hours later.
We know that Robert Palmer has been indicted in part for throwing the same fire extinguisher twice at the phalanx of CHP guarding the Inauguration Door. Here is a news report showing one of those attacks on video:
We know that Matthew Miller has been indicted for assault with a fire extinguisher during the same attack on the Inauguration Door.
We know that many other fire extinguishers were discharged based on the extent of residue found throughout the Capitol, including sprayed on famous public works of art.
It is awfully, very true that multiple policemen were getting beaten by many fire extinguishers on Jan 6.
Our objective media really ran with that one didn’t they? Funny how they didn’t do their due diligence until after they repeated that rumor daily. Hmm… it’s almost as if our trusty, objective media is trying to reenforce some sort of bigger narrative… it is to ponder…
The Wall Street Journal was the first to report that Sicknick was one of the many police officers assaulted by fire extinguishers on Jan 6. That report relied on the testimony of two Capitol Hill police who were part of Sicknick's 22 man cohort guarding the lower western stairs. No evidence has disproven the claim and the Wall St. Journal has not retracted the report. Certainly, we have good documentation of at least 3 assaults by fire extinguisher on Sicknick's group of 22 officers so the officers' testimony seems very possible if not downright likely. Sicknick did not mention a fire extinguisher when reporting his injuries to his brother just minutes before he collapsed that night. Whether or not Sicknick was hit by a fire extinguisher, blunt force trauma does not seem to be a primary factor in Sicknick's death.
The WSJ is generally recognized as a conservative newspaper with a fairly good record for reliability and fact-checking. You are accusing WSJ of failing to do due diligence but have not explained in what respect. It was and remains true that at least two CHP officers told the WSJ that Sicknick was assaulted by a fire extinguisher at some point on Jan 6. That claim appears to be at least very possibly true and no evidence has disproved the claim.
Created:
Posted in:
WiKiPEDiA:
Republican Representative Markwayne Mullin said he witnessed the shooting; he felt that Lt. Byrd "didn't have a choice" but to shoot, and that this action "saved people's lives". According to Mullin, at the time, law enforcement was trying to "defend two fronts" to the House Chamber from the "mob", and "a lot of members [of Congress] and staff that were in danger at the time". Capitol Police officers had been warned that many attackers were carrying concealed weapons, although a subsequent search revealed no weapons in Babbitt's possession. Following the routine process for shootings by Capitol Police officers, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and the Justice Department investigated Babbitt's death and declined to charge Byrd with shooting her. The Capitol Police additionally said they would not discipline the lieutenant, whose action they deemed "lawful and within Department policy." The shooting was recorded on several cameras, and footage was widely circulated. Babbitt has been called a martyr by some far-right extremists who view her as a freedom fighter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
If not for Babbitt’s tragic death, our media would not be able to describe that occurrence as “the DEADLY January 6th capitol riot.” Well, they would still be able to, but not without issuing a retraction later near the back page…
Your argument appears to be:
P1: One can't call an occurrence DEADLY unless a person dies
P2: Ashli Babbitt was the only person to have died on Jan 6th
C1: Therefore, if not for Babbitt one could not describe Jan 6th as DEADLY
You have conceded P2. I have asked for a source on P1 but I think its safe to say your conclusion's already done.
Now you are arguing HOMICIDE as a condition for P2 but that makes your P1 obviously untrue:
P1: One can't call an occurrence DEADLY unless there's homicide
P2: Ashli Babbitt was the only homicide on Jan 6th
C1: Therefore, if not for Babbitt one could not describe Jan 6th as DEADLY
P1 is manifestly false. When a car goes off a cliff, that can always be called a DEADLY accident but it is not always (not even generally) homicide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
-->@oromagiNo, I’m afraid you’re equivocating there.
Equivocating means using ambiguous terminology. I have done the opposite of equivocating by providing you with a dictionary definition of the word (Wiktionary, to be specific).
“Deadly” as applied to an event (as in this case) means someone died during the event (or later died from injuries sustained at the event, if one wants to be super duper technical about it, as so many debaters seem to be).
Please provide at least one lexiconic or stylebook source to support your claim, as I have done.
- Mirriam-Webster advises:
- DEADLY, MORTAL, and FATAL mean causing or capable of causing death. DEADLY is used of something that is certain or very likely to cause death. The mushroom contains a deadly poison. MORTAL is used of something that already has caused death or is about to cause death. He received a mortal wound in battle. FATAL is used when death is certain to follow. The wounds proved to be fatal.
- Since 4 people died at the event and one person stroked out after being injured on the day and at least 3 suicides are attributed to the events of Jan 6, you seem to have invalidated your original statement anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@cristo71More cops were injured in the Lafayette square riots.
READERS are urged to recall that Greyparrot has demanded a safe space in which to post his Orwellian lies and Russian propaganda free from any correction or contradiction by me.
At the request of Mods, I am not a liberty to correct obvious falsehoods even when they directly address my topics until Greyparrot grows a dick big enough to debate a topic without resort to deceptive tactics and abuse of our community's Code of Conduct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
If not for Babbitt’s tragic death, our media would not be able to describe that occurrence as “the DEADLY January 6th capitol riot.” Well, they would still be able to, but not without issuing a retraction later near the back page…
- DEADLY means "Aiming or willing to destroy; implacable; desperately hostile."
- deadly enemies
- Even before people died, a well-armed mob chanting "hang MIke Pence" was DEADLY, by definition.
- So far, the DoJ has charged 51 seditionists with 103 counts of use of a deadly weapon or possession of a DEADLY weapon while committing a felony.
- 2 Seditionists died from heart attacks
- Rosanne Boyland died from a drug overdose during the battle to breach the Inauguration Door. Even just watching from 32:00-35:00 demonstrates just how DEADLY that attack was:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
There is a relatively recent improvement available that allows you to edit forum titles for I think 30 mins after post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Biden Admin halts deportations of all illegals except criminals. A bunch of new workers for the staffing shortages? Am I missing something? It seems like a good thing to me.This is a big country, we have room.
Certainly the tightened restrictions on both legal and illegal immigration over the past twenty years coupled with the pandemic have demonstrated that there are a lot of jobs that Americans don't do/ won't do anymore. Whole industries are collapsing for want of illegal workers.
We are a nation of, by, and for immigrants- the most diverse nation on Earth and the most prosperous because of that diversity.
I don't argue that we should therefore simply employ untracked immigrants illegally- quite the opposite. I think the North American trading block should be expanded to include labor and that immigration should be controlled by all three countries at the limits of North America. Mexicans and Canadians should be permitted to legally work and reside in the US, pay taxes, access healthcare, education, etc without changing their citizenship. Americans can likewise seek long term employment in Mexico or Canada without changing citizenship. All three nations share the security of North America. Overland immigration is checked at the short, easy to secure Southern Border of Mexico and three navies secure overseas immigration.
I would like to see more immigration to the US but on a less egalitarian standard. We should set the standard high and according to the short term needs of business. If we need more nurses, gardeners, and civil engineers then we prioritize those skill sets in immigration. I think we should worry less about setting quotas by nation and concentrate on filling gaps in the labor market, although keeping immediate families together is a priority. To this end, big business should be doing most of the recruiting and sponsorship of immigrants.
As has always been true in the US, illegal immigration can be halted at any time simply be locking up the employers who pay the table rather than the employees who receive under the table payments. The employers are the ones breaking the laws their business depends on while employees are desperate. Ultimately, illegal immigration is a phony problem that can be solved tomorrow by going to the source of the crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
-->@cristo71But turning that on its head: why do you think that the success is inspite of victimization - rather than the success being because of the very thing those doing the victimizing are claiming?
- Strong familial obligations- immediate and extended
- Lots of ritual. I don't argue that the rituals themselves are all that important but obedient practice ensures that the same groups of people are in the same places at the same time- reinforcing community and providing lots of time to discuss community building - marriages, who needs a job, who needs to be cautioned, etc.
- Strong organizing institutions
- Strong sense of destiny in both time and place
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Thriller,
Season 1 of True Detective
psychologicals like death note,
Mind Hunter, Watchmen
sci-fi,
Firefly, Picard
action,
The Last Kingdom, Game of Thrones
mystery
Twin Peaks, Season 1 of True Detective
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
-->@drlebronskiJust binged The Expanse.If you liked the first couple of series of Battlestar Galactica, you’ll love the expanse.
Agree. I am a big fan of The Expanse- the characters are great, densely motivated and conflicted the science of spaceflight and lo-grav living are explored in all kinds of interesting details. The stakes are incredibly high but reasonably plausible. The cinematography is rich and not afraid to pause on the beauty of a special effect.
Good recommendation.
Created:
All that said, even if some active FBI agents are discovered to have been a part of the storming of the Capitol, I don't see that as evidence that the FBI was actively colluding with the Trump Administration to overturn the election results and install Trump as an unconstitutional leader. Whatever the degree of Trump support within the FBI rank and file, I am convinced that FBI leadership mostly considers Trump an agent of Putin and other organized crime organizations.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
-->@oromagiwould you like to debate whether undercover officers were in the crowd? A live debate?
There's a wide gap of difference between FBI collusion with the Seditionists (as havoc claimed the other day, prompting this post) and FBI undercover "in the crowd."
There is also a wide gap of difference between FBI undercovers "in the crowd" and FBI undercovers "in the Capitol."
- The FBI is an inherently conservative organization by nature. I know from personal experience that the GOP has been actively recruiting and encouraging loyal Republicans for jobs in the FBI for at least twenty years, probably since its founding. I am 100% confident that there were some to many FBI agents who attended the "Stop the Steal" Rally out of purely political conviction.
- I would not be at all surprised to learn that there were some agents attending the rally in some undercover capacity- monitoring and gathering intel on the multiple terrorist orgs openly attending the rally.
- I know for certain that there were many FBI informants in the crowd. That is the FBI's m.o., bribing or plea bargaining cooperation within the leadership ranks of many radicalized organizations. We only get bits and pieces of present activity but we can study FBI tactics in the 50's-70's pretty thoroughly now and can see how the FBI had placements everywhere.
But Trumpism is not Conservatism and assaulting the seat of government is not attending a rally.
- If any active FBI agents entered the Capitol on their own accord or undercover, we will certainly learn this. Better than 15% of all seditionists indicted so far are active members of the military or law enforcement so I would not be too surprised to hear of an active FBI agent in the Capitol. However, the FBI has had a lot of time with the evidence and I assume the faces of everybody who entered the Capitol, if not every identity and the FBI is well motivated to out any direct connections with the seditionists early on, before such a claim arises in court.
- I know of at least 3 individuals who are reported to be FBI informants and entered the Capitol on Jan 6th. I know BLM considers John Sullivan, the guy who filmed Ashli Babbit's death, a police informant based on his conduct during riots in Portland.
So,
FBI informants in the crowd of 20-30,000 at the rally? Definitely.
FBI informants in the crowd of < 10,000 outside the Capitol? Definitely.
FBI informants in the crowd of ~1500 that broke into the Capitol and attacked Federal police officers? Definitely.
FBI agents in the crowd at the rally? Definitely.
FBI agents in the crowd outside the Capitol? Probably.
FBI agents in the crowd that broke into the Capitol and attacked Federal police officers? Possibly but far less likely and rapidly diminishing in likelihood as court cases proceed with no such claim by the FBI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
watched it. I'd give it a solid 7/10.
I would characterize Squid Game as near-future Korean remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory with ultra-violence instead of candy.
Created:
Posted in:
Monty Python's Flying Circus
You Are There with Walter Cronkite
Firing Line
The Good Life
The Good Place
The Wire
Breaking Bad
Star Trek
Star Trek, the Next Generation
The Mandalorian
Game of Thrones
The Walking Dead
Deadwood
BBC Television Shakespeare
Brent Sadler live from Tikrit Apr 13, 2003
Arsenio Hall - LA Riots Episode - April 30, 1992
Created:
Posted in:
I would not pretend to even rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics but the argument strikes me as an effective rebuttal to determinism.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Let's note that when Robert Mueller asked five questions regarding Trump's collaboration with Putin to win the American Presidency in 2016, Trump, who took months and six lawyers to compose his response, answered "I don't recall" 36 times and forgot to answer the fifth question entirely. That question was,
Following the Obama Administration’s imposition of sanctions on Russia in December 2016 (“Russia sanctions”), did you discuss with Lieutenant General (LTG) Michael Flynn, K.T. McFarland, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Jared Kushner, Erik Prince, or anyone else associated with the transition what should be communicated to the Russian government regarding the sanctions?
Let's assume Trump's lawyers correctly advised that there was no way for Trump to answer this question without breaking many laws.
Again, which President would you rather have not recalling shit?
A President who says he does not recall once to protect the reputation of his generals? or
A President who says he does not recall 36 times to conceal his entanglements with foreign enemies?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
MATTHEW 7:2-5
As rarely ever happens, we have an opportunity to compare and contrast the leadership of two different American Presidents in very similar circumstance.
TRUMP
- TRUMP committed the US and signed into international law an agreement to withdraw from five military bases including Bagram no later than July 14, 2020.
- TRUMP committed the US and signed into international law an agreement to withdraw all troops, "The United States, its allies, and the Coalition" no later than April 30, 2021.
- On Nov 11th, the day after Trump was officially advised that he had lost the election fair and square and all further agitation towards discrediting the election was unlawful, Trump ordered a massive stand-down of US forces. Specifically, in writing, Trump ordered all US forces out of Afghanistan no later than Jan 15, 2021
- Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told reporters his response to the order was "What the fuck is this?"
- News of the memo spread quickly throughout the Pentagon. Top military brass, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, were appalled. This was not the way to conduct policy — with no consultation, no input, no process for gaming out consequences or offering alternatives.
A call was quickly placed to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. In turn, Cipollone notified the national security adviser, Robert O'Brien. Neither Cipollone nor O'Brien had any idea what the order was or where it had come from.
Neither did the office of the staff secretary — whose job it was to vet all the paper that reached the president's desk. Yet the paper bore Trump's distinctive Sharpie signature.
The U.S. government's top national security leaders soon realized they were dealing with an off-the-books operation by the commander in chief himself.
- Miller and the Pentagon publicly expressed their concern regarding the feasibility and legality of executing such a reckless order when the President was clearly emotionally unstable and erratic.
- Miller told associates he had three goals for the final weeks of the Trump administration:
- #1: No major war.
- #2: No military coup.
- #3: No troops fighting citizens on the streets.
- Miller and the Pentagon conspired to ignore the direct order from their Commander-in-Chief
BIDEN
- One of the first actions Biden took in office was to contact the Taliban and advise that Trump was badly behind schedule on the promised April 30 withdrawal.
- The Taliban agreed to push the withdrawal to Aug 31 but stated clearly that any US troops in Afghanistan after Aug 31 would be a violation of the peace agreement and a renewed declaration of war.
Transcript: Hearing to Receive Testimony on the Conclusion of Military Operations in Afghanistan and Plans for Future Counterterrorism Operations (Round 1 of Questioning)
United States Senate Committee on Armed Services
Tuesday, September 28, 2021 Senator Warren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
United States Senate Committee on Armed Services
Tuesday, September 28, 2021 Senator Warren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So I want to begin by zooming out, because it is not possible to understand our final months in Afghanistan without viewing them in the context of the 20 years that led up to them. Anyone who says the last few months were a failure but everything before that was great, clearly hasn’t been paying attention.
In 2015, the Taliban conquered its first province since 2001. By October 2018, the Afghan government controlled only 54% of the 407 districts. And by May 2020, the Afghan government controlled less than a third of Afghan’s 407 districts. We poured money and support and air cover, and the Afghan government continued to fail.
By 2021, it was clear that 2,500 troops could not successfully prop up a government that had been losing ground and support to the Taliban for years.
Secretary Austin, I understand that you advised President Biden to stay in Afghanistan. But, as you acknowledge, staying or withdrawing is a decision for the President alone. So I want to focus on what happened next. Once President Biden made the decision to have U.S. forces leave the country, who designed the evacuation?
Secretary Austin: Well, Senator, again, I won’t address what I advised, but the advice I gave to the President. I would just say that in his calculus, this was not risk-free, and the Taliban, as we've said earlier in this hearing, were committed to recommencing their operations against our forces. His assessment was that in order to sustain that and continue to do things that benefitted the Afghans that would require at some point that he increase the presence -- our presence -- there in Afghanistan. So once he made the decision, then of course, from a military perspective -- in terms of the retrograde of the people and the equipment -- that was, that planning was done by Central Command, and certainly, principally, by General Miller. Very detailed planning. And then, we came back and briefed the entire inner agency on the details of that plan.
Senator Warren: Okay. So the military planned the evacuation. Did President Biden follow your advice on executing on the evacuation plan?
Secretary Austin: He did.
Senator Warren: Did President Biden give you all the resources that you needed?
Secretary Austin: From my view, he did.
Senator Warren: Did President Biden ignore your advice on the evacuation at any point?
Secretary Austin: No, Senator. He did not.
Sen Warren: Did he refuse any requests for anything that you needed or asked for?
Secretary Austin: No.
Senator Warren: So the President followed the advice of his military advisors in planning and executing this withdrawal. As we’ve already established, the seeds for our failure in Afghanistan were planted many, many years ago, so let me ask you one more question, Secretary Austin. Knowing what you know now, if we had stayed in Afghanistan for another year, would it have made a fundamental difference?
Secretary Austin: Again, it depends on what size you remain in at and what your objectives are. There are a range of possibilities, but if you stayed there at force posture of 2,500, certainly, you'd be in a fight with the Taliban. And you'd have to reinforce yourself.
Senator Warren: I appreciate you looking at it as a fighter, but I would also add one more year of propping up a corrupt government and an army that wouldn't fight on its own was not going to give us a different outcome. And anyone who thinks differently is either fooling himself or trying to fool the rest of us.
I believe President Biden had it exactly right: Withdrawing was long overdue. The withdrawal was conducted in accordance with the advice of his military advisors, who planned and executed every step of this withdrawal.
########
To be clear, any and all commanders recommending in January 2021 that the US maintain a rump force or hold onto Bagram understood that they were recommending a renewal of hostilities in Afghanistan and a violation of the international Treaty Trump had signed a year earlier. Biden wisely refused to break faith with NATO and persist in the the longest war in US history without any realistic future hope of strategic or diplomatic advantage to the US.
When Biden says "I don't recall," we should correctly interpret that remark as an attempt to protect the reputation of certain incompetent warmongers pontificating from the Pentagon.
Now ask of yourself- which of these is the more effective Commander-in-Chief?
A commander that orders an immediate withdrawal without any logistic or political consultation and who is so afraid to stake his reputation on the order that the military can confidently and effectively ignore that direct order?
or
A commander who says "I've bought you a little extra time since you got nothing done all last year but I need you to make speed now and withdraw by Aug 31. What do you need from me?" And the order is obeyed?
Created:
Threat Warnings
One other argument made by House Republicans to assign culpability for the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol to Pelosi is the claim that she ignored intelligence warnings in December.
McCarthy: “On Jan. 6, these brave officers were put into a vulnerable and impossible position because the leadership at the top has failed. Dec. 14, the leadership knew there was a problem.”
Stefanik then made clear to whom Republicans were referring when they said “leadership.”
“It is a fact that in December of 2020, Nancy Pelosi was made aware of potential security threats to the Capitol, and she failed to act,” Stefanik said. “It is a fact that the U.S. Capitol Police raised concerns and, rather than providing them with the support and resources they needed and they deserved, she prioritized her partisan political optics over their safety.
“The American people deserve to know the truth that Nancy Pelosi bears responsibility as speaker of the House for the tragedy that occurred on Jan. 6, and it was only after Republicans started asking these important questions that she refused to seat them,” Stefanik said.
As the Senate investigative report indicated, “Internal records and USCP officials’ testimony confirm that USCP began gathering information about events planned for January 6 in mid-December 2020. Through open source collection, tips from the public, and other sources, USCP IICD [Capitol Police’s lead intelligence component—the Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division] knew about social media posts calling for violence at the Capitol on January 6, including a plot to breach the Capitol, the online sharing of maps of the Capitol Complex’s tunnel systems, and other specific threats of violence.”
But there was no indication that that intelligence was shared with Pelosi. In fact, the report states, “IICD did not convey the full scope of known information to USCP leadership, rank-and-file officers, or law enforcement partners.”
Pelosi’s spokesman, Hammill, told us, “There was no such briefing in which the Speaker participated.”
The Senate report also says the IICD’s intelligence reports prior to Jan. 6 were “inconsistent” and “contradictory.”
“For example,” the report states, “although a January 3 Special Event Assessment warned of the Capitol being a target of armed violence on January 6, IICD’s daily intelligence reports rated the likelihood of civil disturbance on January 6 as ‘remote’ to ‘improbable.'”
In testimony before the Senate on Feb. 23, Irving said that based on intelligence they received, they expected something similar to previous MAGA rallies.
“Every Capitol Police daily intelligence report between Jan. 4 and Jan. 6, including on Jan. 6, forecast the chance of civil disobedience or arrests during the protests as remote to improbable,” Irving said. “Based on the intelligence, we all believed that the plan met the threat and that we were prepared. We now know that we had the wrong plan.”
In his testimony, Sund said, “We properly planned for a mass demonstration with possible violence. What we got was a military-style, coordinated assault on my officers and a violent takeover of the Capitol building.”
The bipartisan Senate committee found plenty of blame to go around: everything from intelligence, communication and planning failures to lapses in law enforcement leadership and inadequate equipment. Nowhere in the report does it suggest Pelosi bore any culpability for the failures that day.
As we have said, Pelosi has indirect authority over the Capitol Police Board that oversees security of the Capitol. She appoints one of three members, the House sergeant at arms, a man who was initially appointed by a Republican and who was unanimously approved by the House for nearly a decade. And holding Pelosi to that standard of accountability, McConnell would then be as culpable as Pelosi, but Republicans have made no mention of that.
Also, Republican leaders have offered only speculation in claiming that the National Guard was not deployed earlier because Pelosi expressed concerns to Irving about “optics” in light of Black Lives Matter protests last summer. Pelosi’s spokesman denies it, and Irving contradicted it in his Senate testimony.
Created:
‘Optics’
At the press conference on July 27, Jordan read from a Feb. 27 story in the conservative news outlet the Daily Caller: “Pelosi’s office had previously impressed upon Irving that the National Guard was to remain off Capitol Grounds, Irving allegedly told House Admin. The discussions, which centered around ‘optics,’ allegedly occurred in the months prior to the Jan. 6 riot, during a time when deployment of federal resources for civil unrest was unpopular with Democrats and many members of Congress.”
“Why were the Democrats so concerned about the optics?” Jordan asked. “It’s all driven by what happened last summer [during protests after a white police officer murdered George Floyd, a Black man], where Democrats normalized anarchy, normalized political violence, raised bail for the very rioters and looters who destroyed small businesses, attacked innocent civilians and maybe most importantly attacked police officers.”
But this is speculation. There is no evidence available to the public that Pelosi had conversations with Irving about not involving the National Guard on Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, or in the months prior, due to “optics.” We asked Pelosi’s spokesman, Hammill, whether Pelosi ever had such conversations with Irving, and he said, “No.” He referred us to a series of fact-checking articles that concluded Pelosi did not stop the National Guard from deploying.
According to Sund, the “optics” concern was raised by Irving on Jan. 4. But during testimony before the Senate in February, Irving said that comment was being mischaracterized. He said the Jan. 4 request for additional National Guard troops “would have been to work traffic control near the Capitol.”
“My use of the word optics has been mischaracterized in the media,” Irving said. “Let me be clear, optics, as portrayed in the media, played no role whatsoever in my decisions about security, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. Safety was always paramount when making security plans for Jan. 6. We did discuss whether the intelligence warranted having troops at the Capitol. That was the issue. And the collective judgment at that time was no, the intelligence did not warrant that.”
Later in the hearing, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley again asked Irving if he was concerned that having the National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6 “would look like it was too militarized” or about “the criticism of the guard being deployed in Washington during rioting earlier this summer–summer of 2020.”
“Senator, I was not concerned about appearance whatsoever,” Irving said. “It was all about safety and security. Any reference would have been related to appropriate use of force, display of force, and ultimately the question on the table when we look at any security asset is — does the intelligence warrant it? Does the security plan match with the intelligence? And again, the collective answer was yes.”
A Passed Note
At the House Republican press conference on July 27, McCarthy and Rep. Rodney Davis raised the issue of a note from Irving that was passed to Pelosi on the House floor on the afternoon of Jan. 6, asking permission to bring in the National Guard. Davis argued it was evidence Pelosi was “calling the shots on all of their actions on Jan. 6.”
“Why was the speaker’s permission even needed?” Davis asked.
Hammill confirmed that Irving sought out Pelosi for permission to seek support from the National Guard.
“At approximately 1:40 p.m., SAA Irving approached Chief of Staff Terri McCullough and other Speaker’s staff in the Speaker’s Lobby behind the House Chamber,” Hammill told us in an email. “He asked about permission to seek support from the National Guard. Ms. McCullough immediately entered the Chamber and passed a note to the Speaker who [was] presiding in the House Chamber at approximately 1:43 p.m. Ms. McCullough was on the rostrum briefly to present this request.
“The Speaker approved the request and asked if McConnell’s approval was also needed. Ms. McCullough said yes. The Speaker instructed Ms. McCullough to seek McConnell approval. Ms. McCullough left the Chamber to call Senator McConnell’s Chief of Staff and was not successful in reaching her. Ms. McCullough then spoke to SAA Irving by phone to relay the Speaker’s decision. SAA Irving explained that he and the Senate SAA were already meeting with Senator McConnell staff. Ms. McCullough then joined that meeting in the Senate SAA’s office where she reiterated the Speaker’s approval for seeking immediate National Guard support.”
McCarthy said he found it telling that Irving felt the need to get Pelosi’s approval.
“Why would a sergeant of arms, when you have an insurrection going on or protests out here, you’ve got a line being broken and you’re the sergeant of arms, why would your first response be ‘I gotta send a note to the speaker to see if it’s okay if I could do my job to protect the men and women on the line’?” McCarthy asked. “Why would that be your first reaction? Why?”
We asked Hammill whether permission from Pelosi was necessary.
“As we have said many times, the Speaker expects security professionals to make security decisions and to be briefed about those decisions,” Hammill said.
In any case, minutes after getting the OK from Pelosi and McConnell, Sund was on the phone at 1:49 p.m. with the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard requesting the immediate assistance of the guard. However, it took three more hours for the first National Guard members to arrive to assist at the Capitol, as the request needed the approval of Department of Defense leaders, and the force needed time to assemble and prepare.
Withheld Documents
Jordan and other Republicans speculated — despite Pelosi’s spokesman denying it — that Pelosi may have had discussions with Irving prior to Jan. 6 discouraging the deployment of the National Guard on Capitol property, and that emails or other communication records held by the House sergeant at arms might prove that.
Banks claimed Pelosi withheld documents from the Senate committee that looked into the security response to the Jan. 6 attack. Banks then speculated that it was because Pelosi “was involved and the lack of leadership and the breakdown of security that occurred in January 6th.”
Banks, July 25: The Homeland Security and the Rules Committee jointly published a report that came out in June, and it talked about the systemic failure of leadership and the — and the — and a breakdown of security on January. We — we know that a number of documents from the speaker’s office were submitted for that report, but there are also a number of documents that they refused to release, that the speaker’s office refused to release for that investigation that still — still sit on the computers in the speaker’s — speaker’s office that we should be demanding to take a look at as well. And the reason I can only speculate as to why they don’t want those documents to be released, because it — it — it — at the end of the day, it — it shows that — that the speaker was involved and the lack of leadership and the breakdown of security that occurred in Jan. 6.
Pelosi’s spokesman, Hammill, said: “Congressman Banks is making that up. There were no documents requested from the Office of the Speaker by the Senate investigation.”
Indeed, records from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs show that Pelosi’s office was not among the 22 agencies the committee requested information from.
The Senate report on the Jan. 6 attack noted, however, that the office of House sergeant at arms “did not comply with the Committees’ information requests.”
Mitchell Hailstone, a spokesman for Banks, clarified that that’s what Banks was referring to.
“There are documents on staff computers in offices controlled by the Speaker of the House, including documents belonging to the then-Sergeant at Arms that were requested by the Committee on House Administration after the attack on the 6th, that have not been turned over,” Hailstone told us via email. “These are documents on staff computers that the speaker’s office has the ability to turn over or not. They have not been made public.”
A spokesman for Democrats on the Senate committee, however, said the office of the House sergeant at arms responded to the Senate committee that because it is a House entity, the Senate did not have jurisdiction over the office. The aide said there was no indication that this position was taken at Pelosi’s direction.
At the Republican press conference on July 27, Davis said that at Pelosi’s direction, the House sergeant at arms also denied a “House administration official request to preserve documents and communications.”
“We don’t have the details … or conversations leading up to the 6th because, under the speaker’s direction, the sergeant at arms has denied our House administration official request to preserve documents and communications,” Davis said. “What are they hiding? What is the speaker hiding?”
But the Democrats on the House Administration Committee provided us a letter, dated Feb. 1, from the chief administrative officer of the House and Timothy Blodgett, the acting House sergeant at arms, to Davis denying his request for data but assuring that they were “taking appropriate steps within our authority, as requested by data owners, or as requested by law enforcement to preserve information and data related to the attack on the Capitol.”
The Democrats also provided us with an email sent Jan. 12 by Blodgett to all House sergeant at arms staff directing them to preserve all records related to Jan. 6.
Created:
REPUBLICAN's SHAKY, NO-EVIDENCE ATTEMPT to CAST BLAME on PELOSI for JAN. 6
House Republicans have sought to change the narrative on the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by pro-Trump protesters, claiming that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “ultimately responsible for the breakdown of security at the Capitol.”
But their arguments overstate the role of the House speaker in overseeing the security of the Capitol and rely on speculation about Pelosi’s involvement and knowledge about intelligence warnings for which they have not provided any proof.
- Republican Rep. Jim Banks said that Pelosi, as speaker, “has more control and authority and responsibility over the leadership of the Capitol Police than anyone else in the United States Capitol” and therefore, “is ultimately responsible for the breakdown of security at the Capitol that happened on Jan. 6.” The speaker does not oversee security of the U.S. Capitol. The speaker appoints one member of a four-member board that oversees Capitol security, and who then must be approved by the House.
- House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggested Pelosi played a role in denying efforts prior to Jan. 6 to bolster security on the Capitol grounds with members of the National Guard. There is no evidence of that.
- Banks accused Pelosi of withholding documents from the bipartisan Senate committee that investigated security and planning issues related to the Jan. 6 riot. Banks speculated that’s because the documents may show “the speaker was involved and the lack of leadership and the breakdown of security that occurred on Jan. 6th.” The Senate committee never requested any documents from the speaker’s office, though the House sergeant at arms “did not comply with the Committees’ information requests,” according to the Senate report.
- Rep. Rodney Davis pointed to the fact that on the afternoon of Jan. 6, the House sergeant at arms sought Pelosi’s permission to bring in the National Guard as evidence that Pelosi was “calling the shots on all of their actions on Jan. 6.” A Pelosi aide confirms the request was made, though he says Pelosi “expects security professionals to make security decisions” and that Pelosi only expects “to be briefed about those decisions.” In any event, the request also went to then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as well as to Department of Defense leadership.
- GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik said Pelosi “failed to act” on intelligence reports in December about potential security threats and therefore “Nancy Pelosi bears responsibility as speaker of the House for the tragedy that occurred on Jan. 6.” There is no evidence that Pelosi was privy to those intelligence reports.
Banks appeared on “Fox News Sunday” four days after Pelosi rejected Banks and Rep. Jim Jordan from serving on the select committee that will investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. Banks and Jordan both voted to object to the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. In a statement, Pelosi said she had “concern about statements made and actions taken” by Banks and Jordan that she felt would compromise “the integrity of the investigation.”
Overseeing the Capitol Police
Banks contends that Pelosi left him off the committee because he was “prepared to ask questions” about “a systemic breakdown of security at the Capitol on Jan. 6,” for which he says Pelosi was “ultimately responsible.”
Banks, July 25: Once you go up the — to the top of the flagpole of who is in charge of the Capitol Police, who the Capitol Police union chief, they blamed the leadership of the Capitol Police. But — due to the rules of the United States Capitol, the power structure of the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, has more control and authority and responsibility over the leadership of the Capitol Police than anyone else in the United States Capitol. So she doesn’t want us to ask these questions because at the end of the day she is ultimately responsible for the breakdown of security at the Capitol that happened on Jan. 6.
Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, said Banks was simply trying to “divert blame” for the attack.
“On January 6th, the Speaker, a target of an assassination attempt that day, was no more in charge of Capitol security than Mitch McConnell was,” Hammill told us via email. “This is a clear attempt to whitewash what happened on January 6th and divert blame. The Speaker believes security officials should make security decisions.”
A bipartisan Senate investigation of security, planning and response failures on the day of the attack said “breakdowns ranged from federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence to a lack of planning and preparation by USCP [U.S. Capitol Police] and law enforcement leadership.”
The June 8 report — led by Sens. Gary Peters, chairman, and Rob Portman, ranking member, of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Amy Klobuchar, chairwoman, and Roy Blunt, ranking member, of the Committee on Rules and Administration — made no mention of any missteps by Pelosi.
In a House Republican press conference on July 27, Banks referred to the “tragic events that happened on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s watch,” and he said the Senate report identified “there was a systemic breakdown of security, a lack of leadership at the very top of the United States Capitol Police who report and who Nancy Pelosi is ultimately responsible for that lack of leadership.”
But he is overstating Pelosi’s authority.
In a statement provided to FactCheck.org, Jane L. Campbell, president and CEO of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society, said: “The Speaker of the House does not oversee security of the U.S. Capitol, the Capitol Police Board does, and the Speaker does not oversee the Board. The Board consists of three voting members: the Senate Sergeant at Arms, the House Sergeant at Arms, and the Architect of the Capitol; together with one non-voting member, the Chief of the Capitol Police.”
To put names to those titles, on Jan. 6, the Capitol Police chief was Steven Sund; the House sergeant at arms was Paul Irving; the Senate sergeant at arms was Michael Stenger; and the architect of the Capitol was Brett Blanton. Sund, Irving and Stenger all resigned in the wake of the riot.
So how does Pelosi fit into all of this?
“The Speaker is involved in the appointment of the House Sergeant at Arms, who must be confirmed by the House,” Campbell explained. “The Senate Sergeant at Arms is chosen by the Senate. The Speaker also sits on the commission that recommends an Architect of the Capitol to the U.S. President. However, it is the President who appoints the Architect, who must be confirmed by the Senate.”
During the Republican press conference on July 27, Rep. Rodney Davis noted that Irving, the House sergeant at arms, was “appointed by the speaker.” That’s true, but Irving initially came to the position in January 2012 after being nominated by then-House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican. Irving was unanimously approved by the House. He was retained by House votes five more times, including twice when Pelosi was speaker — on Jan. 3, 2019, and Jan. 3, 2021, three days before the riot.
Pelosi, of course, played no role in Stenger’s nomination or election as Senate sergeant at arms. Stenger was nominated by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and approved by unanimous consent by the Senate on April 16, 2018.
Blanton, the architect of the Capitol, was appointed by then-President Donald Trump and was confirmed in the Republican-controlled Senate by voice vote on Dec. 19, 2019.
Approving the National Guard
In the July 27 press conference, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, “There’s questions into the leadership within the structure of the speaker’s office where they denied the ability to bring the National Guard here.”
McCarthy also referred — without naming anyone — to “people out there who say there were phone calls to the speaker that offered the National Guard prior to that day and was turned down.”
But there is no evidence of that.
In a Feb. 1 letter to Pelosi, Sund, the former Capitol Police chief — who was hired by the Capitol Police Board in June 2019 — wrote that on Jan. 4, two days before the riot, he
“approached the two Sergeants at Arms to request the assistance of the National Guard, as I had no authority to do so without an Emergency Declaration by the Capitol Police Board (CPB).”
(According to a 2017 Government Accountability Office report, the Capitol Police Board “has authority for security decisions, as well as certain human capital and personnel matters, including the approval of officer terminations.”)
Sund said Irving told him he was “concerned about the ‘optics’ and didn’t feel that the intelligence supported it. He referred me to the Senate Sergeant at Arms (who is currently the Chair of the CPB) to get his thoughts on the request. I then spoke to Mr. Stenger and again requested the National Guard. Instead of approving the use of the National Guard, however, Mr. Stenger suggested I ask them how quickly we could get support if needed and to ‘lean forward’ in case we had to request assistance on January 6.”
During Senate testimony on Feb. 23, Sen. Ted Cruz asked Irving and Stenger whether they had any conversation with “congressional leadership” about supplementing the law enforcement presence on Jan. 6 or bringing in the National Guard.
Irving said he had “no follow up conversations and it was not until the 6th that I alerted leadership [Pelosi’s office] that we might be making a request and that was the end of the discussion.”
Stenger said that “it was Jan. 6 that I mentioned it to leader McConnell’s staff.”
So there is no evidence that Pelosi was made aware of any request for National Guard assistance or played any role in the decision not to fulfill Sund’s request on Jan. 4 for National Guard help on Jan. 6. The decision beforehand not to provide National Guard assistance on the Capitol grounds appears to be one made by both Irving and Stenger (who, again, was appointed by McConnell).
Created:
FACT CHECK: CLAIMS of FBI ROLE in JAN. 6 ATTACK are FALSE
McKenzie Sadeghi
USA TODAY
The claim: FBI operatives organized the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol
In the months following the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the United States Capitol by rioters seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, conservative media personalities have attempted to downplay the insurrection and shift blame.
Some baselessly claimed the mob of Donald Trump supporters who breached Capitol barricades — fueled by unproven allegations of voter fraud — was actually a crowd of antifa members in disguise. Those allegations were wrong.
Now, claims that undercover FBI agents were behind the Capitol insurrection are circulating on social media.
"Evidence surfaces that the FBI planned and executed January 6 Capitol riot," the Tatum Report wrote in a June 17 Instagram post.
The narrative started with a June 14 report by conservative website Revolver News. The story says there's a "strong possibility" the federal government had "undercover agents or confidential informants embedded within the so-called militia groups" that were seeking to obstruct the Senate certification of the 2020 election results. The Instagram post linked to a Tatum report post that recapped the Revolver News story. USA TODAY reached out to Tatum Report for comment
After the article was published, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Republican lawmakers and social media users amplified it across platforms.
Facebook users have shared an open letter from Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., in which he demands FBI Director Christopher Wray "fully disclose the role and involvement of FBI operatives during the January 6th Capitol riot." Other users shared a clip of Carlson's June 15 show, during which he said "FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6."
But that theory relies on a false assumption: that anyone identified as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in charging documents is a government agent.
In fact, legal experts say that term cannot be used to describe FBI agents or undercover government operatives. Charging documents and other evidence indicate that the Jan. 6 rioters included Trump supporters, conspiracy theorists and members of far-right groups.
Fox News and social media users who amplified Revolver News' claims did not return requests for comment.
Unindicted co-conspirators, explained
The term "unindicted co-conspirators" refers to people who allegedly took part in the same offense in some fashion but are not being criminally charged for their role, Ira Robbins, an American University law professor, wrote in a 2004 paper that represents the legal consensus on the term.
This can include someone who cooperated with law enforcement to receive a deal or who authorities don't feel they have sufficient evidence to charge.
The term became well-known in 1974, when a grand jury applied it to President Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal.
The Justice Department's policy says federal prosecutors should not name unindicted co-conspirators "in the absence of some significant justification."
Government informants can't be described as co-conspirators
The primary evidence presented in the Revolver News story — federal charging documents related to the Jan. 6 insurrection — don't support its claim about FBI informants organizing the riot.
Revolver News is run by former Trump speechwriter Darren Beattie, who was fired in 2018 for his appearance at a conference featuring white nationalists. It's unclear who wrote the site's June 14 report, as it doesn't have a byline.
The story argues that because upward of 20 unindicted co-conspirators listed in federal charging documents haven't been charged, there is a "disturbing possibility" that they could be undercover FBI agents or federal informants.
That's not actually a possibility, legal experts say.
"Prosecutors would not name FBI agents as unindicted co-conspirators," Robbins told USA TODAY via email. "Tucker Carlson’s allegation that the FBI organized the attack on the Capitol is pure fantasy."
Robbins said while it is possible FBI agents were acting undercover in extremist organizations involved in the Capitol riot, that "would not necessarily mean they had instigated the insurrection."
Similarly, Cornell Law School professor Jens David Ohlin told the Washington Post there are "many reasons why an indictment would reference unindicted co-conspirators, but their status as FBI agents is not one of them." In a 1985 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit noted that "government agents and informers cannot be conspirators."
The FBI declined to comment for this fact check.
No evidence unnamed individuals in Caldwell case are FBI agents
The Revolver News article singles out unnamed individuals mentioned in a case involving Thomas Caldwell of Virginia, an alleged Oath Keepers member who is facing charges related to the Capitol attack.
In an emailed statement to USA TODAY, Beattie said the issue from "our perspective is not the specific phrase 'unindicted co-conspirator'" but that "the individuals referenced in the 1/6 charging documents (referred to variously as Persons or individuals), remain unindicted on account of a prior relationship with federal law enforcement."
But there's no evidence those unnamed individuals, referred to as "persons" in court filings, are federal agents — and ample evidence they are people close to Caldwell.
Charging documents identify the leader of the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia group, as "PERSON ONE." (That person is Stewart Rhodes, and there is no evidence he is an undercover government agent.)
"PERSON TWO" is also not a secret government agent, as the Revolver News article suggests. Charging documents indicate Caldwell stayed with "PERSON TWO" at an Arlington hotel and took "selfie" photographs with them on the perimeter of the Capitol.
A criminal affidavit against Caldwell and Oath Keepers members Donovan Crowl and Jessica Watkins says Caldwell stayed at the hotel with his wife, Sharon, who has not been charged with a crime.
Further, a defense filing from May 26 says Caldwell "rarely travels without his wife" due to "physical limitations and health concerns." Caldwell also shared on Facebook photos of he and his wife at the Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the Washington Post.
The Revolver News story compares the Capitol attack to the October 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, which involved undercover federal agents. But The New York Times noted operatives involved in that case were referred to in the criminal complaint as "confidential human sources" and "undercover employees," not "unindicted co-conspirators."
Beattie did not present any additional evidence to support the Revolver News article when he appeared as a guest on Carlson's show.
Rioters included Trump supporters, far-right groups
While authorities are still investigating who organized and led the insurrection, court documents and other available evidence show the rioters are linked to far-right extremist groups, including the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters.
QAnon followers and extremists talked on online forums about a siege of the Capitol as early as December, NBC News reported. Experts told USA TODAY the Capitol attack was the result of years of conspiracy theories and misinformation.
A USA TODAY review of charging documents found nearly all conspiracy charges are against members of the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers, or people who acted with them. Several of the alleged conspirators attended or scheduled paramilitary training and recruited others to their cause.
Similarly, a review by the Associated Press of public records associated with more than 120 people at the insurrection found rioters included supporters of the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory, Trump supporters, far-right militants and white supremacists. A ProPublica collection of more than 500 videos from Jan. 6 shows rioters wearing Trump apparel, QAnon symbols and Confederate flags.
As of June 23, more than 400 arrests had been made in connection with the insurrection, none of which included charges against an FBI agent. Testimony from rioters who stormed the Capitol said they felt called to Washington by Trump and his false claim that the election was stolen, according to the Washington Post.
"This was not simply a march. This was an incredible attack on our institutions of government," Jason McCullough, an assistant U.S. attorney, said during a March hearing.
Our rating: False
The claim that the FBI orchestrated the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is FALSE, based on our research. There is no evidence that "unindicted co-conspirators" mentioned in charging documents are undercover FBI agents. Legal experts say undercover government operatives and informants cannot be named in government filings as unindicted co-conspirators. The best available evidence identifies the rioters as Trump supporters, conspiracy theorists and members of far-right groups.
Created:
What happened to the hard-fought freedom's right [sic] to the privacy of our body?
- The State of Texas put a $10,000 bounty on its head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I think you should start by defining Race Realism.
WIKTIONARY defines
RACE REALISM
- (euphemistic) Synonym of scientific racism
Mirriam-Webster and Encyclopedia Britannica don't have definitions for the term.
WIKIPEDIA defines
RACE REALISM
Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific. Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, RACE REALISM, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research.
The last guy I ran into on this site that used this "race realism" terminology used IQ to claim that the average sub-Saharan black person is mentally retarded- that is, he considered whole nations of people unable to care for themselves or perform basic life skills based on skin color- which is essentially an argument against basic human and national sovereignty based on skin color. His sources argued that African-Americans were more functional but only because White people raped the smarts into slaves. I have to admit the argument bore no resemblance to my experiences with sub-Saharan Blacks and African-Americans and seemed to me inherently an argument for superiority/inferiority by phenotype even though the guy claimed to be offended by any such inference.
So before we even get into criticism of the concept, it looks to me like the concept itself is defined as racism by another name. Do you define the term differently than the dictionaries and encyclopedias do? Do you have some kind of established academic source that backs your definition of the term as opposed to dictionaries and encyclopedias?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I've noticed it has been the number one term searched on Wikipedia a few different times this past week. There's lots of shows that are number one on Netflix that I don't bother with- might even avoid because they're number one, since my sensibilities tend to differ dramatically from the majority. But lots of Wiki searches usually tells me that a show is hitting on some levels I might enjoy.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
This is a debate website. Providing a link to somebody else's argument rather than writing your own argument demonstrates that you don't understand the fundamentals of this site. If you are just seeking release for you compulsive hatred of the Jews and need to post spurious links as a release of those compulsions, Reddit is the site for you.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Won't it be a hoot when it is discovered [it will be] that the real insurrectionists of Jan 6 were agents of the FBI and Capitol Police.
I don't know about left hand/right hand but we can all agree that your sixth post doesn't know what your first post was doing.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
-->@oromagiThis windsock is full of information, but not the germane point: AZ election officials and Dominion refused subpoena to turn over election equipment and tally results to the AZ Senate. What other con conclusion could be drawn from the lack of that evidence?
I'm surprised you wouldn't seek out more current information. Almost all of this story took place after last Christmas and since you are relying on information from last December, you are woefully out of the loop.
If you would read newspapers published this year, you would discover that Maricopa County lost this lawsuit on Feb 26. Several QAnon shell companies were then created to receive those ballots, election equipment, software, routers, , etc and the State Senate turned all this over to QAnon on April 22nd of the this year for a recount. The longest recount in Maricopa County's history prior to April 22nd took three days. QAnon took 22 weeks to complete and in the end the same Republican State Senators who sued for the ballots last December had to be successfully sued by Maricopa county before they released their findings. The Senators actually argued in court that the tally of Maricopa votes rightfully belonged to the Republicans and the people of Maricopa had no right to know the outcome of their own election- astonishingly corrupt.
The outcome was this:
- QAnon found that Maricopa had undercounted Biden votes by 360. Maricopa has already complained to the State that QAnon report is rife with false statements and factual errors.
- Multiple State and Federal criminal investigations are under way- particularly focused on QAnon removal of some voting equipment out-of-State for undisclosed reasons. QAnon still denies the theft but a TV reporter followed the illegal transport to Montana live as it happened.
- Most of the dummy QAnon corps have been ordered by the FBI to retain all records, emails, transactions, logs, etc.
- A State judge has already ruled that Arizona Republicans are not immune from lawsuits by the State and County to recooup their loses- estimated at about $20 million dollars- mostly for replacing damaged, compromised voting machines and routers.
- Republicans have already sunk about $6 million paying QAnon
- If the Arizona GOP is successfully sued by the State, AZ Republicans will likely be quite poor before the 2022 elections.
- Needless to say, Trump has raised tens of millions of dollars for himself by promising to overturn the results of the most free and fair election in US history but Trump has not given a single dollar to the recount or AZ Republicans or indeed any recount effort anywhere. Most of Trump fundraising includes caveats allowing Trump to spend Republican donations on personal debts and expenses.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
It is often said of people and policies that don't quite gel that the left hand knows not what the right hand does.
Actually, Jesus said this. The expression is from the Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 6:3:
But when thou doest alms, let not thy
left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
By alms, Jesus meant giving money to the poor, which Jesus considered a moral and religious obligation. Jewish tradition held that the right hand was the hand of purity and all eating and drinking and financial transactions be done with the right hand. The left hand was used for unclean acts (such as taking money away from the poor). Jesus meant, when you do charitable acts, don't signal your virtue lest your motivations be corrupted. Do your charity in secret, so automatically that even your left hand, the hand that receives something in return, is ignorant. Be generous for the sake of acting generously, don't look for any reward or even approval.
Created:
-->
@janesix
-->@oromagiNot joking, thought you wrote "Brides".
LOL. Well, mail-order polygamy would certainly be more forgivable in my book than treason.
Created:
GOP REVIEW FINDS no PROOF ARIZONA ELECTION STOLEN from TRUMP
By BOB CHRISTIE and CHRISTINA A. CASSIDY
PHOENIX (AP) — A Republican-backed review of the 2020 presidential election in Arizona’s largest county ended Friday without producing proof to support former President Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen election.
After six months of searching for evidence of fraud, the firm hired by Republican lawmakers issued a report that experts described as riddled with errors, bias and flawed methodology. Still, even that partisan review came up with a vote tally that would not have altered the outcome, finding that Biden won by 360 more votes than the official results certified last year.
The finding was an embarrassing end to a widely criticized, and at times bizarre, quest to prove allegations that election officials and courts have rejected. It has no bearing on the final, certified results. Previous reviews of the 2.1 million ballots by nonpartisan professionals that followed state law have found no significant problem with the vote count in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix. Biden won the county by 45,000 votes, key to his 10,500-vote win of Arizona.
For many critics the conclusions, presented at a hearing Friday by the firm Cyber Ninjas, underscored the dangerous futility of the exercise, which has helped fuel skepticism about the validity of the 2020 election and spawned copycat audits nationwide.
“We haven’t learned anything new,” said Matt Masterson, a top U.S. election security official in the Trump administration. “What we have learned from all this is that the Ninjas were paid millions of dollars, politicians raised millions of dollars and Americans’ trust in democracy is lower.”
Cyber Ninjas acknowledged in its report that there were “no substantial differences” between the group’s hand count of ballots and the official count. But the report also made a series of other disputed claims the auditors say should cast doubt on the accuracy and warrant more investigation.
Trump issued statements Friday falsely claiming the review found widespread fraud. He urged Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican vying for his party’s U.S. Senate nomination, to open an investigation.
Brnovich, who has been criticized by Trump supporters for not adequately backing the review, did not commit: “I will take all necessary actions that are supported by the evidence and where I have legal authority,” he said in a statement before the report was made public.
Republicans in the state Senate ordered the review under pressure from Trump and his allies, subpoenaing the election records from Maricopa County and selected the inexperienced, pro-Trump auditors. It took months longer than expected and was widely pilloried by experts.
Still, the Arizona review has become a model that Trump supporters are pushing to replicate in other swing states where Biden won. Pennsylvania’s Democratic attorney general sued Thursday to block a GOP-issued subpoena for a wide array of election materials. In Wisconsin, a retired conservative state Supreme Court justice is leading a Republican-ordered investigation into the 2020 election, and this week threatened to subpoena election officials who don’t comply. Backers also called for additional election reviews in Arizona on Friday.
None of the reviews can change Biden’s victory, which was certified by officials in each of the swing states he won and by Congress on Jan. 6 — after Trump’s supporters, fueled by the same false charges that generated the audits, stormed the U.S. Capitol to try to prevent certification of his loss.
The Arizona report claims a number of shortcomings in election procedures and suggested the final tally still could not be relied upon. Several were challenged by election experts, while members of the Republican-led county Board of Supervisors, which oversees elections, disputed claims on Twitter.
“Unfortunately, the report is also littered with errors & faulty conclusions about how Maricopa County conducted the 2020 General Election,” county officials tweeted.
Election officials say that’s because the review team is biased, ignored the detailed vote-counting procedures in Arizona law and had no experience in the complex field of election audits.
Two of the report’s recommendations stood out because they showed its authors misunderstood election procedures — that there should be paper ballot backups and that voting machines should not be connected to the internet. All Maricopa ballots are already paper, with machines only used to tabulate the votes, and those tabulators are not connected to the internet.
The review also checked the names of voters against a commercial database, finding 23,344 reported moving before ballots went out in October. While the review suggests something improper, election officials note that voters like college students, those who own vacation homes or military members can move to temporary locations while still legally voting at the address where they are registered.
“A competent reviewer of an election would not make a claim like that,” said Trey Grayson, a former Republican secretary of state in Kentucky.
The election review was run by Cyber Ninjas CEO Doug Logan, whose firm has never conducted an election audit before. Logan previously worked with attorneys and Trump supporters trying to overturn the 2020 election and appeared in a film questioning the results of the contest while the ballot review was ongoing.
Logan and others involved with the review presented their findings to two Arizona senators Friday. It kicked off with Shiva Ayyadurai, a COVID-19 vaccine skeptic who claims to have invented email, presenting an analysis relying on “pattern recognition” that flagged purported anomalies in the way mail ballots were processed at the end of the election.
Maricopa County tweeted that the pattern was simply the election office following state law.
“‘Anomaly’ seems to be another way of saying the Senate’s contractors don’t understand election processes,” the county posted during the testimony.
Logan followed up by acknowledging “the ballots that were provided for us to count ... very accurately correlated with the official canvass.” He then continued to flag statistical discrepancies — including the voters who moved — that he said merited further investigation.
The review has a history of exploring outlandish conspiracy theories, dedicating time to checking for bamboo fibers on ballots to see if they were secretly shipped in from Asia. It’s also served as a content-generation machine for Trump’s effort to sow skepticism about his loss, pumping out misleading and out-of-context information that the former president circulates long after it’s been debunked.
In July, for example, Logan laid out a series of claims stemming from his misunderstanding of the election data he was analyzing, including that 74,000 mail ballots were recorded as received but not sent. Trump repeatedly amplified the claims. Logan had compared two databases that track different things.
Arizona’s Senate agreed to spend $150,000 on the review, plus security and facility costs. That pales in comparison to the nearly $5.7 million contributed as of late July by Trump allies.
Maricopa County’s official vote count was conducted in front of bipartisan observers, as were legally required audits meant to ensure voting machines work properly. A partial hand-count spot check found a perfect match.
Two extra post-election reviews by federally certified election experts also found no evidence that voting machines switched votes or were connected to the internet. The county Board of Supervisors commissioned the extraordinary reviews in an effort to prove to Trump backers that there were no problems.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
bAccording to https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/joe-biden-could-owe-up-to-dollar500000-in-back-taxes-to-the-irs/ar-AAOLafjJoe Biden my owe $500k in 'S' corp taxes. Joe complains all the time that the rich must pay their fair share, but it appears his 2020 released tax return is lacking compliance with his own mantra. Exempt? Or just contemptible?
Let's note the deceptions fauxlaw employs in trying to disseminate this fake news.
- Claims he's linking to MSN but is actually linking to fake news machine The Daily Mail- the first news source to be banned by Wikipedia as an unreliable source of information.
- Claims "A non-partisan government report indicates" but that's a pretty big fucking lie for the opening line of a newspaper article. In fact, the claim is made by the hyper-Trumpist Republican Study Committee. Jim Jordan used to chair this committee that's how far Trumpist this group has gone.
- Here is a link to every CRS report ever published. Contrary to fauxlaw's faux claim, this bipartisan group has never said a peep about Biden's taxes.
- Since no responsible organization has picked up on the claims of these right-wing extremists, I think we can safely assume this claim is all or mostly bullshit.
- Let's note that this claim is only possible because Jim Jordan's committee has copies of all of Biden taxes sitting in front of them, provided to them by Biden himself.
- Of course, if Republicans were ever able to suppress their hypocrisy long enough to demand the same honest disclosure of tax information from Trump, we can be sure that Trump would be quickly indicted. Democrats have never had the opportunity to examine Trump's taxes the way Biden openly provides for the Republican hit squads.
- In 2017, Joe Biden made $11 million ($10 million in book sales) and paid $3,740,000 million in taxes.
- In 2017, Donald trump made $13 million and paid $750 in taxes. Not millions, not hundreds of thousand or tens of thousands. Hundreds.
- Trump made more (honest) money than Biden in 2017 but Biden paid 5000 times more in taxes than Trump. Trump would say, "Hey, I was smart I used all the loopholes at my disposal" but Republican accusations here (if there's any truth at all to them, which seems unlikely) amount to no more than one exploitation of one legal loophole- a standard Trump violates with pride.
- Now ask yourself honestly, which of these is the bigger crook?
Created:
Again, deeply, willfully ignorant. You pretend to have read the Mueller Report when it is obvious you have not. Mueller documented at least 170 contacts between Trump or 18 of his associates with Russian nationals during the 2016 campaign, a time when loyal Americans minimize foreign contacts to dissuade the very impression that Trump was cultivating- that this candidate, his morals, politics, and acts are for sale to US enemies and competitors. There weren't any wiretaps so we don't know what discussed in these hundreds of meetings with Russian spies and plotters but the mere fact that the Trump campaign felt obligated to take meetings from powerful Russians an average of once of every other day of his Presidential campaign is utterly damning all by itself. Almost all of these meetings were denied by Trump and his inner circle so Mueller also has high officials covering up their contacts with foreign enemies.
Beyond this, Mueller documented 11 specific cases of felony obstruction of Justice committed by Donald Trump personally. Mueller made it clear that he would have indicted any other American for these many, many crimes but since the Constitution specifies that Congress is the instrument of Presidential justice, Mueller deferred the right of indictment to Congress. As we all know, the Republican Senate corruptly refused to review Mueller's findings.
To say that Mueller did not indict Trump is a lie. Mueller specified 11 felonies committed by Trump and submitted them the relevant court. The corrupt judge (McConnell's Senate) refused to hear any evidence, refused to let the prosecutor even approach the bench and quashed the case without explanation. Trump has not been found guilty of these crimes but that's not because any judge or jury found him innocent- they simply refused to have a trial.
Mueller specifically said that if he thought Trump was innocent of conspiring with Putin he would have made that plain in his report and then said he could not justify such a claim.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
->@oromagiNot really,Not accurate. Trump was the target from the time he announced his candidacy in June 2015, and you know it. The powers that be of the Demo party were terrified of him and only played at claiming it was a publicity stunt.
Non-sequitur. You asked if Trump was the target of this particular case of espionage investigation and the answer is no. We can agree that Trump has been under criminal investigation for one crime or another for most of his adult life.
A deeply ignorant claim.Is it? Didn't your bumkin investigator, Mueller, have some 30 indictments; not a one named Trump? Look it it. No Trump on the list.
Again, deeply, willfully ignorant. You pretend to have read the Mueller Report when it is obvious you have not. Mueller documented at least 170 contacts between Trump or 18 of his associates with Russian nationals during the 2016 campaign, a time when loyal Americans minimize foreign contacts to dissuade the very impression that Trump was cultivating- that this candidate, his morals, politics, and acts are for sale to US enemies and competitors. There weren't any wiretaps so we don't know what discussed in these hundreds of meetings with Russian spies and plotters but the mere fact that the Trump campaign felt obligated to take meetings from powerful Russians an average of once of every other day of his Presidential campaign is utterly damning all by itself. Almost all of these meetings were denied by Trump and his inner circle so Mueller also has high officials covering up their contacts with foreign enemies.
Beyond this, Mueller documented 11 specific cases of felony obstruction of Justice committed by Donald Trump personally. Mueller made it clear that he would have indicted any other American for these many, many crimes but since the Constitution specifies that Congress is the instrument of Presidential justice, Mueller deferred the right of indictment to Congress. As we all know, the Republican Senate corruptly refused to review Mueller's findings.
To say that Mueller did not indict Trump is a lie. Mueller specified 11 felonies committed by Trump and submitted them the relevant court. The corrupt judge (McConnell's Senate) refused to hear any evidence, refused to let the prosecutor even approach the bench and quashed the case without explanation. Trump has not been found guilty of these crimes but that's not because any judge or jury found him innocent- they simply refused to have a trial.
Mueller specifically said that if he thought Trump was innocent of conspiring with Putin he would have made that plain in his report and then said he could no justify such a claim.
Not to mention:About 3,500 lawsuits have been filed against Trump or Trump org.
This is a lie. 1900 of those lawsuit (54%) were filed by Trump
About 1,300 completed cases according to USA Today, June 2, 2016 36 cases lost.
The 1300 number is the number of cases where an outcome could be established. The fact that USA Today could not establish any outcome for more than 2000 lawsuits that Trump was involved with is by itself highly suggestive of corruption.
3% 175 settled out of court. 13% 450 cases won 34% 137 cases ended with other outcome than guilt or acquittal. 11% 500 cases dismissed by judge. 39% 73% ended completely in Trump's favor. 16% ended against Trump.
Preserving the ratio, let's assume that over 700 of these were filed by Trump.
500 were dismissed.
Why would anybody vote for an asshole who is so litigious that he's had 500 lawsuits dismissed?
700 were personal injury complaints.
Why would anybody vote for an asshole who been in court claiming personal injury or being accused of causing personal injuries on more than 700 occasions in one lifetime? That's averaging about one personally injury lawsuit for every month of Trump's adult life. Christ.
165 were violating government regulations and failure to pay taxes.
No wonder Trump consistently lies and covers up his taxes while we taxpayers pay for secret service and improvements to his luxury mansions. What a fucking crook.
150 were bankruptcies and other. I guess we should have been surprised that Trump doubled the debt in four short years with absolutely nothing to show for it. Bush had Iran and Afghanistan to pay for. Obama had a Great Depression and Obamacare to pay for. In four years, Trump spent more than twice than those tow combined spent in 16 years without any reason given or receipt shown.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
@OromagiThere's not much doubt that Trump is guilty of committing a wide array of crimesWhy do liberals even waste time giving lip service to due process and fairness?
It's a Democracy thing. You should look into it some day.
There's four separate criminal investigations underway nowOnly four? How many have there been now?
In Trump's lifetime? Hundreds.
No Bill & Hillery, not now!No discernable argument.Which was the whole point.
nice argument.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
just curious, but wasn't the target Trump?
Not really, the indicted are members of Paul and Bush tribes.
Seems hit pieces hit on associates, but none of them wear the Trump name.
A deeply ignorant claim. Trump is the defendant in 13 major civil cases and the subject of at least 3 significant criminal investigations. Trump Org wears the Trump name and prosecutors seem to have both copies of Trump's books for a couple of decades. The fact that there's two books alone is a disaster for Trump Org.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
And lefties grit teeth in frustration once again that it isn't Trump committing crimes.
There's not much doubt that Trump is guilty of committing a wide array of crimes. There's four separate criminal investigations underway now but I'm sure everybody is humbled and uncertain over the potential political impacts of convicting a former president of some of these crimes.
Quick, pull out the "guilt by association" fallacy!
I guess you missed the part where access to Trump was the objective of the illegal foreign bribe. Do you really think Trump never asked why he was required to give a half hour to a Russian national in a room where the only people allowed were people who donated at least $25,000 to Trump. There's no way Trump can claim ignorance of illegal foreign donations when he's sitting in a donors only room with a Russian and his translator!
Also be sure to notice that Trump pardoned Benton. Nobody is disputing the fact that Benton bribed an Iowa State Senator to jump ship and change the course of the Iowa Causcuses and totally fuck over the only non white male in the Republican race, Michelle Bachmann. If the Republican Party were clean, figures convicted of high profile disloyal political corruption would have no place, certainly not getting pardoned by a President who is obligated to restrict pardons to cases of injustice or significant repentance. Trump's pardon can't be treated as a crime in and of itself but nobody can deny that the pardon was blatantly pro-crime, pro-corruption, and as we are now discovering, pro-Russia.
No Bill & Hillery, not now!
No discernable argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I guess you're speaking metaphorically about something but I can't tell what.
Created:
Covertly taped in a GOP meeting on Capitol Hill, June 2016.
KEVIN McCARTHY: “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump, swear to God.”
PAUL RYAN: “This is an off the record . . . No leaks! . . . All right? This is how we know we’re a real family here.”
Created:
REPUBLICAN PARTY OPERATIVES CHARGED with ARRANGING ILLEGAL TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
By Jan Wolfe
WASHINGTON, Sept 20 (Reuters) - U.S. prosecutors on Monday unsealed criminal charges against two longtime Republican Party operatives, accusing them of illegally funneling a foreign campaign contribution to former President Donald Trump in 2016.According to an indictment unsealed in federal court in the District of Columbia, Jesse Benton and Doug Wead "conspired to illegally funnel thousands of dollars of foreign money from a Russian foreign national into an election for the Office of President of the United States of America."U.S. law bans foreign nationals from donating money to presidential campaigns.According to the indictment, Benton and Wead helped a Russian national get a ticket to a fundraiser with Trump in Pennsylvania in September 2016.The Russian, who was not identified in the indictment, donated $25,000 to political action committees associated with Trump in order to attend the event, according to prosecutors.But the true source of the donation was concealed from the Trump campaign, the indictment said, because the payment was secretly funneled through Benton, who acted as a "straw donor."Benton, 43, previously managed campaigns for Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul of Kentucky before he was convicted for his role in a political endorsement scheme. Benton avoided jail time and received a presidential pardon in December 2020 from Trump.Wead, 75, worked as a senior adviser on multiple presidential campaigns and ran for Congress as a Republican in 1992.It was not yet clear if the two had engaged legal counsel.Bachmann had narrowly defeated Paul to win the Ames Straw Poll in August 2011, an early measure of support in the state.A top aide in the 2008 Ron Paul presidential bid, Dennis Fusaro, provided several emails to OpenSecrets.org. According to the address fields in the emails, Fusaro was copied on the messages, which all date from late 2011.Five days before the caucus, in late 2011, Sorenson abruptly switched his support from Bachmann to Paul, and the Bachmann campaign at the time charged that he had done so for money.
- Benton is married to Ron Paul's granddaughter, Rand Paul is Benton's uncle -in-law. Benton lived in Rand Paul's house for a number of years.
- Benton ran Rand's run for Senate in 2010 and Grandpa Paul's 2012 Presidential Bid.
- In an Oct. 29, 2011 email, a representative of Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson, a Republican, asks the Paul campaign to provide Sorenson with $8,000 per month in salary for him, $5,000 per month in salary for a Sorenson ally, as well as $100,000 in contributions for a newly created PAC that Sorenson planned to use to support conservative candidates for Iowa state office.
- In exchange, the email, which was allegedly written by Aaron Dorr, executive director of Iowa Gun Owners, says Sorenson would abandon his support for Rep. Michele Bachmann‘s campaign, endorse Paul, campaign for him and provide access to an email list of Iowans who support homeschooling.
- That is, the director of Iowa Gun Owners is so deep inside the pockets of the Pauls that he can offer six-figure bribes on the Pauls' behalf.
- Benton was convicted of bribing Sorenson to throw his support to Ron Paul and given two years probation. Just two days after his conviction, Benton was setting up the illegal meeting for payment scheme on Roman Vasilenko's behalf.
- This sort of open corruption and graft was so appealing to Mitch McConnell that he hired Benton to run his 2014 Senatorial bid. Benton was forced to step down after many reporters questioned such open corruption but to this day, Benton still serves as the primary channel between McConnell and the Pauls.
- Trump pardoned Benton in January of this year, explicitly as a favor to Rand Paul.
- Benton is accused setting up a meeting between Trump and Vasilenko in Sept 2016 at a Philadelphia Fundraiser. Since the price of admission was a $25,000 donation to the Trump campaign and no foreign national should therefore be able to attend, Vasilensko mingled with his translator and had his picture taken with many top GOP officials without batting an eye. It just wasn't that strange to have Russians openly loitering in the belly of the GOP in 2016, apparently.
- Wead is a longtime GOP operative and consultant, whose ties to the Russian business magnate go back decades.
- Wead is credited with authoring the Bush campaign phrase "Compassionate Conservative."
- Wead has given lectures in Russia bolstering Vasilenko's self-help seminars and in 2009, Wead appointed Vasilenko to the board of directors for a Christian boarding school where Wead was president.
- Although the price of dinner with Trump was minimum $25,000, Wead and Benton's consulting firm took a check for $100,000 from Vasilenko.
- Benton tried to tell the Trump campaign that he had already made his donation (that is tried to hold on to all of the money himself) until Trump's fundraisers insisted. Benton paid the $25,000 minimum and we can assume Benton and Wead split the $75,000 remainder. Whether Trump, the Pauls, and McConnell also all get a taste of that money is unclear but that's the way it works in Russia and other mob organizations. Certainly, nobody in the GOP has bothered to condemn such fairly straightforward bribery by one of America's principle enemies. I wonder what Vasilenko asked Trump for and whether that request came straight from Putin? From what little we can tell of Trump's presidency we should probably assume he got whatever he asked for.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
->@oromagiIt's an Icelandic domain though.
Yeah. You can't host a site like this on .ru because so much is formally blocked at the domain level. It would be hard to read even pretty general scientific papers from the US on .ru without violating Russian law.
Most domains either have agreements with the US about publishing US intellectual properties or are hostile to US interests. If you host a site like this on an EU or Western Hemisphere domain, international law is going to catch up with you pretty quick. Lots of countries like Iran and Pakistan would happily flout international law but are also heavily censored internally and not able to effectively combat US cybersecurity.
What you need is a domain where speech is relatively free, where relations with the US are good enough to keep US cybersecurity from open investigations and attacks but the country still stands up to the US in international court and where existing digital and copyright law is quite lenient or undefined. Lawsuits will probably eventually take a site like this down but it might enjoy years of open operation until the weight of law can be brought to bear. Iceland, Montenegro, and New Zealand are probably the most popular domains in this category, although New Zealand is cracking down and Montenegro is working to join the EU so Iceland is probably the most attractive domain right now.
I've been using a vast repository of pilfered Dungeons and Dragons literature from a .is site for the past couple of years and then one day in June it just shut down without explanation and hasn't returned. I think there's a lot of sites like this on .is right now which can hang around for a while until some interested party comes down hard or until Iceland gets it copyright law in compliance with EU standards (which seems pretty likely in the long run).
Created: