Trump's Rump

[mitsho]

How is it dangerous? Especially since people have free will on whether to listen or not listen to propaganda. Do we really need a nanny state to tell us what's fact and what's fiction, all at the cost of bringing government corruption and bias into what determines what we can listen too? I'm sorry but that's like 1984.



What I'm trying to explain is that intelligence agencies of other nations have all done bad things, including things worse than election influencing. Unless you think election interference is worse than actually committing terrorism?

Again, we are talking about the integrity of elections, to make them free and fair. Allowing for debate requires a framework for the public space that only the state can provide. The US one is very liberal with regards to free speech, but others go further. Germany f.e. is very hesitant with free speech with regard to Nazism, in Switzerland we don't allow for political tv ads. Where you draw the line is flexible, but even the US drew it with regard to misinformation campaigns on social medial. You are right in that you could go after people who would organise this from the US, but it's difficult when people from outside do it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

And again for emphasis: You can't compare election interference with terrorism - they are two different topics. Both are bad. I have finished.

PS: Though - until further things happen - this discussion may be in the wrong place here. As this is about ugly new things by Trump coming to light.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Weren't these for lying about things they didn't need to lie about and unrelated matters like Manafort's tax/money troubles?

Yeah, completely unrelated.

As a foreign policy adviser on the Trump campaign, a member of the presidential transition and the first National Security Adviser in the Trump Administration, Michael Flynn had valuable insight into key moments in the investigation. In 2017 he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about conversations with then Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and agreed to cooperate with the investigation.

On Nov. 15, longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone was found guilty of all seven counts he faced, including lying to Congress, tampering with a witness and obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Another valuable source of information for Mueller was Rick Gates, Manafort’s longtime business partner, a top aide on the Trump campaign and deputy chairman of the presidential inauguration committee. Facing up to six years in prison, Gates pleaded guilty in 2018 to lying to investigators and conspiring to commit other offenses.

Although he was a minor figure in the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos played a key role in launching the FBI investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia that predated Mueller’s appointment. After he told an Australian diplomat in a bar that the Russians might have damaging information on Clinton, the diplomat passed the information to the FBI. When prosecutors first approached him in January of 2017, Papadopoulos repeatedly lied about his contacts with Russian agents. He pleaded guilty to lying to investigators and was sentenced to 14 days in prison, a year of probation and a $9,500 fine

Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts with Rick Gates and an unnamed person in Ukraine. He served 30 days in jail and was deported from the United States.

After investigating Republican lobbyist Sam Patten, Mueller’s team handed the case to career prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s office in D.C. There, he pleaded guilty to failing to register as a lobbyist for Ukrainian clients while working with Kilimnik, helping a client get around restrictions on foreign donations in order to get tickets to Trump’s inauguration, and misleading congressional investigators.

 

[Samson]

The dominion lawsuit stretches to the MyPillow guy (aka the "Too mad for OANN" guy)

MyPillow Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mike Lindell tried to boost sales by adopting Donald Trump’s false claims about a vast election conspiracy, according to a $1.3 billion lawsuit filed by a voting machine company.
Dominion Voting Systems Inc.’s defamation suit, filed Monday in federal court in Washington, alleges Lindell repeatedly echoed the “big lie” about election fraud despite knowing that no such fraud had occurred. The suit says Lindell increased sales as much as 40% by repeating the false claims on conservative media while pitching promotional codes for his products like “FightForTrump,” “45,” and “QAnon.”
​

Anyone want to explain the "45"?


Mike Lindell pictured standing outside the West Wing of the White House in January

 

[Joij21]

Again, we are talking about the integrity of elections, to make them free and fair. Allowing for debate requires a framework for the public space that only the state can provide.

That only the state can provide? Are you serious!? No way is this country ever gonna tolerate state mandated censorship. It's unconstitutional, and any legal change surrounding the first amendment would trigger the start of the second American civil war!

No one and I mean no one is going to tolerate such blatant corruption, abuse, and tyranny from our government. That type of control, the kind were you let the state get so intrusive into people's personal lives is when dictatorships can rise. Very un-American way of thinking.

 

[IglooDame]

Anyone want to explain the "45"?

45th President of the US.

 

[mitsho]

That only the state can provide? Are you serious!? No way is this country ever gonna tolerate state mandated censorship. It's unconstitutional, and any legal change surrounding the first amendment would trigger the start of the second American civil war!

No one and I mean no one is going to tolerate such blatant corruption, abuse, and tyranny from our government. That type of control, the kind were you let the state get so intrusive into people's personal lives is when dictatorships can rise. Very un-American way of thinking.

The first amendment would be an example for the framework that the state provides. But then there are a lot of others. For example the rule that you can't harrass people around polling stations, or who elected officials may endorse officially. Generals for example probably shouldn't endorse one candidate or risk losing their job. Or that you can't accuse another company (ie dominion) of fraud without proof, as that is slander. And so on. Do you really think there are no rules? It's just a question which rules you want and which you don't.

(And yes, some of these rules are enforced and creates by the courts, but they belong to the state as well. As I said, the US is very far on one side of the scale, as a lot of those rules are decided by the two big parties competing, which is strange to us, but hey, cultural differences).

 

[Birdjaguar]

Trump loses tax fight at SCOTUS!

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-taxes-vance/index.html

 

[Samson]

Trump loses tax fight at SCOTUS!

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-taxes-vance/index.html

The shocking thing is this bit:

Last July, the Supreme Court, voting 7-2, rejected the Trump's broad claims of immunity from a state criminal subpoena seeking his tax returns and said that as president he was not entitled to any kind of heightened standard unavailable to ordinary citizens.
​

So 2 of the top "law people" in the US thought that the ex-POTUS should have more immunity than anyone else for financial crimes?

 

[Birdjaguar]

They might have dissented on some technical grounds. One would have to read their comments to know.

 

[Broken_Erika]

The shocking thing is this bit:

Last July, the Supreme Court, voting 7-2, rejected the Trump's broad claims of immunity from a state criminal subpoena seeking his tax returns and said that as president he was not entitled to any kind of heightened standard unavailable to ordinary citizens.
​

So 2 of the top "law people" in the US thought that the Republican ex-POTUS should have more immunity than anyone else for financial crimes?

FTFY

 

[Birdjaguar]

The shocking thing is this bit:

Last July, the Supreme Court, voting 7-2, rejected the Trump's broad claims of immunity from a state criminal subpoena seeking his tax returns and said that as president he was not entitled to any kind of heightened standard unavailable to ordinary citizens.
​

So 2 of the top "law people" in the US thought that the ex-POTUS should have more immunity than anyone else for financial crimes?

This link has both dissenting opinions if you care to read them.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/19-635/

 

[CKS]

The shocking thing is this bit:

Last July, the Supreme Court, voting 7-2, rejected the Trump's broad claims of immunity from a state criminal subpoena seeking his tax returns and said that as president he was not entitled to any kind of heightened standard unavailable to ordinary citizens.
​

So 2 of the top "law people" in the US thought that the ex-POTUS should have more immunity than anyone else for financial crimes?

No, only that that he shouldn't be hauled into court when he is supposed to be governing the country. Alito writes, basically, wait until he is out of office. Thomas writes, make sure he doesn't have other duties more pressing than complying with the subpoena before enforcing it. Neither one said to let him off the hook. I don't really buy the argument that _Trump_ was to busy running the country to deal with legal issues, but that is about this particular president, not presidents in general, which is what they were probably thinking about.

 

[Berzerker]

red-bait:

harass or persecute (someone) on account of known or suspected communist sympathies
​

Trump has certainly had his share of criticism, but I am not aware of anyone calling him a communist.

He was called Putin's puppet and I know its a cold war term but its still our reference for the tactic to us older folk.

Foreign interference is foreign interference whether it's $1 or $100 billion. Of course the amount matters a bit in how much attention to give it, but because the amount is smaller than whatever arbitrary number YOU want to set (based on whether it will help you win an argument), doesn't mean it didn't happen. Of course there is no way to know if the Russian interference changed the outcome, as there is no way to know how many was influenced by the ads (and posts, tweets, etc.). The fact Russia tried should outrage you.

I'm not outraged, election interference is our national pastime. Now if Russia had unleashed a deadly virus upon the world to defeat Trump or Obama I'd get mad, but I think the word 'interference' does require a bit more than $1 though, $350k in an election with billions flying around is small enough to require explanation. Did Russia interfere? Apparently. They were accused of stealing the emails but the owner of Crowdstrike said they didn't actually have evidence and Wiki denied it came from Russia. But hey, lotsa people say they did, okay.

I dont have a problem with foreign interference when it exposes corruption, I do have a problem when Democrats rejoice over Ukraine bringing down Manafort while decrying foreign interference and impeaching Trump and destroying Assange for exposing their corruption.

As for the ads:

Just think, some of the people online you agree or disagree with that you think are your fellow Americans, are actually Russian trolls trying to get both sides to hate each other more than they already do.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...social-media-ads-released-congress/849959001/

Republicans have been red-baiting for 70 years.

Longer than that, but thx again for the info. From your link:

Many of the ads linked to Russian operatives did not call for people to vote for a specific candidate. Instead, Russians, posing as Americans, spread divisive messages to stir up voters and public outrage.

Patterns quickly emerge in sampling the ads. Many of the hundreds of ads placed in April 2016 targeted racial divisions in American society, encouraging African-American political activism by imitating the language and messaging of the Black Lives Matter movement with posts highlighting racist incidents and others the resilience and beauty of the African-American community.

A smaller contingent that month targeted conservative Facebook users. Festooned with American flags, they sounded patriotic themes including reverence for the constitution. Still others contained calls for Americans to "take care of our vets, not illegals."

Thats what Aaron Mate said, it was largely click bait. People trying to make money with provocative or popular ads to get clicks. Where is the interference? Pro BLM and pro flags is an assault on our democracy? Democrats demanding censorship and tech oligarchs snapping to attention outrages me, that is the assault.

 

[Berzerker]

If you kept up with the news, you would know that the FISA lying was by one guy who edited an email. Those links have been posted here already.
but to help you out, here is the story. There are lots of versions of it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinesmith-guilty-plea-lying-about-lying/ar-BB18nQmt

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/19/politics/clinesmith-carter-page-fisa-warrant/index.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-sentenced-john-durham-probe

Oh there's more than 1 liar. Clinesmith's crime occurred in early 2017 after Page learned he was under investigation and went public and the FBI checked with the CIA if he really was helping them. They got permission for that warrant twice before Clinesmith changed the exculpatory email.

The entire Obama Birthism ?
Ted Cruz dad killing JFK ?
Global warming is a Hoax by Gyna ?
Mexican rapist ?
Clintons emails ?

Iam sure there are a lot more but the mental gymnastics it takes to defend Trump

Did Trump call Obama and Cruz Putin's puppets? Clinton's emails and rapists crossing the border is red baiting?

Yeah, completely unrelated.

I said the lies were unnecessary, not unrelated, and your link shows that to be the case. Durham had to correct Horowitz when he said the initial investigation into Papadopoulus was clean of bias so Durham must have something. Their strategy was centered around smearing Trump as a disloyal stooge of Russia, its possible the Dems found out their emails got swiped so they invented a Putin-Trump connection and Paps was their dupe. When he fizzled they lied about Carter Page.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Berzerker I did not intend this thread for old news, especially of the type you like to post. I responded to you in the political thread. Please keep this one for Trump's post presidency issues.

 

[Ajidica]

So 2 of the top "law people" in the US thought that the ex-POTUS should have more immunity than anyone else for financial crimes?

It was Alito and Thomas, people nobody have described as having much problem throwing legal principles out the window on political issues.

 

[Bamspeedy]

He was called Putin's puppet and I know its a cold war term but its still our reference for the tactic to us older folk.

Yes, Republican boomers who made Socialism a dirty word and insist the Democrat agenda is a communist one.

I remember Hillary accusing Stein of being a Russian plant. Not sure that was before or after one of the Russian ads promoted Stein.
In fairness to Stein she didn't know about the ad and I believe her, but that was one incident possibly nudged along by the russian ads. Sure, laugh at Hillary for falling for it...until it happens to one of the candidates you like. We can generate our own controversies, we don't need others nudging us along.

$350k in an election with billions flying around

A little money can go a long way....

With the right (salacious/truthy/fake) material, even a little money can go a long way. The Daily Beast had a Facebook ad specialist calculate how far $100,000 worth of Facebook spending would go and came up with a range of 23-70 million people, depending on how they were targeted.

Vice News talked with the owner of a right-wing Facebook page who uses Facebook ads to juice conservative content. After spending $34,100, the man controlled pages with 1.8 million likes. With that distribution base, he was able to push out content that could, on occasion, do serious numbers. “With a few advertising dollars, one April video ... received more than 27 million views and over 450,000 shares, spreading so pervasively into the conservative media universe that Donald Trump’s official Facebook page shared it two days later,” Vice wrote.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...lities-of-the-facebook-russian-ad-buy/541002/

I'll agree it probably didn't change the 2016 outcome, but the thing is, you want to stop this kind of thing before some foreign government comes along and does spend considerably more (or more effectively) and it does change the result. I would expect Russians would desire to stomp any US attempts to interfere in Russian elections as well.

Thats what Aaron Mate said, it was largely click bait. People trying to make money with provocative or popular ads to get clicks.

What motivation would a Russian troll farm have in posting political ads in a country not it's own?

Profit !?!?
That is your answer?

Man, Russia is worse off than I thought if they have to dress up like Americans to make money.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I said the lies were unnecessary, not unrelated, and your link shows that to be the case

and unrelated matters like Manafort's tax/money troubles?

Thats what Aaron Mate said

 

[FriendlyFire]

Did Trump call Obama and Cruz Putin's puppets? Clinton's emails and rapists crossing the border is red baiting?.

Your twisting yourself into a pretzel now
Trump gets a pass for retaliating and defending himself, but when shown that Trump himself is the one that uses the very same tactics you accuse the Dems of using you suddenly are unable to connect the dots.

 

[Sommerswerd]

They might have dissented on some technical grounds. One would have to read their comments to know.

Thomas rejected the "absolute immunity" defense, then citing among other things, a few of his own prior dissenting opinions (which gave me a bit of a chuckle), Thomas essentially tries to split hairs over the issuance of a subpoena versus the enforcement of it, and says the case should have been remanded for the lower Court to rule on that limited issue. It just comes across as a hamfisted attempt to keep the case in perpetual limbo.

Alito, on the other hand is much more direct and transparent. He essentially makes the good old slippery slope argument to say that once you allow this subpoena to stand, the "institution" of the Presidency will now be at the mercy of the thousands of podunk Prosecutors all over the country, which will be the downfall of the nation as we know it. In short Alito basically just goes ahead and explicitly declares that the POTUS should be above the law, otherwise the office of the Presidency cannot function.

Frankly, I just think the two of them are shameless arch-conservatives that wanted to find any excuse to protect a Republican.