|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 20 2018 10:20 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 10:14 PhoenixVoid wrote:On February 20 2018 10:05 hunts wrote:On February 20 2018 07:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2018 05:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 20 2018 05:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2018 04:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Holy fuck...
This is easily one of the most disrespectful responses to a school shooting I've ever seen. Might as well take a golden shower on the coffins too. Yeah but it'll piss off them liberals. Don't you know his voters love libtard tears? What better way than to find that sweet sweet nectar than to laugh over the graves of dead children? Also, shouldn't this piss off religious people? I thought that prayers were for God, not for Trump. Pretty sure trump is their god-king. I would not be surprised if by the time his term is over or he's impeaced if I were to see at least a few priests and pastors literally kneel in front of him and kiss his shoes. It will always boggle my mind how a man who said he never asked for forgiveness from God for his sins (a critical, if not the most important part of Christianity by the way) managed to rally all the Evangelicals behind him. I think it was a mixture of religious people having rabid levels of tribalism for republicans, and trump saying he was for family values and against abortions and such. I doubt any of them have heard of or believe about all of his adultery or other things that are against the bible. Or maybe most christians do those things themselves and so they don't really care.
The patriarchy has always mattered more than the gospel. Mega church leaders clad in gold live libertine lives, freely impregnating members of the flock. The important thing is that the men at the top stand for keeping men at the top, and women in line. Trump has never wavered in the slightest in his commitment to keeping women beneath him. And the faithful swarmed to him. You see this in religious leaders in all religions. Contrast the doctrines of Islam from the Koran with the preposterous lives of Jihadis in the Levant. Or all the pedophile priests.
EDIT: first, most recent hit on google. Decided to take a chance, and look what I found. The patriarchy is what is important here. Sure, he is a rapist, but he makes it clear where women stand. So it isn't a big deal.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/andy-savage-megachurch-pastor-sexual-assault_us_5a51f387e4b089e14dbb79a8
|
I see GH ignoring the fact that over 1/3 of the entire US population saw the russian based ads.
|
On February 20 2018 12:26 hunts wrote:
I see GH ignoring the fact that over 1/3 of the entire US population saw the russian based ads.
Besides all the stuff you're clearly ignoring, no I'm not.
I'm skeptical that's not a sensationalized number like how NBC News verified that these accounts accumulated "hundreds of millions of followers".
You should try it a little, especially after having your lack of skepticism bite you in the ass so many times recently.
But "seeing" isn't believing. It's not like your guys constant bombardment of propaganda has convinced me or my pointing it out convinced most of you to stop trying.
|
On February 20 2018 11:57 hunts wrote:Pretty good read in general, here's some parts from it. Show nested quote +The Russian attempt at long-distance choreography was playing out in many cities across the United States. Facebook has disclosed that about 130 rallies were promoted by 13 of the Russian pages, which reached 126 million Americans with provocative content on race, guns, immigration and other volatile issues.
“We are looking for friendship because we are fighting for the same reasons,” someone purporting to be with an online group calling itself Blacktivist wrote via Twitter to the Rev. Dr. Heber Brown III, a Baltimore pastor, in April 2016. “Actually we are open for your thoughts and offers.”
But Mr. Mueller’s indictment repeatedly states that the Russian operation was designed not just to provoke division among Americans but also to denigrate Hillary Clinton and support her rivals, mainly Mr. Trump. The hashtags the Russian operation used included #Trump2016, #TrumpTrain, #MAGA and #Hillary4Prison, and one Russian operative was reprimanded for “a low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton,” the indictment says.
While most of the Americans duped by the Russian trolls were not public figures, some higher-profile people were fooled. The indictment mentions the Russian Twitter feed @TEN_GOP, which posed as a Tennessee Republican account and attracted more than 100,000 followers. It was retweeted by Donald Trump Jr.; Kellyanne Conway, the president’s counselor; Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser; and his son, Michael Flynn Jr.
They have expressed no regret that they were apparently taken in by the Russian operatives. Instead, since Friday’s indictment, Donald Trump Jr., like his father, has pointed mainly to the fact that it did not accuse the president or his associates of assisting the Russian operation.
Source https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/us/politics/russian-operatives-facebook-twitter.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Much like real advertisements, we can’t know which ones changed minds. But there is no doubt it was a factor influenced the coverage and conversations around the election
|
On February 20 2018 12:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 11:57 hunts wrote:Pretty good read in general, here's some parts from it. The Russian attempt at long-distance choreography was playing out in many cities across the United States. Facebook has disclosed that about 130 rallies were promoted by 13 of the Russian pages, which reached 126 million Americans with provocative content on race, guns, immigration and other volatile issues.
“We are looking for friendship because we are fighting for the same reasons,” someone purporting to be with an online group calling itself Blacktivist wrote via Twitter to the Rev. Dr. Heber Brown III, a Baltimore pastor, in April 2016. “Actually we are open for your thoughts and offers.”
But Mr. Mueller’s indictment repeatedly states that the Russian operation was designed not just to provoke division among Americans but also to denigrate Hillary Clinton and support her rivals, mainly Mr. Trump. The hashtags the Russian operation used included #Trump2016, #TrumpTrain, #MAGA and #Hillary4Prison, and one Russian operative was reprimanded for “a low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton,” the indictment says.
While most of the Americans duped by the Russian trolls were not public figures, some higher-profile people were fooled. The indictment mentions the Russian Twitter feed @TEN_GOP, which posed as a Tennessee Republican account and attracted more than 100,000 followers. It was retweeted by Donald Trump Jr.; Kellyanne Conway, the president’s counselor; Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser; and his son, Michael Flynn Jr.
They have expressed no regret that they were apparently taken in by the Russian operatives. Instead, since Friday’s indictment, Donald Trump Jr., like his father, has pointed mainly to the fact that it did not accuse the president or his associates of assisting the Russian operation.
Source https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/us/politics/russian-operatives-facebook-twitter.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur Much like real advertisements, we can’t know which ones changed minds. But there is no doubt it was a factor influenced the coverage and conversations around the election
Would you agree that there is no doubt the more prolific propaganda like you posted from 'reputable' sources influenced liberals perception around Russia's involvement?
EDIT: If not, how can you arrive at that conclusion?
**This is an open question to anyone who asserts that Russian propaganda influenced Bernie supporters in any significant way.**
|
I'm shocked Ol' Felon Joe wasn't invited to speak. Then he could thank Trump in person.
|
In the funniest timeline we find out that russian leftist trolls have been sending a bunch of sexist messages to liberals and this is how the Berniebro bs started
|
On February 20 2018 10:25 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 09:40 Doodsmack wrote:On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out. Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc. Well, obviously you are not a lawyer, because every ambulance-chaser knows... well, I don't know. I unfortunately am unable to preface all my posts and opinions with a generically meaningless signal of authority. It is good the internet has lawyers, because why should I trust this Robert Mueller person? What. A. Fucking. List. Marie Le Pen! Russia's favorite Franc! David La Clarke! Wayne La Pierre! Nigel Fucking Farage!
Wait. Marion Le Pen?! The granddaughter? Why?
Just to be clear: Jean-Marie and Marine are awful ppl, terrible politicians and a sad blight on the political landscape of Europe. But inviting the youngest member of this despicable dynasty reeks of "we wanted one of the other two, but they weren't available, so we settled for the third in line".
|
On February 20 2018 17:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 10:25 Leporello wrote:On February 20 2018 09:40 Doodsmack wrote:On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out. Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc. Well, obviously you are not a lawyer, because every ambulance-chaser knows... well, I don't know. I unfortunately am unable to preface all my posts and opinions with a generically meaningless signal of authority. It is good the internet has lawyers, because why should I trust this Robert Mueller person? https://twitter.com/yashar/status/965715128170754048What. A. Fucking. List. Marie Le Pen! Russia's favorite Franc! David La Clarke! Wayne La Pierre! Nigel Fucking Farage! Wait. Marion Le Pen?! The granddaughter? Why? Just to be clear: Jean-Marie and Marine are awful ppl, terrible politicians and a sad blight on the political landscape of Europe. But inviting the youngest member of this despicable dynasty reeks of "we wanted one of the other two, but they weren't available, so we settled for the third in line".
Nah that one makes sense actually. Marine Le Pen's main line is populism, she will say anything to get votes it can come from the left and the right (it mainly comes from the right I'm not denying that of course, it's basically similar to Trump's strategy). Marion Le Pen is more firmly on the right, there have been "clashes" between them because she wants the line of the party to be more socially conservative (for example on abortion).
|
On February 20 2018 17:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 10:25 Leporello wrote:On February 20 2018 09:40 Doodsmack wrote:On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out. Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc. Well, obviously you are not a lawyer, because every ambulance-chaser knows... well, I don't know. I unfortunately am unable to preface all my posts and opinions with a generically meaningless signal of authority. It is good the internet has lawyers, because why should I trust this Robert Mueller person? https://twitter.com/yashar/status/965715128170754048What. A. Fucking. List. Marie Le Pen! Russia's favorite Franc! David La Clarke! Wayne La Pierre! Nigel Fucking Farage! Wait. Marion Le Pen?! The granddaughter? Why? Just to be clear: Jean-Marie and Marine are awful ppl, terrible politicians and a sad blight on the political landscape of Europe. But inviting the youngest member of this despicable dynasty reeks of "we wanted one of the other two, but they weren't available, so we settled for the third in line".
Because Le Pen 3.0 is trying to build her character in case she wants to come back later in French politics. Le Pen 2.0 is too busy trying to keep together her party in shambles.
|
On February 20 2018 19:47 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 17:42 Acrofales wrote:On February 20 2018 10:25 Leporello wrote:On February 20 2018 09:40 Doodsmack wrote:On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out. Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc. Well, obviously you are not a lawyer, because every ambulance-chaser knows... well, I don't know. I unfortunately am unable to preface all my posts and opinions with a generically meaningless signal of authority. It is good the internet has lawyers, because why should I trust this Robert Mueller person? https://twitter.com/yashar/status/965715128170754048What. A. Fucking. List. Marie Le Pen! Russia's favorite Franc! David La Clarke! Wayne La Pierre! Nigel Fucking Farage! Wait. Marion Le Pen?! The granddaughter? Why? Just to be clear: Jean-Marie and Marine are awful ppl, terrible politicians and a sad blight on the political landscape of Europe. But inviting the youngest member of this despicable dynasty reeks of "we wanted one of the other two, but they weren't available, so we settled for the third in line". Because Le Pen 3.0 is trying to build her character in case she wants to come back later in French politics. Le Pen 2.0 is too busy trying to keep together her party in shambles.
Oh, I understand why Le Pen 3.0 would want to speak at CPAC. I don't understand why CPAC would want her there (to be fair, I don't understand why they'd want ANY Le Pen there, but that aside). Nebuchad gave a plausible reason. My problem is taking it at face value: the raison d'être for the FN is their anti-immigration (and anti-EU) stance. While I'm sure Le Pen 3.0 is making noises about a more socially conservative way, insofar as I understand the party, French politics and the cult around the Le Pens is that the party could literally advocate murdering newborns and it wouldn't matter a fig as long as they were still in favour of shipping entire banlieues full of brown people out to Algeria "where they belong". So whatever Le Pen 3.0 says is so that she can spearhead a "new wave" of FN, which is *very different* from the "old" FN of her auntie (which in turn was *very different* from the FN of Jean Marie Le Pen) and anything she says should be seen in that light.
I do find it quite entertaining to remember the discussion a few weeks (months?) back about what "true conservatives" believed in in the US. It was definitely something completely different from populism, and Trump, Le Pen and Farage were *explicitly not* true conservatives (tm). Seems Danglars didn't get the memo.
|
On February 20 2018 19:47 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 17:42 Acrofales wrote:On February 20 2018 10:25 Leporello wrote:On February 20 2018 09:40 Doodsmack wrote:On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out. Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc. Well, obviously you are not a lawyer, because every ambulance-chaser knows... well, I don't know. I unfortunately am unable to preface all my posts and opinions with a generically meaningless signal of authority. It is good the internet has lawyers, because why should I trust this Robert Mueller person? https://twitter.com/yashar/status/965715128170754048What. A. Fucking. List. Marie Le Pen! Russia's favorite Franc! David La Clarke! Wayne La Pierre! Nigel Fucking Farage! Wait. Marion Le Pen?! The granddaughter? Why? Just to be clear: Jean-Marie and Marine are awful ppl, terrible politicians and a sad blight on the political landscape of Europe. But inviting the youngest member of this despicable dynasty reeks of "we wanted one of the other two, but they weren't available, so we settled for the third in line". Because Le Pen 3.0 is trying to build her character in case she wants to come back later in French politics. Le Pen 2.0 is too busy trying to keep together her party in shambles.
This reminds me a bit of the Tessier-Ashpools from Neuromancer. Which one is 3Jane?
|
On February 20 2018 20:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 19:47 TheDwf wrote:On February 20 2018 17:42 Acrofales wrote:On February 20 2018 10:25 Leporello wrote:On February 20 2018 09:40 Doodsmack wrote:On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out. Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc. Well, obviously you are not a lawyer, because every ambulance-chaser knows... well, I don't know. I unfortunately am unable to preface all my posts and opinions with a generically meaningless signal of authority. It is good the internet has lawyers, because why should I trust this Robert Mueller person? https://twitter.com/yashar/status/965715128170754048What. A. Fucking. List. Marie Le Pen! Russia's favorite Franc! David La Clarke! Wayne La Pierre! Nigel Fucking Farage! Wait. Marion Le Pen?! The granddaughter? Why? Just to be clear: Jean-Marie and Marine are awful ppl, terrible politicians and a sad blight on the political landscape of Europe. But inviting the youngest member of this despicable dynasty reeks of "we wanted one of the other two, but they weren't available, so we settled for the third in line". Because Le Pen 3.0 is trying to build her character in case she wants to come back later in French politics. Le Pen 2.0 is too busy trying to keep together her party in shambles. Oh, I understand why Le Pen 3.0 would want to speak at CPAC. I don't understand why CPAC would want her there (to be fair, I don't understand why they'd want ANY Le Pen there, but that aside). Nebuchad gave a plausible reason.
From what I read, Sarah Palin had noticed her and wanted to invite her. Plus probably some "OMG a young conservative female" effect. And yeah, as Nebuchad said, she's closer to what US conservatives think is conservatism. I guess even Le Pen 2.0 is too "socialist" for them lol
|
|
|
He's already worried about reelection...
TALLAHASSEE — Responding to his critics in the wake of Florida’s latest mass shooting, Sen. Marco Rubio says a task force of experts should examine the “epidemic” of mass shootings and expressed concern that Congress essentially bans federally funded research into firearm violence.
Rubio has an “A+” rating from the National Rifle Association, and voted for numerous bills expanding gun rights, including Stand Your Ground, when he served in the Florida Legislature. And the degree to which he would give ground to gun-control supporters remains far from clear after the slaughter of 17 people last Wednesday afternoon at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, a Fort Lauderdale suburb.
Still, Rubio also indicated a willingness to expand background checks; consider a “gun-violence restraining order” to remove weapons from those accused of domestic violence; examine banning so-called “bump fire” conversion kits that enable semi-automatic rifles to fire like machine guns; and improve violence-prevention programs, pioneered in Los Angeles, to detect signs of trouble ahead of time.
“If you’re going to talk about gun violence, you’re going to have to focus on the gun part. But you also have to focus on the violence part,” Rubio told POLITICO. “What is the catalyst causing people to do this?”
Rubio’s support for a task force is still in its early stages and marks a first for him since he joined the Senate as a gun-rights conservative.
Rubio said he wasn’t sure who would sit on a task force or not, and he understood “people roll their eyes at a task force.”
In Tallahassee, two of Rubio’s allies in the Florida Senate also called for a task force, but focused on school gun violence. And Gov. Rick Scott, under fire from Democrats for doing little to prevent gun violence, announced he’ll host a series of hearings with education, mental health and law enforcement officials Tuesday to find solutions. Scott has said “everything’s on the table,” but has not said what action he favors.
Scott made the announcement after students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School announced they were headed to Tallahassee to advocate for gun control.
Neither Rubio nor any of the Republican lawmakers in Tallahassee have supported adding a waiting period for semiautomatic rifle purchases, banning AR-15 semiautomatic weapons or limiting purchases to those under the age of 18.
Rubio said he was unaware that some of the research work of a task force could be hampered by a federal budget amendment, first passed in 1996 and approved yearly since, that restricts federal funding for research on gun violence and has led to a de facto ban.
The amendment, named after the late Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), says that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
Congress then reduced CDC’s budget by the amount of money it spent on gun violence research that year, and researchers took that as a ban. Dickey, who died last year, had expressed regret for the amendment and said in a 2016 open letter that “funding for research into gun-violence prevention should be dramatically increased.”
“If you’re hiring someone to research a public health issue, I think what you want is the most holistic approach possible,” he said.
But Rubio stopped short of calling for the repeal of the Dickey Amendment because he said he wanted to learn more. Other Republican members of Congress, such as Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), said the policy should be re-examined.
In the past two years, Florida has seen more widely publicized mass shootings than any other state, starting with the murder of 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando on June 12, 2016. On Jan. 16, 2017, five were shot to death in the baggage claim area of the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport. On June 5, 2017, five more people were murdered in an Orlando workplace shooting. Then came Wednesday's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
Rubio took to the Senate floor to talk about the need to find answers to the growing problems of mass shootings, but he also reiterated that he wasn’t sure what reasonable and politically feasible gun regulations would stop the problems.
"If we do something, it should be something that works. And the struggle up to this point has been that most of the proposals that have been offered would not have prevented, not just yesterday's tragedy, but any of those in recent history," Rubio said.
Rubio made sure to add a new caveat: "Just because these proposals would not have prevented these does not mean that we therefore raise our hands and say, 'Therefore, there's nothing we can do.'"
Democrats dismissed Rubio’s remarks as all talk and no action. But when local and national media covered his remarks, Rubio took to Twitter to decry how the “nuance” of his statement wasn’t accurately reflected.
Rubio first singled out what he called a “distorted & inflammatory headline” on CNN that said “Rubio: Gun laws wouldn't have prevented Parkland.” He also disputed another headline in the Tampa Bay Times: “NRA-backed Marco Rubio says gun control laws alone won’t prevent mass shootings.”
Rubio also took aim at a Tampa Bay Times headline, which was changed after he complained to say: “NRA-backed Marco Rubio says gun control laws alone won’t prevent mass shootings.”
Rubio points out that The Washington Post previously found his claim true that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws. He also faulted the “media” Friday on Twitter for failing to point out he had “co-sponsored Safe Communities Safe Schools Act providing $ to report mental illness to background check system … They never mention I co-sponsored Mental Health & Safe Communities Act which banned gun sales to persons committed to psych hospital.”
“Media never mentions these things b/c would contradict narrative they want, that evil Republicans in pocket of NRA are blocking gun laws,” wrote Rubio, who has received $3.3 million in direct and indirect support from gun-rights groups.
Unlike Rubio, his Democratic counterpart in the U.S. Senate, Bill Nelson, said the government needs to take action by banning so called “assault rifles” like the one used in Wednesday’s shooting.
“I still hunt with my son. But an AR-15 is not for hunting. It's for killing,” Nelson said on the Senate floor. “But despite these horrific events that are occurring over and over, these tragedies have led so many of us to come right here to this floor and to beg our colleagues to take commonsense actions that we all know will help protect our children and our fellow citizens from these kind of tragedies. And we get nowhere.”
Last week, Nelson and Rubio each visited Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
Both Nelson and Rubio also accepted a CNN offer to attend a Wednesday night forum on gun violence with students, parents and community members. Scott, who might run against Nelson for Senate, has yet to confirm his attendance.
Rubio said background checks probably need to be approved.
Accused shooter Nikolas Cruz “underwent a background check. Right now that background check only tells you if he’s been adjudicated of a crime or being mentally ill,” Rubio said. “I would love to have a system that, when he went to buy this gun, told the people: ‘Stand by. We got a tip on Jan. 5 this guy was going to do something — although he bought it a year ago. He was kicked out of school for serious problems. There have been 36 calls to police. He was potentially under psychiatric care. Neighbors are always complaining about him. He posted this thing on YouTube. He has very scary things on Instagram.’ I would love to have a system that told them that.”
But, Rubio said, mental health and privacy rights advocates are worried about the stigma of giving gun sellers access to mental health information. Some might not seek treatment if they think they’ll lose their ability to hunt.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
This is probably why there's some from the GOP claiming that these students have "sophisticated left-wing advisors" "exploiting the children" to "advance their agenda."
Or at least that's how CNN reported it when I saw it at the gym this morning, despite my best efforts to stay away from the American media during my quality time.
|
|
|
On February 21 2018 00:26 mikedebo wrote:This is probably why there's some from the GOP claiming that these students have "sophisticated left-wing advisors" "exploiting the children" to "advance their agenda." Or at least that's how CNN reported it when I saw it at the gym this morning, despite my best efforts to stay away from the American media during my quality time.
I feel like I was extremely aware of the world around me at this age. It's like people forget their own mental capabilities when they were younger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
