|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 06 2019 01:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 00:53 Doodsmack wrote:On April 06 2019 00:22 Plansix wrote:
Why are we accepting someone like George Papadopoulos’s expert opinion on how the US government set him up with the help of the Russians? Honest question. His opinion alone wouldn't be worth much, but it's the facts and evidence. The people with whom he was interacting, who told him about Russia having Hillarys emails, and who he relayed that information to, were all affiliated with western countries/governments/Intel agencies. As soon as it became public that he was a trump advisor, he was enveloped by them (not by his own initiative - they came to him) and they pushed their ability to connect him with people in russia. Being young and stupid and naive and egotistic and ambitious (the perfect target) he didnt question any of it and eagerly participated. But again, these people worked at western institutions in Europe. Universities and think tanks etc affiliated with western governments and Intel agencies/law enforcement. This is what leads to the inference of a sting. Coincidentally, he already worked in that environment described (foreign policy think tanks) before he joined the campaign. Why would it be a sting and not the Russian government trying to reach out while the US government is also investigating Russia’s efforts?
That would mean that these people working in western think tanks and universities who were reaching out to GP were really Russian double agents. Or the entire organizations were Russian fronts. I guess in theory that's possible but it seems unlikely, especially the latter.
If they were double agents youd have to hope that Mueller would have indicted the shit out of them for espionage.
|
On April 06 2019 01:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 01:00 Plansix wrote:On April 06 2019 00:53 Doodsmack wrote:On April 06 2019 00:22 Plansix wrote:
Why are we accepting someone like George Papadopoulos’s expert opinion on how the US government set him up with the help of the Russians? Honest question. His opinion alone wouldn't be worth much, but it's the facts and evidence. The people with whom he was interacting, who told him about Russia having Hillarys emails, and who he relayed that information to, were all affiliated with western countries/governments/Intel agencies. As soon as it became public that he was a trump advisor, he was enveloped by them (not by his own initiative - they came to him) and they pushed their ability to connect him with people in russia. Being young and stupid and naive and egotistic and ambitious (the perfect target) he didnt question any of it and eagerly participated. But again, these people worked at western institutions in Europe. Universities and think tanks etc affiliated with western governments and Intel agencies/law enforcement. This is what leads to the inference of a sting. Coincidentally, he already worked in that environment described (foreign policy think tanks) before he joined the campaign. Why would it be a sting and not the Russian government trying to reach out while the US government is also investigating Russia’s efforts? Because Russians weren't contacting Papadopoulos. Western agents were. A western agent is the one who suggested to Papadopoulos that the Russians had Hillary's emails.
So this is after the DNC hack and wikileaks dropped the emails? Because at that point, if I remember correctly, our government was trying to confirm intelligence that the Trump campaign was being offered/seeking assistance from Russia. Because the standard response for any campaign should be going to the FBI if they are offered something like that.
Edit: NM, he joined in March of 2016 and was meeting with a dude claiming to have high level connections to the Russian goverment and a women claiming to be Putin's niece by the end of the month. If it is a sting operation, its a super impressive one.
|
|
|
On April 06 2019 01:10 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 01:00 Plansix wrote:On April 06 2019 00:53 Doodsmack wrote:On April 06 2019 00:22 Plansix wrote:
Why are we accepting someone like George Papadopoulos’s expert opinion on how the US government set him up with the help of the Russians? Honest question. His opinion alone wouldn't be worth much, but it's the facts and evidence. The people with whom he was interacting, who told him about Russia having Hillarys emails, and who he relayed that information to, were all affiliated with western countries/governments/Intel agencies. As soon as it became public that he was a trump advisor, he was enveloped by them (not by his own initiative - they came to him) and they pushed their ability to connect him with people in russia. Being young and stupid and naive and egotistic and ambitious (the perfect target) he didnt question any of it and eagerly participated. But again, these people worked at western institutions in Europe. Universities and think tanks etc affiliated with western governments and Intel agencies/law enforcement. This is what leads to the inference of a sting. Coincidentally, he already worked in that environment described (foreign policy think tanks) before he joined the campaign. Why would it be a sting and not the Russian government trying to reach out while the US government is also investigating Russia’s efforts? That would mean that these people working in western think tanks and universities who were reaching out to GP were really Russian double agents. Or the entire organizations were Russian fronts. I guess in theory that's possible but it seems unlikely, especially the latter. If they were double agents youd have to hope that Mueller would have indicted the shit out of them for espionage.
Why would they be double agents and not just people affiliated with Russia? You need to work for the US goverment as an agent to be a double agent for Russia.
|
On April 06 2019 01:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 00:14 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 23:54 KwarK wrote:On April 05 2019 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 11:59 JimmiC wrote:
When you say anything are you including the tax evasion? Or do you feel that breaking the law in that way is not wrong? I was only referring to the Mueller stuff -- collusion/conspiracy and obstruction. But I have a hard time thinking that Trump did anything wrong on his taxes, either, given 1) how many times that he has been audited without consequence, and 2) the fact that he has an army of accountants handling this stuff for him, so it is highly unlikely that he even knows what's going on below him. Hi. I can chime in on this as an expert. Tax accountants assist the client with putting the information generated by the client on the forms in line with the tax strategy selected by the client. And we make the client sign a piece of paper legally absolving us from responsibility for the legality and accuracy of that. The IRS needs to prove that we knew the info was false to get us. Public accounting is a fraudulent and morally bankrupt profession. We’re paid to operate as a smokescreen between the public and individuals but we don’t verify things. We just write endless memos to legally cover our asses in the event that we get sued. Clients lie to us all the time, and we know they’re lying. But they pay us to repeat their lies with an aura of respectability and we charge to not see things. No argument from me on this stuff. But a couple points of clarification. First, Trump's stuff is privately owned, so it isn't subject to the same public accounting rules, though I have no doubt that the basic "fraudulent and morally bankrupt" process applies. Second, Trump's business empire is a conglomerate of multiple businesses collectively worth billions of dollars. Each discrete business is going to have an executive and bookkeeping/accounting team (there may be some overlap). Each of these executive and bookkeeping/accounting teams in turn feed financial information related to their respective business to whoever the tax people are (it's quite likely that there are multiple firms handling this given the overall load of work). The idea that Trump has personal knowledge of what each of these persons is doing -- and more so the idea that he is personally manipulating them -- is ludicrous. So if we circle back to the idea of whether Trump is constantly committing tax fraud and should be held criminally liable for questionable tax accounting practices at any one of his businesses or his charitable foundation, it just doesn't hold up. Yeah, he may be ultimately responsible for covering any shortfall in tax liability, but that's not the same as tax fraud or some other criminal liability as is being alleged. But the NYT article about his tax crimes are not involving all those businesses. It is in regards to his inheritance, which is the whole reason he is rich in the first place. Are you saying that Trump would not be involved with the billions of dollar inheritance (in today's money)? To me that seems prosperous. I mean sure could some accountant in the Trump mattress division be doing something he is not aware of, of course. That he was not involved with the whole reason he is rich? Come on now.
Yes, the inheritance tax issue would be something else. But again, the rub is the accuracy of the NYT's reporting. I find it incredibly hard to believe that this stuff escaped notice under the multiple audits that Trump has received since the inheritance. We'll see if something pops up, but I highly doubt it at this point.
|
On April 06 2019 01:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 01:10 Doodsmack wrote:On April 06 2019 01:00 Plansix wrote:On April 06 2019 00:53 Doodsmack wrote:On April 06 2019 00:22 Plansix wrote:
Why are we accepting someone like George Papadopoulos’s expert opinion on how the US government set him up with the help of the Russians? Honest question. His opinion alone wouldn't be worth much, but it's the facts and evidence. The people with whom he was interacting, who told him about Russia having Hillarys emails, and who he relayed that information to, were all affiliated with western countries/governments/Intel agencies. As soon as it became public that he was a trump advisor, he was enveloped by them (not by his own initiative - they came to him) and they pushed their ability to connect him with people in russia. Being young and stupid and naive and egotistic and ambitious (the perfect target) he didnt question any of it and eagerly participated. But again, these people worked at western institutions in Europe. Universities and think tanks etc affiliated with western governments and Intel agencies/law enforcement. This is what leads to the inference of a sting. Coincidentally, he already worked in that environment described (foreign policy think tanks) before he joined the campaign. Why would it be a sting and not the Russian government trying to reach out while the US government is also investigating Russia’s efforts? That would mean that these people working in western think tanks and universities who were reaching out to GP were really Russian double agents. Or the entire organizations were Russian fronts. I guess in theory that's possible but it seems unlikely, especially the latter. If they were double agents youd have to hope that Mueller would have indicted the shit out of them for espionage. Why would they be double agents and not just people affiliated with Russia? You need to work for the US goverment as an agent to be a double agent for Russia.
They'd have to be double agents because we know that they worked for the US and Western governments. We know who they are: Halpern, Mifsud, Downer, etc. Accordingly, they're either double agents, or they are strictly Western agents. If it's the latter, that raises some very troubling questions.
|
On April 06 2019 01:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 01:10 Doodsmack wrote:On April 06 2019 01:00 Plansix wrote:On April 06 2019 00:53 Doodsmack wrote:On April 06 2019 00:22 Plansix wrote:
Why are we accepting someone like George Papadopoulos’s expert opinion on how the US government set him up with the help of the Russians? Honest question. His opinion alone wouldn't be worth much, but it's the facts and evidence. The people with whom he was interacting, who told him about Russia having Hillarys emails, and who he relayed that information to, were all affiliated with western countries/governments/Intel agencies. As soon as it became public that he was a trump advisor, he was enveloped by them (not by his own initiative - they came to him) and they pushed their ability to connect him with people in russia. Being young and stupid and naive and egotistic and ambitious (the perfect target) he didnt question any of it and eagerly participated. But again, these people worked at western institutions in Europe. Universities and think tanks etc affiliated with western governments and Intel agencies/law enforcement. This is what leads to the inference of a sting. Coincidentally, he already worked in that environment described (foreign policy think tanks) before he joined the campaign. Why would it be a sting and not the Russian government trying to reach out while the US government is also investigating Russia’s efforts? That would mean that these people working in western think tanks and universities who were reaching out to GP were really Russian double agents. Or the entire organizations were Russian fronts. I guess in theory that's possible but it seems unlikely, especially the latter. If they were double agents youd have to hope that Mueller would have indicted the shit out of them for espionage. Why would they be double agents and not just people affiliated with Russia? You need to work for the US goverment as an agent to be a double agent for Russia.
Well they certainly weren't Russian themselves and they worked for western institutions. So it would mean they were Russian informants working in western institutions - not impossible I guess. The woman who allegedly was putins nice was the only actual Russian, and she was just this beautiful young Russian who barely spoke English and didnt contribute to the conversation (according to GP).
|
On April 06 2019 01:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 01:20 JimmiC wrote:On April 06 2019 00:14 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 23:54 KwarK wrote:On April 05 2019 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 11:59 JimmiC wrote:
When you say anything are you including the tax evasion? Or do you feel that breaking the law in that way is not wrong? I was only referring to the Mueller stuff -- collusion/conspiracy and obstruction. But I have a hard time thinking that Trump did anything wrong on his taxes, either, given 1) how many times that he has been audited without consequence, and 2) the fact that he has an army of accountants handling this stuff for him, so it is highly unlikely that he even knows what's going on below him. Hi. I can chime in on this as an expert. Tax accountants assist the client with putting the information generated by the client on the forms in line with the tax strategy selected by the client. And we make the client sign a piece of paper legally absolving us from responsibility for the legality and accuracy of that. The IRS needs to prove that we knew the info was false to get us. Public accounting is a fraudulent and morally bankrupt profession. We’re paid to operate as a smokescreen between the public and individuals but we don’t verify things. We just write endless memos to legally cover our asses in the event that we get sued. Clients lie to us all the time, and we know they’re lying. But they pay us to repeat their lies with an aura of respectability and we charge to not see things. No argument from me on this stuff. But a couple points of clarification. First, Trump's stuff is privately owned, so it isn't subject to the same public accounting rules, though I have no doubt that the basic "fraudulent and morally bankrupt" process applies. Second, Trump's business empire is a conglomerate of multiple businesses collectively worth billions of dollars. Each discrete business is going to have an executive and bookkeeping/accounting team (there may be some overlap). Each of these executive and bookkeeping/accounting teams in turn feed financial information related to their respective business to whoever the tax people are (it's quite likely that there are multiple firms handling this given the overall load of work). The idea that Trump has personal knowledge of what each of these persons is doing -- and more so the idea that he is personally manipulating them -- is ludicrous. So if we circle back to the idea of whether Trump is constantly committing tax fraud and should be held criminally liable for questionable tax accounting practices at any one of his businesses or his charitable foundation, it just doesn't hold up. Yeah, he may be ultimately responsible for covering any shortfall in tax liability, but that's not the same as tax fraud or some other criminal liability as is being alleged. But the NYT article about his tax crimes are not involving all those businesses. It is in regards to his inheritance, which is the whole reason he is rich in the first place. Are you saying that Trump would not be involved with the billions of dollar inheritance (in today's money)? To me that seems prosperous. I mean sure could some accountant in the Trump mattress division be doing something he is not aware of, of course. That he was not involved with the whole reason he is rich? Come on now. Yes, the inheritance tax issue would be something else. But again, the rub is the accuracy of the NYT's reporting. I find it incredibly hard to believe that this stuff escaped notice under the multiple audits that Trump has received since the inheritance. We'll see if something pops up, but I highly doubt it at this point.
It's all in the documents though it was back in the 80s I believe. They created a shell company to overcharge trump business entities for various business expenses, and thereby pass the inheritance into that shell company and then to the children. It was a scheme. It's all in the trump business documents.
It's also the sum total of money trump ever had. The rest is debt, some real estate basics and image management. Hes not a billionaire and he got $600M from daddy.
|
|
|
Yeah, that isn't how being a double agent works. You need to be an agent for the CIA, spying on Russia while secretly spying on the CIA's efforts for Russia. It is also the stuff of movies more than reality.
Spies for countries are rarely, if ever, from the country they are spying for. That is the joke of James Bond, he is a British spy that uses his real name and is clearly from the UK. He would be a terrible spy. Just like the CIA has a real problem spying in the Middle East for all the obvious reasons. Spies are normally people from the target country who have access to things the spying nation wants. And they are targeted, normally through intermediaries, to see if they are willing to be recruited and how to make that happen. American dude from the CIA doesn't fly out to some country and look for people who want to spy for us. They have contacts in said country who are on the look out for possible "assets" to be developed.
If people want to learn more about spying, I recommend ditching George Papadopoulos and reading Spy Handler: Memoir of a KGB Officer or any number of books about the intelligence operations in Europe after the end of World War 2. Also, any book about the French resistance and how it was filled with Nazi sympathizers who undercut their efforts is also interesting, but really depressing.
|
On April 06 2019 01:45 Plansix wrote:Yeah, that isn't how being a double agent works. You need to be an agent for the CIA, spying on Russia while secretly spying on the CIA's efforts for Russia. It is also the stuff of movies more than reality. Spies for countries are rarely, if ever, from the country they are spying for. That is the joke of James Bond, he is a British spy that uses his real name and is clearly from the UK. He would be a terrible spy. Just like the CIA has a real problem spying in the Middle East for all the obvious reasons. Spies are normally people from the target country who have access to things the spying nation wants. And they are targeted, normally through intermediaries, to see if they are willing to be recruited and how to make that happen. American dude from the CIA doesn't fly out to some country and look for people who want to spy for us. They have contacts in said country who are on the look out for possible "assets" to be developed. If people want to learn more about spying, I recommend ditching George Papadopoulos and reading Spy Handler: Memoir of a KGB Officer or any number of books about the intelligence operations in Europe after the end of World War 2. Also, any book about the French resistance and how it was filled with Nazi sympathizers who undercut their efforts is also interesting, but really depressing.
This is the whole point, which you are inexplicably missing. We know that they are CIA/Western agents. Logically, this necessarily means that cannot be strictly Russian agents. There's only two possibilities: 1) they are solely CIA/Western agents, or 2) they are double agents.
|
Mifsud is a known CIA agent? Because he was the first to contact Papadopoulos and the first told hold a meeting. He also offered dirt on Hilary, per reports.
Edit: Yeah, I can't find anything showing that he was a known Western/CIA agent.
|
On April 06 2019 01:54 Plansix wrote:
Mifsud is a known CIA agent? Because he was the first to contact Papadopoulos and the first told hold a meeting.
Yes, Mifsud, Halper, and Downer are all affiliated with Western intelligence.
Edit: Yeah, I can't find anything showing that he was a known Western/CIA agent.
It's in multiple places, including, and perhaps most damning of all, Strzok and Page text about it when Mifsud and Papadopoulos meet.
|
On April 06 2019 01:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 01:54 Plansix wrote:
Mifsud is a known CIA agent? Because he was the first to contact Papadopoulos and the first told hold a meeting. Yes, Mifsud, Halper, and Downer are all affiliated with Western intelligence.
I'm not finding anythign on that subject. Do you have something showing that he was known for working for US intelligence agencies?
Edit: Yeah, I need to read that for myself. From my reading, Mifsud was knee deep in diplomatic hobnobbing, taking selfies with Boris Johnson and working with the Saudis. I have no doubt that the CIA and other agencies would have made contact with him at some point in existence, but that doesn't mean they had an established working relationship. This dude seems about as subtle as a couple leaving prom early, so I'm not sure he is the guy.
|
On April 06 2019 01:45 Plansix wrote:Yeah, that isn't how being a double agent works. You need to be an agent for the CIA, spying on Russia while secretly spying on the CIA's efforts for Russia. It is also the stuff of movies more than reality. Spies for countries are rarely, if ever, from the country they are spying for. That is the joke of James Bond, he is a British spy that uses his real name and is clearly from the UK. He would be a terrible spy. Just like the CIA has a real problem spying in the Middle East for all the obvious reasons. Spies are normally people from the target country who have access to things the spying nation wants. And they are targeted, normally through intermediaries, to see if they are willing to be recruited and how to make that happen. American dude from the CIA doesn't fly out to some country and look for people who want to spy for us. They have contacts in said country who are on the look out for possible "assets" to be developed. If people want to learn more about spying, I recommend ditching George Papadopoulos and reading Spy Handler: Memoir of a KGB Officer or any number of books about the intelligence operations in Europe after the end of World War 2. Also, any book about the French resistance and how it was filled with Nazi sympathizers who undercut their efforts is also interesting, but really depressing.
Fact remains that Russia would have needed a bunch of spies in these western think tanks and universities, including mifsud, and some of whom were former western govt officials, who were the ones reaching out to GP. Seems unlikely, because it was not just mifsud acting alone.
|
On April 06 2019 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 01:45 Plansix wrote:Yeah, that isn't how being a double agent works. You need to be an agent for the CIA, spying on Russia while secretly spying on the CIA's efforts for Russia. It is also the stuff of movies more than reality. Spies for countries are rarely, if ever, from the country they are spying for. That is the joke of James Bond, he is a British spy that uses his real name and is clearly from the UK. He would be a terrible spy. Just like the CIA has a real problem spying in the Middle East for all the obvious reasons. Spies are normally people from the target country who have access to things the spying nation wants. And they are targeted, normally through intermediaries, to see if they are willing to be recruited and how to make that happen. American dude from the CIA doesn't fly out to some country and look for people who want to spy for us. They have contacts in said country who are on the look out for possible "assets" to be developed. If people want to learn more about spying, I recommend ditching George Papadopoulos and reading Spy Handler: Memoir of a KGB Officer or any number of books about the intelligence operations in Europe after the end of World War 2. Also, any book about the French resistance and how it was filled with Nazi sympathizers who undercut their efforts is also interesting, but really depressing. Fact remains that Russia would have needed a bunch of spies in these western think tanks and universities, including mifsud, and some of whom were former western govt officials, who were the ones reaching out to GP. Seems unlikely, because it was not just mifsud acting alone.
Mifsud was first and the discussion between him and Papadopoulos started an investigation into what Papadopoulos was doing. Going forward, Papadopoulos claims that he was contacted by all sorts of people, some working for Russia, some working for the US. It doesn't sound like a set up, it sounds like Papadopoulos kicked the hornet's nest and is now saying the hornets set him up.
And why wouldn't Russia have people that are willing to help it in western think tanks and universities? Those folks get paid or some sort of kickback. That is how it works. Especially if they are just asking as intermediaries, which is pretty low risk all things considered. Its not like they are doing the spying themselves.
Edit: Papadopoulos isn't a smart or subtle guy. And Mifsud seems is the opposite of low key and appears to have been claiming to have connections with Russia for long time. Along with claiming to be an ambassador and a bunch of other bullshit. It is easy to see how a meeting between the two of them would catch the attention of the CIA. Because they had to be aware of Mifsud if he has been doing what he has been doing for so long.
From the BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43488581
Mifsud became a selfie king of the diplomatic circuit. Boris Johnson and then Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood were photographed with Mifsud - as was the Russian ambassador to London. Mifsud joined a private university in Rome alongside two former Italian foreign ministers.
In Riyadh he worked for a think-tank run by former head of Saudi intelligence Prince Turki al Faisal, introducing an ex-CIA operative at a seminar.
Mifsud had a fiancée based in Ukraine, according to Buzzfeed. The woman says she hasn't seen or heard of the professor for months but she gave birth to their daughter two months ago.
In April 2016 in the run-up to the American election, Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos says Mifsud told him that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails, according to court documents.
That conversation, which Papadopoulos carelessly relayed to an Australian over drinks in a posh London bar, was reported to American officials weeks later when emails hacked from the Democratic Party were leaked.
And after that, Papadopoulos lied about the contact. I'm sure the dude go played, but not by the US goverment. He sort of played himself.
|
Honestly, I just looked on wikipedia to learn a bit about this guy, and Mifsud looks like exactly the kind of guy who could easily be an intermediary between some Russian contact and someone like George Papadopoulos. I find it hard to believe he's a CIA agent. Although I wouldn't find it very hard to believe that the CIA tracks his comings and goings.
Wikipedia goes on to say that Papadopoulos then told Downer about Mifsud telling him about the email hack, and Downer eventually passed it along to the US intelligence services. This does not seem like a sting. This seems like either Papadopoulos trying to verify the veracity in a rather dumb and bumbling way, or Downer gathering intel on what was said in that suspicious meeting between Mifsud and Papadopoulos, and the latter spilling the beans.
For it to be a sting, you'd need to show Mifsud is a CIA (or other western intelligence service, I guess) agent, rather than an actual go-between for a Russian agent to get word to the Trump campaign about the hack.
|
On April 05 2019 04:46 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 04:41 ShambhalaWar wrote:On April 05 2019 02:21 Danglars wrote:On April 05 2019 02:01 Archeon wrote:On April 05 2019 00:57 Nouar wrote:
[...]
In other news, 14 (fourteen) large donors to the Trump inauguration were appointed as ambassadors. (not all got a go from the Senate). I mean, even one would be an issue in France. In fact, Macron tried to appoint 20 consuls, and was sharply rebuked by a high court. He tried to appoint one (not even talking about donors here, just "friends") and got a huge backlash immediately. Meanwhile POTUS casually gets 14 ambassadorships to people that donated on average 350000$ to his inauguration. In what world is that ok ? It's like, in your face corruption... (Seems Obama did it for one, Bush for a couple)
This is under investigation, like the whole inauguration I believe (yeah, raising record amounts of money to spend it at lavish rates in your own hotels while having shady accounting is somehow under investigation, too. I'm glad.) The USA are a plutocracy. Trump and Obama are the only two presidents ever who won vs opponents despite having less donations than their opponent and the top 10% in the USA own 77% of the total wealth (again incredibly top heavy, with the top 1% owning half of that). So if you make those 10% happy, you have a very good chance to win the election. The Clinton's combined net worth is estimated at 110 million $, Trump's is roughly two times that. Trump actually financed roughly 1/6th of his campaign's spendings for the election himself, with a sum higher than Macron's and Merkel's combined net worth. You're wrong on two counts. First off, Obama outraised/outspent his presidential opponents McCain and Romney. Did you mean to specify Presidential Primary Campaigns, where more historical underdogs would undermine your statement? Second off, you're forgetting about the 60s. Goldwater vs Johnson, and Kennedy vs Nixon both were won by the underdog in campaign spending. I suggest moderating the extreme "only two presidents ever" to something more relational instead of absolute. You might be right that there's a plutocratic element, but you won't make that point ignoring the contrary examples from history. I would say a bigger argument for the US as a plutocracy is the inaction of congress on nearly every major issue, despite the majority clearly supporting one view over the other. Isn't that basically everywhere though? There does seem to be a pretty damn inefficient transfer of electorate preference on issues into those being actualised at a legislative level, but that's not just in the US. I'm not so sure money is the sole gate here, but self-interest. If you're a conservative politician who say, legalises weed you'll get voted out by your conservative base, but you won't pull that back vs a progressive opponent because you won't be as progressive as they are. If 60-70% of the country is for something but 60-70% of your base is against it you're just opening yourself up to get turfed out.
In regard to your pot example... When pot is the top issue and your base is against it... if you took 1 million from the tobacco industry because they don't want cigarette sales to be hurt... It doesn't matter what your base wants, your boss is now the tobacco industry. Politicians mostly all believe it is the money that gets them elected, if you can outspend the other person, the thought is you will win.
At the end of the day nobody can take 1 million from an industry and say, "I'm going to vote against you all, thanks for the money." Because they will never get that money again, and that scares them wayyyy more than what voters think. The thought is minds of voter can be changed with money, and thats probably true to a degree.
US politics is an investment, companies expect a return on their money, otherwise why do it.
Even if it is ubiquitous (how government acts throughout the world) then it doesn't necessarily negate my point.
Do you understand how big of a role lobbyists play in our government? Or the impact of the "citizen's united" ruling?
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/citizens-united
It's different when politicians are deadlocked for reasons other than they received 3 million $ from the gun/oil/etc industry.
*For example, someone can be writing a regulation for oil and gas, then an oil tech company pays 15-20k to meet with the lobbyist and regulators to push for the text of the law to be writing in a very specific way, which would require that the oil industry to purchase that tech company's technology in order to adhere to the new law.
The tech company does this because it will flood the system with new business for them. 15k is worth it for 100-300k in sales over the next couple years.
For a commercial industry to prevent change in the US, they just need to flood one side of congress that is willing to be bought and oppose new laws with money. *You basically need a super majority in congress to get anything done in our current system because money can always buy the minority and try to stall the process.
A very smart man, Thom Hartmann said, "The best investment you can make in the USA is to buy a someone in congress." Truth is it won't even cost you that much at to buy our congress (most can be bought for under 1 million easy), and the return on money you get is insane.
*Just look at the current tax law and reported savings, easily in the billions.
![[image loading]](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iKrDXSeoY1Hs/v1/620x-1.png)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-30/corporate-america-is-saving-boatloads-on-trump-tax-cut-windfall
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/key-facts-american-corporations-really-trump-tax-cuts/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-biggest-companies-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-last-year/
Below is Senator Marco Rubio's contributions to his campaign, as you can see the numbers aren't that big compared to the millions to billions in profit for the top investing industries.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/industries?cid=N00030612&cycle=2018
Keep in mind the ONE thing this current administration did force through congress was a tax law... because at the end of the day the corporations wouldn't take no for an answer on this. It was the one thing the actually cared about.
|
On April 06 2019 02:30 Acrofales wrote:
Honestly, I just looked on wikipedia to learn a bit about this guy, and Mifsud looks like exactly the kind of guy who could easily be an intermediary between some Russian contact and someone like George Papadopoulos. I find it hard to believe he's a CIA agent. Although I wouldn't find it very hard to believe that the CIA tracks his comings and goings.
Wikipedia goes on to say that Papadopoulos then told Downer about Mifsud telling him about the email hack, and Downer eventually passed it along to the US intelligence services. This does not seem like a sting. This seems like either Papadopoulos trying to verify the veracity in a rather dumb and bumbling way, or Downer gathering intel on what was said in that suspicious meeting between Mifsud and Papadopoulos, and the latter spilling the beans.
For it to be a sting, you'd need to show Mifsud is a CIA (or other western intelligence service, I guess) agent, rather than an actual go-between for a Russian agent to get word to the Trump campaign about the hack.
The diplomatic community across the Europe likely isn’t that big to begin with. It is easy to see how the information would get back to US officials if Papadopoulos was being so brazen about talking about it.
And again, all of this could have been avoided if Papadopoulos had just gone to the FBI right after he was offered dirt on Clinton. Taking the meeting was never the problem.
|
On April 06 2019 02:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:On April 06 2019 01:45 Plansix wrote:Yeah, that isn't how being a double agent works. You need to be an agent for the CIA, spying on Russia while secretly spying on the CIA's efforts for Russia. It is also the stuff of movies more than reality. Spies for countries are rarely, if ever, from the country they are spying for. That is the joke of James Bond, he is a British spy that uses his real name and is clearly from the UK. He would be a terrible spy. Just like the CIA has a real problem spying in the Middle East for all the obvious reasons. Spies are normally people from the target country who have access to things the spying nation wants. And they are targeted, normally through intermediaries, to see if they are willing to be recruited and how to make that happen. American dude from the CIA doesn't fly out to some country and look for people who want to spy for us. They have contacts in said country who are on the look out for possible "assets" to be developed. If people want to learn more about spying, I recommend ditching George Papadopoulos and reading Spy Handler: Memoir of a KGB Officer or any number of books about the intelligence operations in Europe after the end of World War 2. Also, any book about the French resistance and how it was filled with Nazi sympathizers who undercut their efforts is also interesting, but really depressing. Fact remains that Russia would have needed a bunch of spies in these western think tanks and universities, including mifsud, and some of whom were former western govt officials, who were the ones reaching out to GP. Seems unlikely, because it was not just mifsud acting alone. Mifsud was first and the discussion between him and Papadopoulos started an investigation into what Papadopoulos was doing. Going forward, Papadopoulos claims that he was contacted by all sorts of people, some working for Russia, some working for the US. It doesn't sound like a set up, it sounds like Papadopoulos kicked the hornet's nest and is now saying the hornets set him up. And why wouldn't Russia have people that are willing to help it in western think tanks and universities? Those folks get paid or some sort of kickback. That is how it works. Especially if they are just asking as intermediaries, which is pretty low risk all things considered. Its not like they are doing the spying themselves. Edit: Papadopoulos isn't a smart or subtle guy. And Mifsud seems is the opposite of low key and appears to have been claiming to have connections with Russia for long time. Along with claiming to be an ambassador and a bunch of other bullshit. It is easy to see how a meeting between the two of them would catch the attention of the CIA. Because they had to be aware of Mifsud if he has been doing what he has been doing for so long. From the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43488581Show nested quote +Mifsud became a selfie king of the diplomatic circuit. Boris Johnson and then Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood were photographed with Mifsud - as was the Russian ambassador to London. Mifsud joined a private university in Rome alongside two former Italian foreign ministers.
In Riyadh he worked for a think-tank run by former head of Saudi intelligence Prince Turki al Faisal, introducing an ex-CIA operative at a seminar.
Mifsud had a fiancée based in Ukraine, according to Buzzfeed. The woman says she hasn't seen or heard of the professor for months but she gave birth to their daughter two months ago.
In April 2016 in the run-up to the American election, Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos says Mifsud told him that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails, according to court documents.
That conversation, which Papadopoulos carelessly relayed to an Australian over drinks in a posh London bar, was reported to American officials weeks later when emails hacked from the Democratic Party were leaked. And after that, Papadopoulos lied about the contact. I'm sure the dude go played, but not by the US goverment. He sort of played himself.
Mifsud wasn't the first in the sense that others sent GP to go see Mifsud. GP was working at a think tank in London, and when he told them he was leaving to join the Trump campaign, they at first got hostile and then started urging him to go meet Mifsud in Italy at the university where he worked. They told GP that Mifsud would set him up with a big player - Putin.
Now I supposed those could all be Russian spies or intermediaries trying to test GP's willingness to work with Russia, but they've got quite some coordination going on b/w those different Western institutions - one of which was where GP already worked.
Also, if they were spies/intermediaries, one would hope Mueller would have charged. Mifsud has reportedly gone to ground and assumed a new identity, according to his attorney. Mifsud's lawyer has stated publicly that he was actually working on behalf of western intelligence.
I'll have to look into all this more though. The point that it's equally or more plausible that Mifsud was a Russian rather than Western asset is an interesting one. There are some legitimately complicated fact patterns surround all of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
