Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,706
- Points
- 1,040
One easy way to gauge the Twitter internals is to read what conventional progressives who got on the wrong side of progressive media lockstep (eg. Taibbi, Weiss, deBoer) are writing.
Yes. At the time of the story breaking, it very very much looked exactly like what it was being portrayed as: a smear campaign based on information from a shady source designed to affect the election in favour of Donald Trump.Rex Murphy talks about v1 Twitter's handling of election related misinformation and disinformation.
Does this look like "cautious, incremental, and conscientious"?
Did they think that because that is what the FBI/et al told them?Yes. At the time of the story breaking, it very very much looked exactly like what it was being portrayed as: a smear campaign based on information from a shady source designed to affect the election in favour of Donald Trump.
I don't know, but if it was the FBI, lets not forget that this would have been the FBI headed by a Trump appointee.Did they think that because that is what the FBI/et al told them?
Irrelevant.I don't know, but if it was the FBI, lets not forget that this would have been the FBI headed by a Trump appointee.
That would be Christopher Wray. Trump appointed him in 2017, and he remains director of the FBI to present. In practice, national security intelligence gathering and investigation pertaining to election integrity would have been delegated, although the director would have been receiving regular briefs up before the election and during the transition period, given how everything was going. I believe that sharing of election integrity concerns between FBI and other NATSEC agencies, and major social media / communications companies would have been handled as a pretty routine matter, albeit with fairly high level oversight.I don't know, but if it was the FBI, lets not forget that this would have been the FBI headed by a Trump appointee.
Actually, you're right, it doesn't matter, it wasn't anyone source, it was the sum of all available information and opinion, and they all pointed to this being a fallacious smear job. In hindsight, potentially not the case, but at the time, seemed reasonable to keep it quiet in order to avoid what looked like a blatant attempt to influence the election.Irrelevant.
But a smear campaign based on information from shady sources customarily launches widespread media discussion and FBI investigations.Yes. At the time of the story breaking, it very very much looked exactly like what it was being portrayed as: a smear campaign based on information from a shady source designed to affect the election in favour of Donald Trump.
The New York Times has a very nice interactive 3-D display of Trumps Mar-A-Lago resort and where those classified documents were located and their relation to rest of the resort.But a smear campaign based on information from shady sources customarily launches widespread media discussion and FBI investigations.
Did you miss the indirect reference to all the sh!t set in motion by baseless accusations and innuendo in 2016?The New York Times has a very nice interactive 3-D display of Trumps Mar-A-Lago resort and where those classified documents were located and their relation to rest of the resort.
The committee referrals are of little legal significance in their own right. DOJ had has its own thing going for quite some time, has more info than the committee, and has been continuing to issue investigative subpoenas- including recently to the Georgia Secretary of State; that’s probably one of the ones Trump needs to be (and is) most afraid of.And in case you have missed it; the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol has voted to refer four charges against Donald Trump to the Dept of Justice accusing him of four crimes:
- aiding an insurrection;
- criminally obstructed the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021;
- conspired to make false statements when trying to pass off fake electoral certificates as genuine to the National Archives; and,
- conspired to defraud the United States..
John Eastman, a lawyer who authored a six-point plan to overthrow the election has had two referrals against him: attempted obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States.
The Committee has released a 154 page introductory document that can be found here.
A more in-depth report (approx 1000 pages) is to be released Wednesday.
Of course these are just referrals, they have no legal standing and it doesn't mean the DOJ will act on the charges. Something to keep the chattering classes busy over the holidays.
And what baseless accusations and innuendo in 2016 are you referring to?Did you miss the indirect reference to all the sh!t set in motion by baseless accusations and innuendo in 2016?
And looks like Trumps taxes will get released; wonder how many of his supporters will be fine with paying more taxes than an alleged billionaire?
And the summary:And looks like Trumps taxes will get released; wonder how many of his supporters will be fine with paying more taxes than an alleged billionaire?
Trump's Taxes: I.R.S. Didn’t Audit Trump for 2 Years in Office, House Committee Says (Published 2022)
The House Ways and Means Committee voted to release six years of Mr. Trump’s tax returns, and members revealed that the I.R.S. failed to follow its own policy because it did not audit Mr. Trump during his first two years in office. It may be days before the tax information is revealed.www.nytimes.com