Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

PFT Lawyers afraid Trump won't pay them? Please when has Trump ever not paid someone for their had work?

*Listens to ear piece*

What was that? Trump made a business off of getting people to do stuff for him without paying? He is the scummiest man in the USA business wise without hyperbole?

---

Actually I'd be REALLY curious who is even more scummy than Donald Trump in American Business.

Pyramid Schemers are up there... But they haven't really sought to actively bankrupt people.

I've also heard that top law firms are declining to defend Trump because they're afraid doing so would hurt their own credibility and reputation, which is pretty telling since you'd think defending the President is something that there would be a feeding frenzy for.

Also, on a somewhat lighter side, Sarah Huckabee Sanders did her own version of the covfefe tweet, with emojis.

[alway]

Those are all symptomatic of a dedicated and professionally executed sliding effort, yep. Are these also the accounts that Shonus mentioned which crossed the streams by putting pro-Russian content along with other stuff, or is the Russian backing to this particular operation difficult for a private citizen to verify?

It's very widely known and reported on that they are in fact the same. The term to look for is 'troll factory.' For example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11656043/My-life-as-a-pro-Putin-propagandist-in-Russias-secret-troll-factory.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7

Russia's troll factories were, at one point, likely being paid by the Kremlin to spread pro-Trump propaganda on social media.

That is what freelance journalist Adrian Chen, now a staff writer at The New Yorker, discovered as he was researching Russia's "army of well-paid trolls" for an explosive New York Times Magazine exposé published in June 2015.

"I created this list of Russian trolls when I was researching. And I check on it once in a while, still. And a lot of them have turned into conservative accounts, like fake conservatives. I don't know what's going on, but they're all tweeting about Donald Trump and stuff," he said.

The methods aren't subtle or hard to track, but they are effective at drowning out any actual facts or dialogue.
Note the dates on those articles; the first in mid 2015, the second in mid 2016. Originally, they operated more or less internally, with operations pushing propaganda for the Ukraine invasion, and general pro-government support. This included anti-EU and anti-US propaganda for their opposition to the Russian invasion. These accounts shifted to a pro-Trump narrative by the middle of 2016, when Trump notably called on Russia to help him win by engaging in criminal acts against his opponents in a public speech.

[smjjames]

Those are all symptomatic of a dedicated and professionally executed sliding effort, yep. Are these also the accounts that Shonus mentioned which crossed the streams by putting pro-Russian content along with other stuff, or is the Russian backing to this particular operation difficult for a private citizen to verify?

It's very widely known and reported on that they are in fact the same. The term to look for is 'troll factory.' For example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11656043/My-life-as-a-pro-Putin-propagandist-in-Russias-secret-troll-factory.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7

Russia's troll factories were, at one point, likely being paid by the Kremlin to spread pro-Trump propaganda on social media.

That is what freelance journalist Adrian Chen, now a staff writer at The New Yorker, discovered as he was researching Russia's "army of well-paid trolls" for an explosive New York Times Magazine exposé published in June 2015.

"I created this list of Russian trolls when I was researching. And I check on it once in a while, still. And a lot of them have turned into conservative accounts, like fake conservatives. I don't know what's going on, but they're all tweeting about Donald Trump and stuff," he said.

The methods aren't subtle or hard to track, but they are effective at drowning out any actual facts or dialogue.
Note the dates on those articles; the first in mid 2015, the second in mid 2016. Originally, they operated more or less internally, with operations pushing propaganda for the Ukraine invasion, and general pro-government support. This included anti-EU and anti-US propaganda for their opposition to the Russian invasion. These accounts shifted to a pro-Trump narrative by the middle of 2016, when Trump notably called on Russia to help him win by engaging in criminal acts against his opponents in a public speech.

Da-amn, that's really incriminating, lol. Even if Trump was just being an asshole and not trying to do anything, Russia took it literally.

Why haven't they linked it to Trump already and this whole thing should be a bonfire by now, not a simmering ember.

It's not a crime to be an asshole, but one has to wonder, was he intentionally directing them or did he know that Russia would actually listen. At best, he's guilty of being an idiot, and at worst, something very, very, close to treason.

[Frumple]

Smj, the only way the state of things doesn't look like a bonfire is if you've been standing in it so long your pain receptors have burned out. Soon you will have no more soft tissue and become near invulnerable in combat. Shit's been lit for a while now, it just takes a hell of a lot of fire to get certain sections of our political spectrum to admit things are, in fact, on fire.

[smjjames]

Not to mention that investigations of such things tend to move slowly and just plain take time, it took two years from the Watergate breakin until the climax and Nixons resignation and it was similarily a while between the start of the whitewater thing to Clinton getting impeached.

Guess who got caught 'leaking', Kellyanne Conway, nothing huge though, it's all gossip and palace intrigue. She was at some embassy party when someone (reporter? Another WH staffer? nobody knows) overheard her conversations and reported them in an anonymous twitter account. It also gives insight to the attitude (at least Kellyanne's attitude) at the White House.

More condensed report from Axios

It's all pure gossip, seriously, I mean, she sounds like a celebrity yakking it off than a serious WH employee. Won't be long before Trump gets wind of it, especially since she didn't do something Trump wanted her to do, at least not in the exact way he wanted.

[Lord Shonus]

Not to mention that investigations of such things tend to move slowly and just plain take time, it took two years from the Watergate breakin until the climax and Nixons resignation and it was similarily a while between the start of the whitewater thing to Clinton getting impeached.

Minor quibble - Whitewater had nothing to do with the Clinton impeachment situation, other than that being one of the several "scandals" fabricated out of whole cloth against the Clintons. The impeachment was solely over his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and the fact that he initially lied about it. The Lewinsky situation was also largely engineers by the Republicans, who strongly hinted that Lewinsky had voluntarily come forward about a non-consensual relationship rather than the actual situation (where she was threatened with life in prison if she didn't go public with her entirely consensual affair), but you'll still find a lot of people that think Bill Clinton got away with rape.

[Frumple]

Though mind, as an addendum to that, that "lie" was the exact sort that trump and friends have been rolling in pretty much since day one. Very specifically worded in an attempt to get around the precise phrasing of the involved laws, materially deceptive despite it.

There was apparently a point in my life that was impeachment worthy :V

[Descan]

If I were an ally of the US under President Trump, I'd be slightly nervous about whether he'd up and turn on me. Though Saudi Arabia doesn't care atm since he's doing what they want.

That is already happening. What with Donald Trump giving YOUR STATE SECRETS to your enemies... and then saying he has every right to.

I mean... He does. Literally, as president, he has every right to divulge state secrets, because the whole concept of "state secrets" in the US right now is based on executive order, and the president has like, literally Top Secret clearance. Not the literal classification, I mean it is fundamentally impossible to have a higher security clearance than the president.

[EnigmaticHat]

Not to mention that investigations of such things tend to move slowly and just plain take time, it took two years from the Watergate breakin until the climax and Nixons resignation and it was similarily a while between the start of the whitewater thing to Clinton getting impeached.

Minor quibble - Whitewater had nothing to do with the Clinton impeachment situation, other than that being one of the several "scandals" fabricated out of whole cloth against the Clintons. The impeachment was solely over his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and the fact that he initially lied about it. The Lewinsky situation was also largely engineers by the Republicans, who strongly hinted that Lewinsky had voluntarily come forward about a non-consensual relationship rather than the actual situation (where she was threatened with life in prison if she didn't go public with her entirely consensual affair), but you'll still find a lot of people that think Bill Clinton got away with rape.

I mean its not really kosher (at this time, I don't know what it was like in the 90s) for a boss to be sleeping with a subordinate.  At my current job we were told that if that happened the boss would be fired.  There's always going to be an element of fucked-up-edness to it, since one party has power over the other.  Much like how a teacher sleeping with a student will always be bad, even if they're both the same age and over 18.

Not that I'm saying he should have been impeached over it.  And indeed dragging Monica Lewinsky through the mud was hardly for her benefit (there are still super negative memes about her online, WTF people).  I'm just saying it was an appropriate thing to be mad about people just got mad for the wrong reasons.  If Obama had been sleeping with a WH employee or intern I would have been extremely displeased with him regardless of context.

[Strife26]

If I were an ally of the US under President Trump, I'd be slightly nervous about whether he'd up and turn on me. Though Saudi Arabia doesn't care atm since he's doing what they want.

That is already happening. What with Donald Trump giving YOUR STATE SECRETS to your enemies... and then saying he has every right to.

I mean... He does. Literally, as president, he has every right to divulge state secrets, because the whole concept of "state secrets" in the US right now is based on executive order, and the president has like, literally Top Secret clearance. Not the literal classification, I mean it is fundamentally impossible to have a higher security clearance than the president.

What if a previous president listed a secret executive order specifically creating an additional level of toppest secret, with designated rules for successor Presidents not being on the distro?

[Frumple]

Eh... I'unno if I'd actually be entirely comfortable saying he has the right, desc. Those are generally fairly unconditional until they start bumping into people with similar rights. The power, definitely, but the presidential powers are granted in the context of improving or maintaining the USA's well being. If they're invoked in such a way as to work against that (such as, say, blabbing state secrets to all and sundry), shirk the responsibilities involved, or wield them for personal benefit... well, that's some of the possible qualifiers for impeachment, right there. Maybe more, too, if someone was getting really frisky and the SCOTUS had caffeine IVs on hand.

... though yeah, improper relations with a subordinate is indeed something to be sketchy about pretty much regardless of context. That's one of the more damning bits from comey's testimony, ahaha.

[Descan]

I'm not entirely sure if executive orders *can* be secret, but if the subsequent president(s) ever found out about it, they'd be able to reverse it. Thus, in practice because they can disable that level, they are above that level too.

E: I'm not saying he's *good* for doing it, or that he shouldn't be punished for it, but only that he legally has the right, because he (or his office at least) determines what the legality *is* in this regard.

[Frumple]

I mean... sorta'? But also sorta' not. The end word on that would be SCOTUS, not the executive branch, and congress et al could have a go at it, too (though it'd end up in the courts to decide if screwup has actually occurred). You could call it a right, but it's not an unconditional one, for all that to date we haven't really had a president inept enough to test it.

E: Or to clarify it a bit, there's actually very, very little the executive branch -- any of it, up to and including the president -- decides the legality of. They can decide what it means to enforce that legality (to a degree, anyway), but not what it is. That particular function belongs primarily to the legislative and secondarily to the judiciary.

[smjjames]

Pretty sure they can make them secret if needed, and making a 'top secret' category that's higher than the President makes no sense.

[ChairmanPoo]

A long time ago, under the reign of Obama, the Americans lived in peace at Washington, until the day the fair haired man appeared. He wore a metal mask, and controlled the fire of the gods: the Nuclear Football. He overthrew the king of the Americans, and became the God of Gods, Nyarlatothepec, the Rampant Chaos