Noteworthy News

[Belacqua]

Well that's a fair and balanced article. Not.

And that, if true, would be a problem because why exactly?

Because there are a whole lot of "alleges" and "the Justice Department says" and guilt by association. There are links to documents which are completely unsourced. 

There are Republican talking points which may or may not be credible, put near to allegations about Russian interference, but with no connection established. For example, the idea that Walz is doing "stolen valor" is brought up, and maybe that's true or maybe not, but there is no evidence given that Russia is playing that up. 

We also know that people in government lie to support their preferred candidate. So it would be nice to have some sort of real evidence, and not this mish-mash of allegations and accusations that some media company that no one had ever heard of had hosted guests who support Trump because Russia asked them to. 

Then you've got this sentence:

Trump has publicly complimented Russian President Vladimir Putin, an autocrat known for imprisoning and killing critics.

And that links you to a blistering editorial in which Trump is quoted several times as saying that Putin is "smart." Well, Putin is smart. Have you heard him speak? It makes you realize how extremely bad most US politicians (since Obama) are at speaking. A lot of smart people do evil things. And Trump's description of the war in Ukraine quoted in that article was pretty accurate at the time. Despite what wishful thinking makes Americans say, Ukraine has lost 20% of its land, and that's never coming back. So the headline and the editorializing are trying to make a big deal of what is, essentially, true but impolitic to say.

Confirmation bias, decades of anti-Russia propaganda, and lots and lots of partisan rhetoric can make things seem way more conclusive than they really are.

[The Grand Nudger]

So smart. Two years six months one week and six days into his three day war he remains a master strategist.

[Belacqua]

During election campaigns, lots and lots of accusations get made that are quietly withdrawn later on.

We should be skeptical.

[Angrboda]

And that, if true, would be a problem because why exactly?

Because there are a whole lot of "alleges" and "the Justice Department says" and guilt by association. There are links to documents which are completely unsourced. 

The documents are completely sourced with respect to the point in question. It links directly to the charging document for fuxxake.

There are Republican talking points which may or may not be credible, put near to allegations about Russian interference, but with no connection established. For example, the idea that Walz is doing "stolen valor" is brought up, and maybe that's true or maybe not, but there is no evidence given that Russia is playing that up. 

We also know that people in government lie to support their preferred candidate. So it would be nice to have some sort of real evidence, and not this mish-mash of allegations and accusations that some media company that no one had ever heard of had hosted guests who support Trump because Russia asked them to. 

Those parts of the article are irrelevant to the question of whether the charging documents do or do not support the section quoted. You're just making a lazy ad hominem argument completely disconnected from the charging documents themselves.

And yes, governments do lie to support their current administration. However that alone is not enough to discredit any source lacking further evidence that the government lied or misrepresented in this specific case. That is simply a case of ignoratio elenchi or irrelevant conclusion because even if it is true that governments do this, they do not generally do so with sufficient regularity to consider the idea that they are misrepresenting things to be the reasonable presumption. That's just the paranoid ranting of an anti-institutional cuck.

The fact is, the government has made a charge, supported by evidence, toward that conclusion, which makes your claim that it is not based in fact absurdly false.

The Justice Department today announced the ongoing seizure of 32 internet domains used in Russian government-directed foreign malign influence campaigns colloquially referred to as “Doppelganger,” in violation of U.S. money laundering and criminal trademark laws. As alleged in an unsealed affidavit, the Russian companies Social Design Agency (SDA), Structura National Technology (Structura), and ANO Dialog, operating under the direction and control of the Russian Presidential Administration, and in particular First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Sergei Vladilenovich Kiriyenko, used these domains, among others, to covertly spread Russian government propaganda with the aim of reducing international support for Ukraine, bolstering pro-Russian policies and interests, and influencing voters in U.S. and foreign elections, including the U.S. 2024 Presidential Election.

(source)

See Exhibit 9A for the relevant Russian documents.

Then you've got this sentence:

Trump has publicly complimented Russian President Vladimir Putin, an autocrat known for imprisoning and killing critics.

And that links you to a blistering editorial in which Trump is quoted several times as saying that Putin is "smart." Well, Putin is smart. Have you heard him speak? It makes you realize how extremely bad most US politicians (since Obama) are at speaking. A lot of smart people do evil things. And Trump's description of the war in Ukraine quoted in that article was pretty accurate at the time. Despite what wishful thinking makes Americans say, Ukraine has lost 20% of its land, and that's never coming back. So the headline and the editorializing are trying to make a big deal of what is, essentially, true but impolitic to say.

None of which has any relevance here.

Confirmation bias, decades of anti-Russia propaganda, and lots and lots of partisan rhetoric can make things seem way more conclusive than they really are.

This, beyond the earlier criticism, is an example of moving the goalposts. Nowhere have I claimed these accusations and the evidence are conclusive, nor is such required to rebut your claim that the idea that Russia prefers Trump is not based in fact. You're simply playing motte-and-bailey here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Russia tried to use that one to deny that their soldiers even existed once. No military occupation in ukraine comrades. This is just election talk from nazi party. Must be little green men. The trouble for russian simps is that no matter what they say in russias defense today, russia will call them a fool for it tomorrow.

[Angrboda]

During election campaigns, lots and lots of accusations get made that are quietly withdrawn later on.

We should be skeptical.

There's an old saying that you should have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

You are simply engaging in the common strategy of applying a double standard to the evidence. Things that are anti-U.S. are accepted on the flimsiest of pretext, while radical skepticism emerges for contrary evidence.

[brewer]

DOJ alleges Russia funded US media company linked to right-wing social media stars

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/04/politics/...index.html

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

During election campaigns, lots and lots of accusations get made that are quietly withdrawn later on.

We should be skeptical.

There’s a difference between being skeptical and rejecting overwhelming evidence because it doesn’t support your biases.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sorry, I don't read Russian. Most days I only speak Japanese. So you could call me 政治家の言葉を信じないヤツ。

If you’ve seen A Clockwork Orange, you should have a good hint there. Or if you found a “Cyrillic letters to Latin alphabet” Chart

All I did was highlight the word, right-click, and select "search google". The first hit was a translation.

Of course, Bel here probably did that but is playing doggo for whatever passes for reason in his eck of the woods.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro violated a law limiting certain political activity of federal employees when he appeared to endorse President Biden for reelection and criticize former President Trump in January, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced on Thursday.

The OSC, an independent investigative federal agency, said in a report sent to Biden that Del Toro violated the Hatch Act — a law prohibiting political activity while a federal employee is on duty, in the federal workplace, or acting in an official capacity — when he suggested the American people should go vote for Biden at a January event in the U.K.

[...]

He added, “we cannot afford to have a president who aligns himself with autocratic dictators and rulers whose interpretation of democratic principles is suspicious [at] best.”

“I’m confident that the American people will step up to the plate come November and support President Biden for a second term as our commander in chief,” he said.

Special counsel Hampton Dellinger said in a statement that Del Toro was “speaking in his official capacity on a taxpayer-funded trip” when he “encouraged electoral support for one candidate over another in the upcoming presidential election.”

“By doing so, he crossed a legal line and violated the Hatch Act. This is especially troubling because Secretary Del Toro has himself acknowledged that military work and partisan politics should not be mixed,” Dellinger said.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/48655...hatch-act/

As much as I agree with the SecNav, what he did was wrong.