Post New

“Attorney, Self-Defense Expert: Alex Pretti Shooting Was Legally Justified”

SNIP
“Attorney, self-defense expert: Alex Pretti shooting was legally justified
Attorney and self-defense expert Andrew Branca explained how federal officers were making "all these decisions in a violent, chaotic melee caused by Alex Pretti.”

With different videos and angles emerging, many are wondering if the shooting of Alex Pretti by federal officers was legally justified.

Andrew Branca—an attorney, author, and internationally recognized expert on self defense—joined Liz Collin on her podcast and explained some of the details that he included in his own viral video analysis of the incident.

Branca explained that, “fundamentally, all the videos are pretty consistent with each other and really nothing’s inconsistent with this being a lawful use of force by the officers.”

He said that overall, “the legal question is, did the officers who shot Alex Pretti have a reasonable, not necessarily correct, but a reasonable perception that he was presenting as an imminent, unlawful, deadly force threat?”

“That’s presumed to be the case. A prosecutor would have to disprove that proposition beyond any reasonable doubt. So it’s a very high burden to overcome that justification,” Branca added.

He also identified how “Alex Pretti interfered with the arrest of the woman” and then makes physical contact with a federal law enforcement officer.

“The moment he [Pretti] makes contact with that officer, he’s just committed a federal felony, good for eight years in a federal penitentiary,” Branca said.

“That’s why they were seeking to make his arrest, because they saw him commit a forcible felony against a fellow officer. Then he’s non-compliant with arrest. He’s fighting them. Then they discover he has a gun on his person,” he added.“

More
https://alphanews.org/attorney-self-defense-expert...

Comment from a poster
“Ashley Babbitt was murdered in cold blood by a Capitol cop. I don't remember any outrage from the left or their mouthpieces on the left. Remember her name.”

Ashley Babbitt was murdered in cold blood by a Capitol cop.

Complete and utter horseshit

“Attorney, Self-Defense Expert: Alex Pretti Shooting Was Legally Justified”

The cigarette companies had no problem producing "studies" and "experts" that said smoking cigarettes was not harmful.

“Ashley Babbitt was murdered in cold blood by a Capitol cop. I don't remember any outrage from the left or their mouthpieces on the left. Remember her name.”

I was outraged. To this day, I don't understand why that moment didn't escalate the mob's violence to burning the building down, and murdering all the police.

Steve

Complete and utter horseshit

Bill, we have all seen that video a kazillion times. No way was that killing justified.

Steve

Lurker Mom,

I really think Mr. Pretti was trying to commit suicide by cop. What kind of mentally-ill person gets a rib broken because he is fighting with LEO's and then a week or two later comes back with a loaded gun and two extra magazines of ammo?

Someone who is planning on taking vengeance and opening fire to take as many "Nazis" as he can, with him.

Lord knows how many LEOs he would have killed had his weapon not been confiscated.

To all those who say that the LEOs had already confiscated his gun, I say:

So what?

That's just the weapon they knew about. Meanwhile he's brawling with several LEO's and he's not giving up without a huge fight.

Any false move such as appearing to reach into his belt or pockets could rightfully be viewed as an attempt to draw a weapon. Could be a second gun/back up weapon. Could be a knife. Could be acid that he might throw in someone's face.

If you are going to send out the message "WE WILL ReSiST at AlL Costs and By All MeAns" don't go all pikachu face if the cops take you at your word.

Because the Jan. 6 mob isn't you, Steve.

Ashley Babbitt was murdered in cold blood by a Capitol cop.

Complete and utter horseshit

LOL @ Padre Street Apple,
I had hope you would notice that comment, it was meant just for you.
Don’t like it when the real truths of J6 is exposed, do you?

If you are going to send out the message "WE WILL ReSiST at AlL Costs and By All MeAns" don't go all pikachu face if the cops take you at your word.

Exactly.
As I said before, Pretti set out to fight the Law and the Law won.

Apparently, "lurker" is one of many words that’s managed to elude someone's grasp entirely.

Not surprising...
Trump lost college educated women 61% to 37%.
Trump lost non college educated women 53% to 45%.
Trump lost college educated men 49% to 48%.
Trump won non college educated men 61% to 37%.

Throughout history, tyrants have understood that their major enemy is an educated citizenry.
Slaveholders prohibited the enslaved from learning to read.
Nazis burned books. Trump, Putin and Xi censor free speech, books and the media. Ignorance is the handmaiden of tyranny.

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." ~Thomas Jefferson

"I love the uneducated!" ~Donald Trump

What kind of mentally-ill person gets a rib broken because he is fighting with LEO's

If he had assaulted the officers, there would be a criminal complaint against him on file.

Seems that the officers attacked him.

Pretti’s earlier encounter with federal officers unfolded after he saw ICE agents chasing what he described as a family on foot. He stopped his car and began shouting and blowing his whistle, the source said.

Pretti, an ICU nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital, told one of CNN’s sources that five agents tackled him. During the altercation, one of the agents leaned on his back, leaving him with a broken rib. Pretti was released at the scene.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/america...

Typical of the rousting we see from the storm troopers: rough people up, then walk away.

That's just the weapon they knew about.

As suggested before, because you can't tell if someone is carrying, or not, legally, or not, just kill all the civilians in sight, to "keep the LEOs safe", right?

Steve

Because the Jan. 6 mob isn't you, Steve.

This is true. I would not be rampaging through the capital building, smashing windows and beating up LEOs.

Steve

Banksy fallaciously equates "educated" with "has a college degree."

k.

No, it seems as if Pretti deliberately interfered with an ICE enforcement operation last time.

Just like this time.

Alpha News:

MBFC: Overall, we rate Alpha News Questionable based on extreme right bias, poor sourcing of information, promotion of conspiracy theories, and anti-Islamic propaganda, as well as a lack of transparency regarding ownership.

So we can disregard it due to the source being a waste of our time and yours, LM. Find a source that actually cares about its reputation, then it's worth discussing.

So why do you support the leftist mobs in Minnesota?

No, it seems as if Pretti deliberately interfered with an ICE enforcement operation last time.

So...we adopt the policy my teacher did in the Netherlands, during occupation: see an LEO, run for your life. The kid working at Target did that. They caught him. Shoved him into their vehicle, in spite of him saying he was a US citizen. Fortunately, he had his papers on him. So, the "LEOs" roughed him up, dumped him at a WalMart, and drove away.

Steve

Steve,

I'm sure your teacher would be horrified at the way you are trivializing his or her experiences.

You leftists shit on everything, even the memories of people you claim to respect.

It's all about exploitation to fulfill your own narcissistic ego by winning debating points on the internet.

It takes a real a-hole to claim to speak for a dead person just because you can't support your arguments by reference to what is actually going on in the here and now.

Ms. Good didn't "run away" from an LEO, she drove her SUV AT the LEO.

Mr. Pretti didn't "run away" from LEOs, he interfered with their operations and started fights with them.

Try again loser.

I'm sure your teacher would be horrified at the way you are trivializing his or her experiences.

He would probably agree with me that encounters with "LEOs" were a matter of life and death. It would be very interesting to see his reaction to what is happening in Shinyland now, people going about their day, until they are assaulted by "LEOs", and compare it to his wartime memories, when he was rousted by "LEOs" because of his black hair.

Steve

Trump lost college educated women 61% to 37%.
Trump lost non college educated women 53% to 45%.
Trump lost college educated men 49% to 48%.
Trump won non college educated men 61% to 37%.


Physicist Richard Feynman: "Never confuse education with intelligence, you can have a PhD and still be an idiot".

"I assure you, an educated fool is more foolish than an uneducated one." ~ Moliere.Sep 19, 2023

“Mark Twain viewed formal schooling critically, famously saying, "Don't let schooling interfere with your education”

Alpha News:

MBFC: Overall, we rate Alpha News Questionable based on extreme right bias, poor sourcing of information, promotion of conspiracy theories, and anti-Islamic propaganda, as well as a lack of transparency regarding ownership.

And probably half the country relies on such unreliable, dishonest, sources.

It would be nice if we could figure out how to hold outlets accountable while observing the rights of a free press per the Constitution. Only a private firm, Dominion, has managed to do it. We can't really rely on a system where private companies are the only ones that can hold outlets accountable.

Isn't it interesting that so many threads devolve into the board's libs - who vastly outnumber the righties here - trying to make themselves feel better?

They just can't go five minutes without somebody telling them They're good enough. They're smart enough. And doggone it, people like them!

That's adult baby behavior.

liberalism is a mental disorder.

And probably half the country relies on such unreliable, dishonest, sources.

So if Alpha News has the headline

2+2 =4

...then it should be ignored?

And if the New York Times writes

The Sun Rises in the North

...they should be believed?

LOL@doppelgängerLambo
Go away one who speaks with fork tongue.`

liberalism is a mental disorder.

How does this further conversation? At least some on this board consider conservatism a mental disorder, and MAGA a severe mental disorder. Where does that leave us? Are we going to start advocating for the committing of large chunks of the population to asylums for such disorders?

IMO, it's easier to write someone off as "cuckoo" rather than address what they say. Sure, sometimes you may encounter an actual cuckoo person, or a fascist, or a commie. Most of the time you just encounter people who disagree with you.

And probably half the country relies on such unreliable, dishonest, sources.

Ya, I guess I should go to CNN, MorningJoe, Rachel Maddow, etc to become better informed.

How does this further conversation?

It doesn't. It's a response to the constant name calling from the left on this board.

Most of the time you just encounter people who disagree with you.

Sure. That's why I'm here, to get the perspective of the other side.

So if Alpha News has the headline

2+2 =4

...then it should be ignored?

That’s a weasley, dishonest reaction.

Of course they should be ignored, or at most-merely noted.

Why should we take notice of anyone who headlines something we all learned in first grade?

But we both know, that’s not the sort of headline we’re talking about.

That’s a weasley, dishonest reaction.

Fail. You don't like it because it points out the rather obvious fallacy the left's constant "source policing" on this board is.

You people don't get to wave your hands and ignore other things because you don't like the source. You have to argue actual facts and evidence.

Try it sometime.

So if Alpha News has the headline

2+2 =4

...then it should be ignored?

And if the New York Times writes

The Sun Rises in the North

...they should be believed?

Reductio ad absurdem. Neither is realistic, so an answer is useless.

But to address the point I think you were trying to make, there are really two factors. First, does the outlet have a reputation for accurate reporting. NYT does, Alpha does not. Second, multiple sources should be consulted if you care at all about the story**. In this modern age, that is easy to do; including foreign outlets that aren't involved in the tribalism of Dem v Rep in the US. If you care about the story, getting multiple sources of different viewpoints (i.e. consulting Alpha, OANN, and FOX doesn't really count) gives you nuance and depth usually.



**So, if an outlet says Kim Kardashian is dating someone, I don't care and won't bother to check further. If an outlet says they are going to denaturalize every immigrant citizen for the past 30 years, I'm going to triple-check that because I DO care about that one.

Reductio ad absurdem. Neither is realistic, so an answer is useless.

Uh, huh.

First, does the outlet have a reputation for accurate reporting. NYT does,

NYT? Only to leftists. Their coverage is shot through with loaded premises and bias, none of which constitutes the Who, the What, the Where, the How, and the Why.

The point of course is that this Source Policing threads are mere exercises in Genetic Fallacy: liberals aren't arguing the facts, you're claiming that whatever was said doesn't matter because of where it comes from.

Ya, I guess I should go to CNN, MorningJoe, Rachel Maddow, etc to become better informed.

Better informed? Probably. Comparing to Alpha or OANN is a very low bar. CNN isn't great, but it's better than either of those. Note that I'm not familiar with Morning Joe, but I assume it's just another talking head. Try turning the TV off and reading instead. TV ("cable") news is more about sensationalism than anything else.

I suggest consulting actual journalists. Not talking heads, not hatchet men like Bannon. And go international. See how we look from the outside. The Guardian (just to pick one) has no interest in making ICE (again, just picking something) look bad/good. They just report it. They have no agenda to hide or distort facts because it's not their country.

NYT? Only to leftists. Their coverage is shot through with loaded premises and bias, none of which constitutes the Who, the What, the Where, the How, and the Why.

Not really true. Independent rating entities consistently rank the NYT is accurate. I'm sure there is bias, but it's mostly going to be in what they report and what they don't.

The point of course is that this Source Policing threads...

...is that is almost impossible to do. I as much as said that. Private entities (like Dominion) seem to be the only ones that can do it. There were the Sandy Hook parents, but Alex Jones was not a behemoth like FOX.

...you're claiming that whatever was said doesn't matter because of where it comes from.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said what I meant, and that is that sources that are unreliable should not be trusted without verification. Sure, Alpha could break the next Watergate. Could happen. But I'd verify it. In fact, if the NYT broke it, I'd still verify it because it is such a major scandal that I would want multiple independent reports to know what happened.

Being informed is work. Just seeing it on TV is lazy, and not adequate.

Being informed is work. Just seeing it on TV is lazy, and not adequate. ~opg

100%!
This site offers quality resources related to news and information literacy...they also offer a quiz to test your information literacy skills...or lack thereof.

"Is it legit? Five steps for vetting a news source"

1)Do a quick search: Conducting a simple search for information about a news source is a key first step in evaluating its credibility.

2)Look for standards: Reputable news organizations aspire to ethical guidelines and standards, including fairness, accuracy and independence.

3)Check for transparency: Quality news sources should be transparent, not only about their reporting practices (see above), but also about their ownership and funding.

4)Examine how errors are handled: Credible news sources are accountable for mistakes and correct them. Do you see evidence that this source corrects or clarifies errors?

5)Assess news coverage: An important step in vetting sources is taking time to read and assess several news articles.

https://newslit.org/news-and-research/is-it-legit/

Naturally, many individuals are not genuinely interested in the pursuit of truth; rather, they seek information that affirms their pre-existing biases.

"Is it legit? Five steps for vetting a news source"

You forgot step 6.

6) Has the “news” organization paid $787 million to settle a lawsuit about broadcasting outright lies. For months.

Not really true. Independent rating entities consistently rank the NYT is accurate.

"Independent ratings agencies" that tend to be populated with...other leftists.

Russiagate ring a bell? How accurate was that? Then there's any of their climate change stories, or a number of other topics where they aren't nuanced, aren't thorough and representative of the other side and/or loaded with their biases in everything.

I only source NYT when it serves a purpose: Hey, look, board lefties - this is so bad even the NYT has to report on it. Lying by omission is another NYT specialty (meaning they don't cover anything that makes The Movement look bad - Example: Joe Biden's obvious mental decline). The fact is the NYT has an institutional history going back to the early 1930s of not wanting to make the political left wing look bad in any way (see Walter Duranty's fawning pieces on the Soviet Union at the same time Stalin was starving millions of people during the Holodomor).

I said what I meant, and that is that sources that are unreliable should not be trusted without verification.

That goes for *Every* news source.
Facts are facts. The point of the 2+2=4 exercise was to highlight that facts stand or fall on their own individual merits regardless of who is reporting said fact.

That's also why I like to post actual, official documents like court findings and position papers so people can go to the source materials themselves. The next thread that I start will be on the 2026 National Security Strategy doc when I get some time.

"And probably half the country relies on such unreliable, dishonest, sources. - 1PG

So if Alpha News has the headline

2+2 =4

...then it should be ignored?

And if the New York Times writes

The Sun Rises in the North

...they should be believed? - Dumbass Dope

There could not be a better example of a person missing the forest because all of the trees blocking his view as Dumbass Dope does here. He thinks he is making a point all while missing the obvious. Comprehending other people's points were never his forte. In fact he is absolutely terrible at it.

Attorney and self-defense expert Andrew Branca

Elsewhere, the guy is portrayed as a ‚MAGA influencer‘ with an axe to grind.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/even-...

So if Alpha News has the headline

2+2 =4

...then it should be ignored?

"I assure you, an educated fool is more foolish than an uneducated one." ~ Moliere.Sep 19, 2023

Bill, we have all seen that video a kazillion times. No way was that killing justified.

Steve

Really?

It is very possible that cop thought he might be all that was preventing congressmen and women from being murdered. You think there wasn't massive confusion at that point?

Russiagate ring a bell? How accurate was that?

Well, judges and juries deemed it pretty accurate since they sent Manafort and Flynn away. The CIA also at the time thought it was real, and the Senate Intelligence Committee (Republican led, during the Felon's administration) released a report concluding it was real, coherent, and organized. The one where -I think- that same Committee told Russia to stop doing it?

You mean that Russiagate? The one that even a Russian oligarch (Prigozhin) admitted to in 2022 (the first, and to my knowledge, the only oligarch to admit it)?

The Felon and the RW media tried to discredit it, and the Felon was almost desperate to halt all investigations into it (clearly the act of an innocent man). But a Republican Senate Intelligence Committee, plus a lot of other evidence, say otherwise.

Also, for my edification, what is "The Movement"? Is that like the conspiracy of tens of thousands of climate scientists to affect public policy on carbon emissions? (And I'm not being facetious...I worked with a few people who were absolutely convinced that conspiracy was real.)

Don’t like it when the real truths of J6 is exposed, do you?

The MAGA gallows are awaiting Spankee's neck.

TRUTH EXPOSED.

Well, judges and juries deemed it pretty accurate since they sent Manafort and Flynn away.

Not for colluding with Russia, they didn't.
The CIA also at the time thought it was real, and the Senate Intelligence Committee (Republican led, during the Felon's administration) released a report concluding it was real, coherent, and organized. The one where -I think- that same Committee told Russia to stop doing it?

Huh? The Steele report was debunked. Here, I'll even do The Thing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/opinion/steele-...

How Did So Much of the Media Get the Steele Dossier So Wrong?

Now it has been largely discredited by two federal investigations and the indictment of a key source, leaving journalists to reckon how, in the heat of competition, so many were taken in so easily because the dossier seemed to confirm what they already suspected.
Many of the dossier’s allegations have turned out to be fictitious or, at best, unprovable. That wasn’t for want of trying by reporters from mainstream and progressive media outlets. Many journalists did show restraint. The New York Times’s Adam Goldman was asked by the Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple about two years ago how reporters should have approached an unverified rumor from the dossier. He responded, “By not publishing.”
Others couldn’t wait to dive in.
Two reporters in McClatchy’s Washington bureau, for example, wrote that the special counsel Robert Mueller had found evidence for one of the most tantalizing bits of the dossier, that Mr. Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen secretly visited Prague during the 2016 campaign. That would have been a key link in the claim that he was there to coordinate campaign strategy with the Russians. It wasn’t true.
Over time, the standards for proof diminished to the point that if something couldn’t be proved to be false, the assumption was that it was probably true. As MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow once put it: A number of the elements “remain neither verified nor proven false, but none so far have been publicly disproven.”

And don't be so quick to credit the Times here; they did plenty of reporting on 'the scandal' and all that, helpfully magnifying the message.

As far as Senate committees:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/release...
WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today released a newly declassified FBI document that indicates the Bureau misled the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2018 about the Steele dossier’s Primary Sub-source and, therefore, the reliability of the Steele dossier.

“This document clearly shows that the FBI was continuing to mislead regarding the reliability of the Steele dossier. The FBI did to the Senate Intelligence Committee what the Department of Justice and FBI had previously done to the FISA Court: mischaracterize, mislead and lie. The characterizations regarding the dossier were completely out of touch with reality in terms of what the Russian sub-source actually said to the FBI.

“What does this mean? That Congress as well as the FISA Court was lied to about the reliability of the Russian sub-source. I will be asking FBI Director Wray to provide me all the details possible about how the briefing was arranged and who provided it.

“Inspector General Horowitz’s team found this briefing document. Inspector General Horowitz and his team deserve great credit for uncovering systematic fraud at Department of Justice surrounding the Carter Page FISA warrant. I’m also very appreciative of the Department of Justice’s release of the FBI document used to brief the Senate Intelligence Committee.”

So. Yeah. THAT Russiagate.

"The Movement" refers to the general wish for liberals to promote the liberal agenda. It's not a conspiracy, merely a statement that people with that political ideology want it to succeed.

So if Alpha News has the headline

2+2 =4

It may NOT "=4". You do not know enough about arithmetic to be able to answer.

Others DO have far more knowledge AND ability than you.

So, you should drop it. Or you may end up getting a dry catheter TRYING TO BE INSERTED.

It is very possible that cop thought he might be all that was preventing congressmen and women from being murdered. You think there wasn't massive confusion at that point?

We all have seen the pix of the mob jammed up against those doors. Only one person thought the situation required deadly force. We have all see the pix from the inside of the House chamber, with the doors barricaded, the glass panels in the doors broken out, and the security people crouching by the doors, guns drawn, but none fired.

Steve

You have to argue actual facts and evidence.

You don't--and won't. Reality isn't for the right, which is why you can't explain stuff.

I didn't mention the Steele Dossier, and completely skipped anything it claimed because of the uncertainty and controversy of it.

I listed actual actions/statements independent of that, including the -at the time- Republican Senate Intelligence Committee, and subsequent statements by others who knew (like the oligarch).

Manafort and Flynn were convicted of crimes involving contacts with Russia, which the Felon later pardoned them for (because...why??). That is, of course, what they could prove. Intelligence (ours) ascertained that the Russians believed they had a source (Flynn) they would be able to use to influence the Felon and his team.

The Felon famously said around that time that our intelligence agencies didn't know what they were talking about, and was exerting every effort to quash further investigations.

That was all part of "Russiagate", and no where did I mention anything to do with the Steele dossier.

It may NOT "=4". You do not know enough about arithmetic to be able to answer.

Good point. It's all about nuance. It might equal 11. You'd need more information to be certain. (I suspect any math geeks will get this.)

you're claiming that whatever was said doesn't matter because of where it comes from.

Usually, anal output SHOULD be ignored as NEWS--unless it is a medical report being used to diagnose whatever is causing the RWNJs to use their anal output in the first place.

NYT? Only to leftists.

Thousands of heads of businesses worldwide are leftists? ROFLMAO !!

this Source Policing threads are mere exercises in Genetic Fallacy

Looking at yourself in your mirror--yet again. <sigh>

Manafort and Flynn were convicted of crimes involving contacts with Russia,

Oh, please. Flynn took a phone call from a Russkie on a beach or something and Mueller fried him for it. Flynn didn't help his case by lying about it.

This is HARDLY the "Trump is colluding with Russia" thing that the democrats insisted was true for years. Manafort's thing was fraud, not national security. And his indictment reeked of "Let's go indict a ham sandwich".

That is, of course, what they could prove. Intelligence (ours) ascertained that the Russians believed they had a source (Flynn) they would be able to use to influence the Felon and his team.

You understand that foreign government people call their counterparts from other countries *all the time* and that it's good they have some kind of relationship, right?

You also provide no links. Here, I will. You're referring to this:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel....

Now here's where actual journalism comes into play. Somebody would read this and see the Trump photo - in the entire context of the 2016 election - and immediately jump to the conclusion that Russia wanted Trump to win!

The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump's behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin's aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.

The report is the culmination of a bipartisan probe that produced what the committee called "the most comprehensive description to date of Russia's activities and the threat they posed." The investigation spanned more than three years as the panel's leaders said they wanted to thoroughly document the unprecedented attack on U.S. elections.

The findings, including unflinching characterizations of furtive interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives, echo to a large degree those of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and appear to repudiate the Republican president's claims that the FBI had no basis to investigate whether his campaign was conspiring with Russia. Trump has called the Russia investigations a "hoax."

That's strong wording.

Except:
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/51249...

The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday released its long-awaited final report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, marking the end to a sprawling investigation that began in January 2017.

The committee’s main findings run parallel to the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia’s efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but found a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.

Well, that's certainly different from what the PBS report says!

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/upl...

Were the Russkies successful? The Committee has seen no evidence that any votes were
changed or that any voting machines were manipulated.^ So no.

Were they definitely trying to help Trump? While the Committee does not know with confidence what Moscow's intentions
were, Russia may have been probing vulnerabilities in voting systems to exploit later.
Alternatively, Moscow may have sought to undermine confidence in the 2016 U.S.
elections simply through the discovery of their activity.

So no.

Most of the rest of that is on the general vulnerability of the US election system both from a technology and an organizational view.

Do bad state actors act like bad state actors? Mr. Daniel told the Committee that by late August 2016, he had already personally
concluded that the Russians had attempted to intrude in all 50 states, based on the extent of the
activity and the apparent randomness of the attempts. "My professional judgment was we have
to work under the assumption that they've tried to go everywhere, because they're thorough,
they're competent, they're good."^^

Yes, they do. Hardly news.

Who did the Russkies think was going to win? Trump? The declassified, January 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment also
highlighted preparations related to voter fraud, noting that Russian diplomats "were prepared to
publicly call into question the validity of the results" and that "pro-Kremlin hloggers had
prepared a Twitter campaign, #Dcmoci acyRIP, on election night in anticipation of Secretary
Clinton's victory, judging from their social media activity."-''^

NOPE.

So that's volume 1. What does Volume 2 have for us?
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/upl...

Oh, here we go: , The Committee found, that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential
election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump
at the direction of the Kremlin.

But the Kremlim thought Hillary! was going to win. This Finding merely supports the notion that the Russians wanted chaos. Thanks to the democrats, they got it!

What else? What did the Russians want?
Analysis of the behavior of the IRA-associated social media accounts makes dear
that while the Russian information warfare campaign exploited the context of the election
and election-related issues in 2016, the preponderance of the operational focus, as
reflected repeatedly in content, account names, and audiences targeted, was on sociapy
divisive issues-such as race, immigration, and Second Amendment rights-in an
attempt to pit Americans against one another and against their government. The
Committee found that IRA influence operatives consistently used hot-button, societal
divisions in the United States as fodder for the content they published through social
media in order to stoke anger, provoke outrage and protest, push Americans further away
from one another, and foment distrust in government institutions.

One word. Chaos. They got it, didn't they?

What else? The Russkies were riling up anyone they could:
The IR.A's trolls monitored societal divisions and were poised to pounce when new
events provoked societal discord. For example, a former IRA troll interviewed by the Guardian
in 2015 descriued his focus on race-related issues: "When there were black people rioting in the
U.S. we had to write that U.S. policy on the black community had failed, Obama's
administration couldn't cope with the problem, the situation is getting tenser. The negroes are
rising up." 115

Again, chaos.
And now we get to the good stuff:
) The overwhelming majority of the content disseminated by the IRA did not express
· clear support for one presidential candidate or another. Instead, and often within the context of
the election or in reference to a candidate, most IRA content discreetly messaged. narratives of
disunity, discontent, hopelessness, and contempt of others, all aimed at sowing societal division.

And their plan worked to a T. The entire democrat party fell for it.

Volume 3 is about the government's preparedness.

Volume 4 is about answering Obama's request for intel.

Volume 5 is about Russia trying to influence Trump. Let's dive in.

First, Manafort:
Manafort hired and worked increasingly closely with a Russian national, Konstantin
Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik became an integral part of
Manafort's operations in Ukraine and Russia, serving as Manafort's primary liaison to Deripaska
and eventually managing Manafort's office in Kyiv. Kilimnik and Manafort formed a close and
lasting relationship that endured to the 2016 U.S. elections. and beyond.

So Manafort was doing work for some oligarch and offered to leak Trump's campaign polling. They don't know why he did that.
The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the Campaign at;td proximity to
Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and
acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort's highlevel access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the
Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska,
represented a grave counterintelligence threat.

The committee thought that Manafort was willing to blab to the Russkies.

Who did the Russians think would win? Hillary!:
The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian
effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak
information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was
to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the
Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the
U.S. democratic process.

So by "helping" Trump they were out to weaken the person they thought was going to win.

The Trump Tower meeting
The Committe~ found evidence suggesting that it was the 'i~tent of the Campaign
· participants in the June 9, 2016 meeting, particularly Dortald Trump Jr., to receive derogatory
information that would be of benefit to the Campaign from a soui:ce known, at least by Trump
Jr.,. to have connections to the Russian government. The Committee found no reliable evidence
that information of benefit to the Campaign was transmitted at the meeting, or that thencandidate Trump had foreknowledge of the meeting. Participants on both 0
sides of the meeting
were ultimately disappointed with how it transpired....was nothing.

Did the Trump team know who they were dealing with? The Committee found no evidence that the meeting participants from
the Campaign were aware of this Russian influence operation when accepting the meeting or
participating in it. No.

What about the hapless Papadopoulos?
The Committee further found that Papadopoulos' s efforts introduced him to several
individuals that raise counterintelligence concerns, due to their associations with individ4als
from hostile foreign governments as well as actions these individuals undertook. The Committee
assesses that Papadopoulos was not a witting cooptee of the Russian intelligence services, but
nonetheless presented a prime intelligence target and potential vector for malign Russian
influence. Nothing there.

Carter Page
The Committee found no evidence that Page made any substantive contribution to
the Campaign or ever met Trump

Nothing there. Glad the FBI violated the sh1t out of his 4th Amendment rights.

Here's where Flynn comes in:
Russia took advantage of members of the Transition Team's relative inexperience in
government, opposition to Obama Administration policies, arid Trump's desire to deepen ties
with Russia to pursue unofficial channels through which Russia could conduct
diplomacy. Russia was not alone in these efforts-U .S. allies and adversaries also sought

inroads with the Transition. The existence of a cadre of informal advisors to the Transition
Team with varying levels of access to the President-elect and varying awareness of foreign
affairs presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence
vulnerabilities. The lack of vetting of foreign interactions by Transition officials left the
Transition open to influence and manipulation by foreign intelligence services, government
officials, and co-opted business executives.

Exactly as I said.

And lastly, on the Steele dossier:
Regarding the Steele Dossier, FBI gave Steele's allegations unjustified credence,
based on an incomplete understanding of Steele's past reporting record. FBI used the Dossier in
a FISA application and renewals and advocated for it to be included in the ICA before taking the
necessary steps to validate assumptions about Steele's credibility. Further, FBI did not
effectively adjust its approach to Steele's reporting once one of Steele's subsources provided
information that raised serious concerns about the source descriptions in the Steele Dossier. The
Corhinittee further found that Steele's reporting lacked rigor and transparency about the quality
of the sourcing.

There you go.

The finding of all 5 volumes summarized, with source links.

The PBS report and in particular this paragraph:
The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump's behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin's aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.

is extremely misleading, as we can see from the excerpt above.

We have all see the pix from the inside of the House chamber, with the doors barricaded, the glass panels in the doors broken out, and the security people crouching by the doors, guns drawn, but none fired

One of them fired, after giving a warning.

And it was enough to stop the mob from pouring in.

Good point. It's all about nuance. It might equal 11.

In base 3, 2+2 = 11
In base 4, 2+2 = 10.

Need more info to know. Which is why you consult news sources from multiple points of view to get a better idea of the situation.

--Peter

Need more info to know. Which is why you consult news sources from multiple points of view to get a better idea of the situation.

Great. Then we all agree that the Genetic Fallacy of "I don't like the source, so I'm automatically going to ignore it" is bogus and in bad faith.

See. The left and the right can agree on something!

Great. Then we all agree that the Genetic Fallacy of "I don't like the source, so I'm automatically going to ignore it" is bogus and in bad faith.

It’s more the case: the source has consistently proven itself unreliable, in fact, they consistently lie and are
sometimes caught regurgitating FSB propaganda or just paid out hundreds of millions in fines for intentionally lying… so why wade through the dreck to find a pearl?

It’s more the case: the source has consistently proven itself unreliable, in fact, they consistently lie and are
sometimes caught regurgitating FSB propaganda or just paid out hundreds of millions in fines for intentionally lying… so why wade through the dreck to find a pearl?

So we can also agree that CNN and the NYT are also piles of crap, as are hacks like Rachel Maddow.

This board is on a roll today!

So we can also agree that CNN and the NYT are also piles of crap, as are hacks like Rachel Maddow.

This board is on a roll today!

It’s a common cop out for the left to discredit an article if it came from a
conservative source mainly because they cannot discredit the article.
One can easily find the same article on left wing blogs or other sources.
The difference is they will give it a left lie twist.

The difference is they will give it a left lie twist.

I have noticed more than that difference. Of course, left leaning sources give things a liberal spin, just as right leaning sources put a right spin on their stories. The real problem is deeper.

Way too many right leaning sources do more than just spin. They start from lies and then spin things further right. Left-leaning sources generally start from facts and spin those.

That is a deep-seated problem. I have no problem giving news a bit of spin to the left or the right. But you have to start from facts.

One extremely recent case: Pretti. Right leaning sources are claiming that Pretti was there to shoot people - with the targets being ICE/CBP officers. But there is little evidence for that. If he wanted to shoot officers, he had plenty of opportunities. He was at a distance from the officers from time to time. That is when you would do your shooting, not up close and personal to a whole gaggle of officers. And you certainly wouldn't draw attention to yourself by yelling and shouting and generally making your presence known. As a shooter, you want to be overlooked, not noticed. That gives you the benefit of surprise. You shoot when the officers attention is directed elsewhere. Claiming that he was there to shoot people is not a fact. It is not spin. At best it is a poorly supported assumption.

Those right leaning sources are treating this assumed intent as fact. But it's not a fact. Sure, you could spin that as opinion, but it should not be presented as a fact.

And that's the major difference. RW media treats their hopes and dreams and suppositions as facts. LW media generally sticks to facts and puts a left spin on their reporting.

This happens all the time - and in a couple of cases, so badly as to cause Fox news to lose a huge amount of money in a lawsuit for treating their lies as facts.

If a news source can't start from facts, its not a news source. Its propaganda. It's lies.

--Peter

So we can also agree that CNN and the NYT are also piles of crap, as are hacks like Rachel Maddow.

Funny you should mention them, because I haven’t watched, listened or read any of them for at least a year- some even longer

Left-leaning sources generally start from facts and spin those.

This is your perspective. That's a fine thing to have, but it's only your perspective. The rest of us do not share it.

Funny you should mention them, because I haven’t watched, listened or read any of them for at least a year- some even longer

We know. You read the Bulwark and Heather Cox Richardson, and they're worse.

Claiming that he was there to shoot people is not a fact. It is not spin. At best it is a poorly supported assumption.

Most importantly, the assumption is not supported by actual recorded video.

No gun shown by Pretti--anywhere. Except when HE does NOT have it.

A shooter would NEVER lose control of their weapon--which contracts the assumptions.

Plus, the gun is a "killer's gun". AND the gun sight is also one used by a "killer".

So, a killer with ALL the "claimed tools" AND "skills" (RN--remember?) AND able to coolly, functionally do a GOOD job in a "high stress, high pressure" environment ("killer", right?) is NOT able to do the job they claimed he planned, trained, and was prepared to do?

Their irrationality regarding their own claims means they are pretty much operating on no real facts or rationality. Tell them their kids are NEXT to be organ donors to black children in Africa and THEN watch them freak out. Take away their guns first....

Dope1, maybe the doofus you are futilely trying to educate is confused, and is trying to think of a better example, like how about that time when General Milley and Nancy Pelosi conspired with the high officials in the Chinese government and/or military command to interfere with the United State's nuclear command authority in a way which would block Trump's ability to order the use of nuclear weapons if he thought the circumstances warranted doing that.

I mean if we are going to talk about high-ranking U.S. military and government officials conspiring with foreign adversaries in a treasonous and despicable manner, this must be what Mr. Doofus had in mind.

Why the hell wasn't Milley ever court martialed and sent for a 40 year vacation in Ft. Leavenworth for what he did?

Where's the justice?

It's O.K. to commit treason against the United States because Trump happens to be the President?

That makes it O.K.?

It’s a common cop out for the left to discredit an article if it came from a
conservative source mainly because they cannot discredit the article.

It's not a cop out. I don't want to wast my time explaining to you why it's a pile of steaming nigghtsoil when I know you don't care. You picked the article because it's a pile of droppings, but that's your aim - to elicit a response so you can then make barbs and insulting insinuations just like the one above. Even this paragraph is a waste of time. But you're good at it, I'll give you that. :)

block Trump's ability to order the use of nuclear weapons

Would YOU allow a 3-yr old to be able to order the use of nuclear weapons?

It's not a cop out. I don't want to wast my time explaining to you why it's a pile of steaming nigghtsoil when I know you don't care. You picked the article because it's a pile of droppings, but that's your aim - to elicit a response so you can then make barbs and insulting insinuations just like the one above.

I cited PBS, a source that you love. Then I showed how that article was biased and misleading.

So much for your Source Policing tactic. Maybe if you guys would try arguing facts what you say would carry more weight. Instead you just want to declare your opinions to be facts...and the world don't work like that.

Dope1,

It's not just that they don't argue facts. The lefties don't think. They're on auto-pilot. They look online for things that they believe allow them to "dunk" on Trump.

They never scrutinize this propaganda with an objective of trying to see the weak spots.

It doesn't matter.

It's all about how posting the crap they post makes them FEEL. Morally superior, better than Trumpers, whatever.

Albaby1 comes closest to being analytical, except he's a total cynic and just does it in the service of trying to make you think he's actually trying to be "fair."

It's called "sophistry" and he's not as good at it as he seems to think he is.

things that they believe allow them to "dunk" on Trump.

Spankee keeps crapping on himself all the time. CALL THE PLUMBERS--AGAIN !!

AND change his diapers--AGAIN !!

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.