Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DonaldD

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13
General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: December 12, 2016, 10:36:20 PM »
TheDeamon - the contention is not that Russians connected to the government hacked the voting process itself, but that they were involved in targeted propaganda with the aim of affecting the election outcome.

That all the US intelligence agencies basically agree on the actions that took place, but seemingly only disagree on the degree of certainty with which they can link the actions directly to the Kremlin, is pretty convincing.

It's no longer a question of what they will find - they have already found sufficient evidence to characterize the conclusions with the term "high confidence", which is spook speak for "pretty darned sure", supposedly.

From Reuters:
A senior U.S. intelligence official told Reuters intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that not only did their Russian counterparts direct the hacking of Democratic Party organizations and leaders, but they did so to undermine Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

So, US intelligence agencies as a group confidently believe that an adversarial foreign power at the very least attempted to negatively affect the electoral chances of a major party candidate for president (not to mention the downstream effects) yet strangely, almost no US citizens on this board give this more than a passing yawn..?  Your electoral system was just attacked by a foreign power - basically, the underpinning of your whole democracy has been attacked - and nobody can muster even a peep of resistance?

General Comments / Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: December 12, 2016, 06:18:00 PM »
I don't see this topic being discussed anywhere - does everybody here believe that Russia interfering in US elections, to the point of possibly affecting the outcome, is really not worthy of discussion?

And if not that, what about the president-elect getting into public, 140-character fisticuffs with the CIA in its official capacity of informing the incoming administration?

From the Washington Post: Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

For some curious reason the specificity of the issue always gets system restored back to "won't sell a cake" whenever someone dredges up the topic again. To date I don't think I've heard of a case falling under this recent 'religious freedoms' issue where a merchant refused to sell a pre-made product to someone based on their beliefs/orientation/race.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 11, 2016, 09:27:45 PM »
As I recall you are Canadian, so none of what happens will affect you (directly).
I guess it depends on what you mean by "directly".  For instance, the USA bailing on its commitments to address climate change very well could lead to the complete collapse of the current international agreements pushing us all back, globally, a good 20 years in our ability to address the projected effects of even mitigated climate change and possibly making it impossible to avoid its worst effects.

At the very least, it will directly make it far more difficult, if not impossible, to implement any level of effective carbon pricing inside Canada if all it means is that the Canadian economy will be falling on its sword while the US economy capitalizes at the expense of Canadians and the rest of the world.

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 10, 2016, 08:27:19 PM »
Gosh then, Cherry, it's a good thing the Democrats haven't had the past 8 years to put those nefarious plans into place - the Republicans would never had stood a chance this election cycle!

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 10, 2016, 08:08:19 PM »
Ranked ballots would likely disproportionately benefit the LPC - whereas PR would more than likely solidify the left's grasp on the legislature - both outcomes which would suit the Liberals no doubt.

The remaining 1/3 were pure partisans and anti-Hillary - people who perceive Hillary as the anti-Christ (or not far from it).
See, you missed a perfectly good opportunity to go in another direction, say: "people who perceive Hillary as the anti-Christ (or at least his former secretary of state)".

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 10, 2016, 06:25:11 PM »
he promised to reform our electoral system from winner take all to proportionate - a change that many fear will gurantee the Liberal Party's dominance for decades to come!
Although completely of no interest to anybody else here, this is not correct: Trudeau only promised to replace the voting methodology, of which there are many, not limited to proportional representation.  Secondly, proportional representation is less likely to lead to a single party gaining dominance, as it will lead to more (will actually almost guarantee) minority governments, giving other parties extra weight within government.

What PR would likely do is guarantee the parliament more closely resembles the will of the voters, at the expense of governmental stability.

General Comments / Re: The result of flipping 1 voter per 100
« on: November 10, 2016, 05:49:50 PM »
Basically, if someone is working a job where they're living in fear of a robot or AI taking over their job in the foreseeable future, be it next week, or 5 to 15 years from now. They were very likely to vote Trump.
I can't imagine people were sufficiently worried about Wessex to have factored in his ability to replace them into their electoral calculations...

General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 10, 2016, 05:45:08 PM »
I'm not sure why this is such a big surprise (to those that are so surprised).

Sure, the end result (electoral college-wise) is a huge difference, but the difference in the vote between a Clinton solid win and a Trump solid win is just 1% in the vote, distributed equally across the nation.

So basically, existential stürm und drang on one side or the other, based on a single percentage point swing in actual voters.  I would like to say "good luck to y'all" as it really doesn't affect me, but since Trump is apparently still pretending not to believe in human affected global climate change, then the job of mitigating damage to the planet just got a lot harder for the rest of humanity.

Thanks Obama!

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?
« on: November 07, 2016, 08:09:50 PM »
The more likely effect is on turnout, rather than on the number of Clinton's supporters themselves, and secondarily on swaying normally dependable Republican voters to support Trump and drop Johnson - and that is less likely to switch back at this stage.

There was a drop in Johnson support coincident to the news of the Weiner emails, so it is not outside the realm of the possible.

General Comments / Re: Wells Fargo ~5300 member class action upcoming?
« on: October 29, 2016, 06:53:47 PM »
Well, there was the follow who complained to HR, then the Labor Department, that went on to win its case against the company ... but that was earlier in the thread.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 27, 2016, 11:01:43 PM »
Except it's a little disingenuous to try to make the system "airtight" in one very particular, probably insignificant and, as noted, unproven way, while ignoring that the system is already broken in so many very significant and proven ways.  Also, conveniently, the remedies to address the particular unproven issues in question will tend to disproportionately disenfranchise particular groups that tend not to support the people proposing the putative solutions, and will tend to disenfranchise people at a far greater rate than the purported fraud that these remedies aim to address...

It is effectively trying to make a container airtight by shooting it with a shotgun.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 27, 2016, 08:12:55 PM »
No, its not the definition of systematic disenfranchisement.  That would be a system that is designed for the purpose of disenfranchising voters
Quite aside from the fact that there is significant evidence that such laws were actually designed with the intent of disenfranchising voters, "systematic disenfranchisement" does not require intent - it just requires that the system in place has the effect of disenfranchising voters.  Clearly, the laws struck down recently by the courts did have this effect, and clearly, they were part of the legal systems of the states that enacted them.  By definition that is systematic disenfranchisement.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 27, 2016, 03:23:51 PM »
And?  They've already struck down voter ID laws that require IDs and don't provide for free ones.
So you accept that laws that were only recently enacted have been found by the courts to disenfranchise voters.  Isn't that the very definition of systematic disenfranchisement?  Do you dispute that there are still groups, including legislators, hoping to reinstate similar laws to "protect" against fraud, and among them people who do not accept the rulings you refer to as valid?

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 27, 2016, 03:14:22 PM »
The problem with this is that the "guilty party" for gerrymandering isn't always who you suspect.
I disagree - the problem is not with who gerrymanders, but rather that it exists at all, and that it systematically disenfranchises millions of voters, both Republican and Democrat, dwarfing any possible effects of in-person voter fraud by orders of magnitude.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 27, 2016, 08:52:20 AM »
Actually ballot selfies are probably prohibited for a much simpler reason, to prevent paying for votes.
That and, well, voter intimidation/protection rackets.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 27, 2016, 08:51:34 AM »
There is no systematic effort to disenfranchise eligible voters.
Not sure how I neglected this other point earlier, but - gerrymandering systemically disenfranchises millions of voters each election cycle, dwarfing even the worst nightmare scenarios of anybody positing in-person election fraud that could theoretically be addressed with official voter IDs

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 25, 2016, 04:56:22 PM »
Clearly, AI, Assange was setting a trap for you - now that you brought it up, out will come the Arizona and New York emails...

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 25, 2016, 03:15:31 PM »
Except now you're talking nonsense.   Voter ID doesn't leave any citizen disqualified.  Felon's don't get to vote as policy choice.  Voter IDs are provided for free to those that otherwise can't afford them, and no one is disqualified.
Except now you are talking nonsense: voter ID laws are being defined at the state level, some of which are proposing existing types of ID as being valid for voter identification purposes.  IDs that not just cost money to acquire themselves, but also which require time to acquire during working hours, and the ability,in many cases, to travel and miss work (go back to the whole discussion on disenfranchisement and Republican state governments limiting voters abilities to access to the point of access for such IDs.)

Sure, voters who cannot afford to miss work as a matter of pure finances or in many cases as a condition of maintaining their employment have a choice - they could acquire the ID and risk forfeiting their jobs... that's a choice.  But then, felons also had the choice not to commit a felony.  The choices of both sets of people define their ability to vote, based on the laws that have the effect of disenfranchising them.

The question in both cases, though, is what does each law do to benefit society, and at what cost?  The question has been answered multiple times, so there's not much point in rehashing the very real costs to very real people, and the very limited benefits to society as a whole (if any).

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 25, 2016, 01:22:11 PM »
That's a policy position intentionally and knowingly adopted with legitimate reasons related to an intentional and definitive exercise of judgment on behalf of the citizen that left them disqualified.
Sure, just like voter ID laws could defended as a policy position related to an intentional and definitive exercise of judgment on behalf of the citizen that left them disqualified.  It doesn't really address the issue that it is also a policy position that disproportionately affects populations that do not support the people pushing those policies. Conveniently.
It's my view that the Democrats are more accepting of an Ends justifies the Means philosophy though that makes it possible to do it at scale.
You could only state this with a straight face if you completely ignore what has happened politically in the USA over the past year.

Didn't you hear?  Character doesn't matter anymore.  Just ask the evangelical Christians...

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 25, 2016, 12:25:02 PM »
There is no systematic effort to disenfranchise eligible voters.

From the Wikipedia entry on felony disenfranchisement:
As of 2008 over 5.3 million people in the United States were denied the right to vote due to felony disenfranchisement.[8] Approximately 13% of the United States' population is African American, yet African Americans make up 38% of the American prison population.[2] Slightly more than 15% of the United States population is Hispanic, while 20% of the prison population is Hispanic.[2] People who are felons are disproportionately people of color.[1][2] In the United States, felony disenfranchisement laws disproportionately affect communities of color as "they are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and subsequently denied the right to vote".[1] Research has shown that as much as 10% of the population in some minority communities in the United States are unable to vote as a result of felony disenfranchisement.[1]

A 2003 study found that states with high non-white prison populations were more likely than others to pass felon disenfranchisement laws, even after controlling for numerous other factors, which supports the racial threat hypothesis.[9]

In the national elections 2012, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together blocked an estimated 5.85 million felons from voting, up from 1.2 million in 1976. This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general; and included 8% of the potential African-American voters. The state with the highest number of disenfranchised voters was Florida, with 1.5 million disenfranchised, including more than a fifth of potential African-American voters.[5]

I suppose you could pull out the "no true Scotsman" argument, but clearly ~6 million disenfranchised voters is orders of magnitude larger than any likely number of fraudulent, in-person votes.  That's aside from the hundreds of thousands who would be disenfranchised (only as a side affect, and quite innocently, of course) by enforcing voter ID laws.

I keep waiting, but nobody has ever successfully explained how an organized conspiracy to fraudulently vote in-person on a large enough scale to affect even hundreds of ballots could be kept secret, or how a non-conspiracy, non-organized group of unaffiliated voters could do the same and primarily benefit only a single party or candidate.  Is only one party's supporters smart enough and criminal enough to pull it off?

General Comments / Re: Wells Fargo ~5300 member class action upcoming?
« on: October 25, 2016, 11:51:22 AM »
And the bleeding continues -
The culture was not easy on even the managers. Susan Fischer, a former Wells Fargo branch manager in Arizona, said she suffered "severe depression and anxiety" after being pushed to instruct employees to open unauthorized accounts in 2007. Fischer had to take medical leave and ultimately resigned in 2008 due to the stress. "It was an extremely dark period for me," she said.

General Comments / Re: Wells Fargo ~5300 member class action upcoming?
« on: October 20, 2016, 08:02:44 AM »
Again, the thinking of somebody who understands neither corporate governance nor statistics.  Getting sued by an employee and the Labour Department is no small thing for a bank.  Losing a case that is only successful 2% of the time is not something that occurs 2,000 times a year even for the largest corporations. That's just fantasy.

General Comments / Re: Wells Fargo ~5300 member class action upcoming?
« on: October 18, 2016, 05:05:15 PM »
Not really - because the whistleblower won his court case against WF - so even if it's not known whether the emails themselves ever made it to Stumpf or the board, the fact that the company lost a court case, wherein one of its employees was found to have been punished for informing the company of fraudulent activity... it would be very surprising that the broad facts of such a case did not become known to them.  In fact, the board NOT taking an interest in such a lost court case could be seen as ignoring their fiduciary responsibilities to the corporation.

As to lawsuits brought against the corporation (and won) by the Department of Labour in support of one of the firms employees?  That does not happen thousands of times a year.  Even in the article, it states the following: "Just 2% of whistleblower cases are found in the favor of employees, according to a 2010 Labor Department Inspector General report."

It should also be understood that the complaint itself triggered Sarbanes-Oxley protections: any corporation finding themselves on the wrong side of a Sarbanes-Oxley ruling in 2010 would stand up and take note.

General Comments / Re: Wells Fargo ~5300 member class action upcoming?
« on: October 18, 2016, 01:28:40 PM »
So, it turns out that Wells Fargo executives and board had to have known about the existence of the fraudulent practices, although arguably not their widespread nature, at least as far back as 2008:

The employee won a federal whistleblower case against Wells Fargo in 2008 for a similar complaint.
The gist of the whistleblower's warning to the company was that the illegal activity in Northern California was "widespread and so highly encouraged that it has become a normal sales practice." This from a complaint lodged in 2007.

It's highly unlikely that the board and the executive team remained ignorant of such a legal finding against the company.

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 18, 2016, 01:08:59 PM »
Exactly D.W. - certain states in the USA have booming disenfranchisement industries, and generally, the people who support those industries tend to be the same people who claim to worry about almost non-existent fraud at the polling booths.

The fact that these industries have evolved in states where other historical disenfranchisement tended to be most widespread is not a coincidence, but it is easily ignored by those who historically benefitted and who currently still do benefit.

I have no doubt that Hillary had a plan to deal with Trump if he "went there" on Bill, and the only plan that would be effective is a moral equivalence attack. 
Why would you think so?  Why, in fact, would Clinton need to respond at all?  The only people likely to react positively to Trump's "attack" are those already pretty much guaranteed to support him.  Maybe he gains by motivating more of them to vote.

But the people on the fence, or the people who don't support Trump already?  They see such a personal attack on Clinton's spouse's actions as just more of the same Trumpian behaviour that would tend to disqualify him as being temperamentally unfit for the presidency.

Any Clinton response would neither affect his true believers, nor would it improve how her supporters think of her; although granted, they might be more motivated to vote, but since Trump has already thrown so much red meat to Clinton's supporters, it's hard to imagine this would go very far to further motivate them.  She really doesn't gain much if anything by reacting to this particular attack.

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 15, 2016, 09:24:36 PM »
It's hypothetically just as likely that those weapons will be used to keep someone in power, if it just so happens that the office holder's supporters are the better armed, and he or she is aware of that...

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 13, 2016, 06:49:09 AM »
TD... White guy shoots up a prayer meeting?  White supremacist.  Two white guys shoot up a high school?  Nazi sympathizers... why leave the most egregious spree killers in the past couple of decades out of your analysis? That's not even getting into the attacks on,  murders of and kidnappings of abortion providers in the past two decades - almost all perpetrated by white people.

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 12, 2016, 04:58:05 PM »
I kinda disagree - an investigator could go out and say there was absolutely no proof of wrongdoing brought to their attention, which would be far closer to giving a clean bill of health.  Comey could have come much closer than he actually did to categorically saying she didn't commit a crime.

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 12, 2016, 04:44:17 PM »
Not having sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion is not the same as categorically claiming Clinton did not break the law.  I can't imagine anybody in law enforcement ever categorically ruling out that somebody broke a law.

"Snakes on a plane" was just my characterization of the video clip.

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 12, 2016, 04:23:48 PM »
BTW - if you really were contrasting "grossly generalistic... half" with "some" then I agree - putting a number/percent on the bucket was politically foolish - although it probably does reflect her thinking.

As I said earlier - Cherry clearly has no idea what "Sexual Harassment" means.

It's a lot like what a lot of the anti-Clinton crowd is assuming with the leaked emails: "look - a leaked email!  It must mean Clinton did something wrong!"  Where for the most part, the emails being referenced are completely innocuous, but still proof, somehow, of wrongdoing.

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 12, 2016, 04:07:51 PM »
Originally posted by D.W.:
I feel the same way, but I'm not a politician and even I know that neglecting to say "some of his supporters are..." is dumb.
Why do you think she neglected to say that?  She actually said the following (my bold): "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."

Was it stupid to say "grossly generalistic... half" instead of "some"?  I get the impression from what you wrote that you weren't aware of the modifiers in her statement, but maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote.

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 12, 2016, 02:42:44 PM »
So... question: Clinton's "basket of deplorables" remark would ordinarily be electoral suicide (unless she already knew that she had the election won); but instead of suicide, was it possibly a gambit intended to force more moderate Republicans to push back against Clinton's statement in the hope of immediate electoral benefit, but over the short-to-medium term, really inviting those moderates to further associate themselves with xenophobes in their midst, and prolonging the split between the minority but more activist xenophobes and the more moderate but less activist conservatives?

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 12, 2016, 02:20:58 PM »
It's not even like the Republicans didn't already know this about themselves after 2008, and even more so after 2012.  They went back, licked their wounds, analyzed their failings, and announced to the world that they would not be able to survive without reaching out to women, blacks, hispanics and immigrants in general.

Instead, the party plurality simply could not accept the analysis... and may not be able to do so in the future, since the plurality now espouses values that are anathema to the very people the party needs to survive.

Further to my previous response - I think there is a disconnect between the different parties concerning what was actually wrong with Mr. Trump's video, where he claimed "celebrity immunity": on the right, many of those dismissing any issue with the video seem to think that the major problem is with his choice of language: if only he had not said "kitty cat", there would be no story.

Whereas to many who take offense with the video, they tend to be more concerned with the meaning of statement in full - not just with the fact that he was trivializing sexual battery, nor with the (debatable) interpretation that he made the claims, knowing their truth from experience, but just as importantly because it is evidence of exactly how he values women.

This is similar to how Cherry doesn't understand the difference between Obama's "Snakes on a Plane" moment and the Trump's confessions on the bus.

Cherry seems to have a problem with the definition of the the term "sexual harassment"...

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 12, 2016, 02:02:31 PM »
I also await the direct quotes, Seriati - but in the meantime, could you answer the question?  Is it OK for the president to declare, prior to trial, the guilt of a person?  I will note that even minor legislators refrain from such statements in order not to be perceived as trying to pervert the course of justice.

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 12, 2016, 12:10:53 PM »
Originally posted by Seriati:
Announcing she will be put in jail is just a conclusion based on the evidence in front of us.  Not a statement that he'd try to twist a court to convict without evidence.  That's pretty much the difference in what makes some thing a banana republic.
Granted, Donald Trump is not the President yet, but would it be acceptable for a President of the USA to make the statement "you would be in jail"?  That is basically the head of the government making a factual statement about the guilt or innocence of a person who might go in front of the courts.  If not OK, would it be OK for a prospective president to make the same factual statement?

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 12, 2016, 11:52:30 AM »
rightleft22 - that's why it's such a great scandal. Nobody who wants to throw Clinton in jail over it understands it either.

Originally posted by Seriati:
In fact this was a worse attribution error as he described the basis on which he thought profiling makes sense (and it is the same basis on which we have a friggin national campaign, "See something, say something," which is about seeing something suspicious and acting), and was deliberately reconstrued into the most offensive reconstruction possible.

If we are talking about the "mainstream media"tm what I saw from CNN, at least, was an analysis of how the way Israel "profiles" may not work as effectively in the USA as in Israel.  Also, that what Israel does is not what is normally considered as "profiling".  Do you have specific quotes that actually "[reconstrue it] into the most offensive reconstruction possible"?

"Or how about the whole conclusion" from the release of three pages from his tax returns (hello! if you think its immoral to release hacked emails, its probable that this release was an illegal one (notwithstanding unsubstantiated claims that his wife did so)), that he's paid no taxes for 20 years.
Again, what I have seen (limited to CNN) is the following guarded statement or equivalents: that Mr. Trump a) could have earned income of almost a billion dollars b) over a period of up to 15 years after 1995 c) without paying any federal (and sometime state) income tax.

So your summary of what CNN is saying (at least) is incorrect on several levels.  It isn't 20 years, but rather 15; the word "could" in the CNN wording is relevant - your characterization of it as a statement of fact changes the meaning significantly; the CNN position also pointed out that the exemption would only have affected earned income of up to a billion dollars - granted, Mr. Trump almost certainly would not have had enough earned income to matter; the CNN statement is clear that this would only affect income taxes, whereas your characterization of not paying any taxes whatsoever changes the meaning completely.

In fact, CNN had regularly quoted the Trump campaign's response, which is that the candidate "has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in other taxes, including property and real estate taxes"

Do you have links to media organizations that claim Mr. Trump paid no taxes whatsoever for 20 years?  I wouldn't surprised if there was somebody making that claim, but if CNN is any barometer, I would be surprised if it was a major player.

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 12, 2016, 10:49:26 AM »
Arizona  :o is actually now leaning Clinton according to both fivethirtyeight and realclearpolitics.  Without a serious bounce back, "landslide" would be a guarantee.

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 11, 2016, 04:28:25 PM »
Oops - House = Senate / Senate = House.

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 11, 2016, 11:48:56 AM »
CVOTER and Rasmussen have Clinton up on Trump by 5 or more percentage points nationally (likely voters), which, given the house effects of those two Trump-leaning pollsters' methodologies, translates to upwards of a 7% margin as of the past week.

Those are pretty huge numbers to overcome in less than one month - they might even put Arizona in play for Clinton.

Define "landslide"...

The House will go majority Democrat.  The Senate will likely remain Republican, though closely split.

General Comments / Re: October Surprises
« on: October 11, 2016, 11:33:06 AM »
NH, apparently, portions of the 'article' were retweeted and went somewhat viral over the course of the day, so it is more likely somebody saw it on Twitter.

General Comments / Re: October Surprises
« on: October 11, 2016, 09:33:41 AM »
Oops - and now we have Donald Trump probably quoting a Russian 'news agency' article that misattributes a Kurt Eichenwald article, claiming that Eichenwald's statements about Benghazi were actually written by Sydney Blumenthal - which would be pertinent because the words would then suggest that Blumenthal (a close confidant and advisor to Sec. Clinton) believed that the Benghazi attack was preventable.

It turns out that Blumenthal embedded an article written by Eichenwald in an email that he sent out to John Podesta at the time - the article clearly being the words of Eichenwald, and easily distinguishable from Blumenthal's words in the email (as Eichenwald mentions in the interview linked above, "it says Newsweek-Newsweek-Newsweek, time and time again."

I say Trump probably got it from Russian propaganda, but it is possible that he (or one of his sources) independently came up with the same misrepresentation.  I'm not sure which is better. Or whether this will be enough to distract from his statements concerning celebrity sexual assault.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13