The Right Side of the News

It's going to be an interesting time, as in the alleged Chinese proverb, for the next few weeks. There's a lot of claim-checking to be done. So far Parnas appears to be a reliable witness even though he's criminal scum. He's documented some of his claims, and some of his claims agree with what others have said, and nobody's caught him lying on the scandal.My God, could all or almost all of his so-far uncorroborated claims be true? If they are corroborated it'll be like Nixon's tapes to everyone except the hardest of core Trump supporters.Which is a significant portion of the American electorate.

It's not real yet. It a projection.

The difficulty in finding it was not censorship. It was due to the report being horseshit.Twitter is blocked in Iran. Nobody in Iran liked or retweeted it. Note that your quote didn't say anything about "in Iran". Just standard right-wing deception, and you made just the erroneous assumption they wanted you to. Internet censorship in Iran - Wikipedia.Note that the leading think tank and the advisor are not identified, though there's no reason for secrecy. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Really? You think maybe someone made a sign reading "God hates {unreadable blur} ", took it to a protest, someone took a photograph, and someone altered a copy of that photograph and changed "{unreadable blur}" to "Trump"? Really?Anyhow, we know that didn't happen because people wouldn't do that under any circumstances. The one with "{unreadable blur}" is the altered one. Duh.It's not very important, but it does illustrate our times. It's changing a true historical record into a lie. Just another example of how the administration and the right wing have terrified ordinary people into doing such stupid actions for fear of disproportionate and unearned reaction. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Bush1 was the originator of the term "voodoo economics" in 1980. Bush2 was a supply-sider. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

OK, she has some expertise. That's one person's educated opinion,. No evidence proffered for her claims.But it appears that Twitter is indeed available in Iran, although many sites still say it is blocked. I can't find any solid number of users in Iran. It seems to be declining; Social Media Stats Islamic Republic Of Iran | Statcounter Global Stats covers last year, and it shows 20% using Twitter in January, declining to 3.3% in December. "Percent of what?" you ask. If I don't know. The percentages for each month add to 100, so maybe percentage of social media users? But that seems stupid because social media users probably use more than one platform.https://twitter.com/hashtag/Iranians shows some supporting Trump, some against him, and many having no relevance to him.So we know that some Iranians have Twitter, some are pro-Trump, some are anti. What we're missing is how many of each, who uses Twitter in Iran (bet it is mostly the people doing well), and assessment of the significance. Pro-Soleimani messaging immediately floods Twitter following general's death in drone strike - CyberScoop points out:

quote:

---

Twitter accounts claiming to be located in Iran and throughout the Middle East pushed out many thousands of tweets under a handful of hashtags, such as #HardRevenge and #DeathToAmerica, promising payback against the U.S. for President Donald Trump’s order to eliminate the Iranian commander. [...]

​

Whether some or all of the posts were the result of a planned social media campaign also was not immediately clear, though the sudden #HardRevenge activity seems like a collaborative and coordinated effort, Karan said.

---

Counting Twitter users who espouse a particular current and controversial claim is unlikely to yield solid useful data. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Yes, largest in response to a tweet in Farsi. How many were from inside Iran? Lots of people know Farsi outside Iran.200,000 likes is a lot more than I'd expect. But assuming that's accurate and assuming they all were in Iran, it's 0.2% of the Iranian population. If the Tweeters were a random sample of the population you could derive some very probable conclusions. But it's not a random sample. The poor won't have Twitter.Taking the guy out made the world a better place. It also distracted from impeachment. Make whatever you will of those two facts.Shame Trump didn't do it legally. Yet another example of his disdain for the law.

The law requires that Trump inform the Gang of Eight of such actions unless there is a threat so imminent that there isn't time.He's claimed an imminent threat. The multitude of different stories the6administra has told make it clear there was no imminent threat. They couldn't even brief Congress on an imminent threat.You yourself wrote "of course" the assassination was in response to protestors at our embassy. It's obvious that's true. Not an imminent threat.So, illegal.

She was referring to the assassination not Ukraine. That's a different crime.It is hard to keep track of so many.

Worker threw exception | www.rawstory.com | Cloudflare

quote:

---

"Officials at the State Department, in coordination with the White House, drafted talking points advising those who would appear in the media to underscore Soleimani’s ‘malign activities’ and his role in killing American troops over the years, according to two U.S. officials, the report notes. But the White House wanted to advance a different argumentone that wasn’t about what Iran had already done, but what U.S. officials claimed Iran was about to do. They said the U.S. killed Soleimani because he was planning ‘imminent’ attacks that would harm American interests.

​

That, in turn, led to disastrous cable news appearances by Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who were unable to back up the president’s claims of multiple embassies facing threats which has now led to calls for an investigation into whether the president ordered the strike to take attention away from his pending impeachment trial.

---

FWIW I don't hate Trump. I hate what he and his merry band of criminals have done. Trump's just so far out of his depth he's looking up at the Titanic.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I.e. no imminent threat. Have you noticed that every time you deny the existence of a law you are immediately shown to be wrong?US Constitution, Article 1, section 8:

quote:

---

The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

---

PUBLIC LAW 93-148 (the "War Powers Resolution of 1973"):

quote:

---

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

​

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

---

War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance:

quote:

---

Two separate but closely related issues confront Congress each time the President introduces Armed Forces into a situation abroad that conceivably could lead to their involvement in hostilities. One issue concerns the division of war powers between the President and Congress, whether the use of Armed Forces falls within the purview of the congressional power to declare war and the War Powers Resolution (WPR). [...]

​

For over three decades, war powers and the War Powers Resolution have been an issue in U.S. military actions in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Central America, and Europe. Presidents have submitted 136 reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution, although only one (the Mayaguez situation) cited Section 4(a)(1) or specifically stated that forces had been introduced into hostilities or imminent hostilities.

---

{emphasis added}.Whether or not Trump was required to notify Congress has not been tested in court, so lawyers could argue it. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President, or vetoed and overridden. There is no such thing as a bogus law. If you disapprove of a law you can sue (with some restrictions).The War Powers Resolution is the law of the land unless and until it is repealed or invalidated in court. Deal with it.ABE The President doesn't have the Constitutional power to wage war, Congress does. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Many call that waging war. Not all of them leftists.Whatever Congress did to Johnson is irrelevant to the assassination, Ukraine, Trump’s impeachment, or any of the many crimes he and his administration have committed.Morally, you may oppose laws you dislike. And accept any consequences.

Calling it not waging war does not make it not waging war. You are saying that Trump can take any military action he can and as long as we don't call it waging war it's OK to not involve Congress?Where does it say war must be formally declared? He could nuke Moscow and it wouldn't be war? DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LAW OFWAR MANUAL
:

quote:

---

Different Definitions of War for Different Legal Purposes. There is no single legal definition of war, hostilities, or armed conflict, and the definition of these terms has varied in both domestic and international law. In domestic law, war,hostilities, and armed conflict have been interpreted differently depending on the specific legal context at issue.

​

For example, under the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war. Thus, war might be interpreted to determine whether a military operation constitutes war in this sense.

​

Similarly, the War Powers Resolution states certain requirements that are triggered when U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities.75 Other statutes may require a determination that conduct has occurred [w]hen the United States is at war or during time of war.

​

Under international law, war, hostilities, and armed conflict may also be interpreted with different purposes in mind. A state of war can affect what duties States that are not participating in the conflict have under the law of neutrality. A state of war can affect whether peacetime treaties between two States continue to apply. Most importantly for the purposes of this manual, the terms war and armed conflict are used to describe when jus in bello rules apply

---

Yeah, you and your pals have access to all the intelligence and analysis required for a definite determination. Tell the Vietnamese how stupid it would be to go up against the US. Tell the Taliban. Tell ISIS. Tell the Somali militants.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.