703
Trump skips FBI background checks for controversial cabinet picks – report
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
703 points (98.8% liked)
News
23361 readers
3151 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Citation for "Actual Russian Agent"?
(Hillary Clinton said so doesn't count. )
Whether she has a direct chain of command from Russia or not, she is a Russian Asset by her actions.
She has been non-interventionist and spoke positively of Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad for decades.
Gabbard promoted party division during the 2016 elections by supporting Bernie Sanders for president even after Sanders asked people to vote for Hillary Clinton. This aligns with Russian psyops on social media at the time.
When Russia Invaded Ukraine she parroted Kremlin Newspapers on the false claims that the USA operated 36 Biolabs in Ukraine.
She sued Hillary Clinton for calling her a Russian Asset for some good press but then dropped the suit shortly after announcing it to the news. Meaning she thought Hillary could have actually won such a case if it went to court.
Diplomatic can often be confused with positivity
Gabbard supported Bernie Sanders for president even after Sanders asked people to vote for Hillary Clinton.
No, before
Well, The US did fund biolabs in the Ukraine.
Meaning value was gained in publicity and saved in legal fees.
Fucking tankies, bro...
Diplomacy supporting war and death is not a good thing.
You linking to before doesnt argue the point.
She had a lot more to gain by successfully suing Hillary. The only reason to drop the case already filed would be because the allegations were true enough that the opponent could provide evidence and the supposed victim couldn't demonstrate otherwise.
Diplomacy reduces the war and death.
Supporting Sanders over Clinton could be exactly why she started the "Russian Asset" lazy mudslinging.
Winning a case, quickly, cleanly and cheaply is impossible.
It certainty doesn't prove guilt.
Diplomacy with fucking Assad certainly never reduced war or death. I bet 80+ years ago you would have been the type to advocate the USA allying with actual Adolf Hitler.
I've got an idea to win the case quickly and cleanly: not have anything to do with Russia and having the court send Clinton the bill (pun not intended).
Gabbard said they discussed her meeting with Assad and stressed the importance of meeting "with adversaries or potential adversaries, not just our friends, if we are serious about the pursuit of peace."
Asked if she viewed Assad as an "adversary" of the US, Gabbard demurred and said it was important to look at who posed a threat to the US and how the interests of other nations compare to those of the US.
Pressed on the point, she said, "You can describe it however you want to describe it."
When asked later in the interview if she thought Assad was a good person, Gabbard said, "No, I don't," and asked if Russian President Vladimir Putin was an adversary to the US, she responded, "Yes."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-assad/index.html
Gabbards stance against Assad is exactly equal to America's in 1945.
That is a shitty, and ironically slow and expensive, idea.