How about that Russian company that is Mike's top campaign contributors?
https://www.newsweek.com/house-speaker-mike-johnson-donations-russia-butina-1838501
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
319 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22913 readers
5221 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They are the Party of Putin now.
Guild Of Putin?
The mascot isn't an elephant, it's a goatse.
Ironically all perfectly legal and above-board, because there's no law against US branches of foreign companies covering the legitimate expenses of a House Speaker's campaign, like that app that tells your son if you're jerking it.
While American Ethane was run in 2018 by American John Houghtaling, 88 percent of the firm was owned by three Russian nationals—Konstantin Nikolaev, Mikhail Yuriev, and Andrey Kunatbaev.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Nikolaev
Konstantin Yuryevich Nikolaev (also transliterated as Nikolayev) (Russian: Константин Юрьевич Николаев; born March 5, 1971, in Dniepropetrovsk, Ukraine SSR) is a Russian billionaire and businessman who is a financial supporter of Maria Butina, a co-owner of the Tula Cartridge Plant that supplies very large amounts of ammunition to Russian forces during Russia-Ukraine War
According to Ilya Yashin (Russian: Илья Яшин), who is an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin and is incarcerated in Russia for his violations of laws in support of Russia during the Russia-Ukraine War, the family of Konstantin Nikolaev, defense plants in Russia, the NRA, Donald Trump, Trump's gun lobby, Steven Seagal, Maria Butina and others are supporting and financing Russia during its war in Ukraine and have effectively blocked more appropriate sanctions.
Lolz. Damn. That shit's crazy.
Splendid! According to his own beliefs he'll be tortured by satan for an infinite amount of time.
It almost makes you wish you believed in such things. ALMOST!
It's really such an insane theory though. You get .01 through 100 years on earth, and if you screw up your one shot, you're rewarded or punished for eternity? Just nuts. I have no idea why people would feel normal telling themselves and each other this.
I think the original idea was to not only tell people they'll go to hell because they once wore two different kinds of fabric at the same time but to also sell them absolution before their death. Just consider it a business model.
Religion is all just a Ponzi scheme. How do you think they get the scratch to build all those giant fancy houses for their imaginary friends to admire?
The world mourns the lack of a current-era Christopher Hitchens.
With friends like god(s), who needs enemies?
I'll settle for Satan existing *(for you) if you believe in it.
New Moses is a liar, and he's repeating the mistakes of Old Moses by leading his people around in circles.
My favorite part was when someone asked "what about the santos district flip" and he starts bitching about the money spent and i said aloud "nuh uh motherfucker, you all claimed that was speech. Why didn't you speak up?"
For Mike "Tuggin-Ma" Johnson to accuse Biden of breaking the law must make his anus twitch around Trump's little dick in pleasure.
Jesus these visuals are getting out of hand, I don't want to picture that
I don't have an army, billions of dollars, or a Supreme Court in my pocket. I can only fight evil with mockery.
To you, I apologize for spattering your imagination. To the GOP? I'll leave that to your imagination.
I’ll leave that to your imagination.
You better not do that. You might spatter his/her imagination a second time.
The only ones I purposely wish to offend (in this context) are the traitorous fucks of the GOP - not well meaning folks, and I'm not skilled enough to always avoid them.
He broke the law like jaywalking is breaking the law.
But actually less dangerous than jaywalking.
If Biden is such a lawless motherfucker, the #GOP damn well better hope that SCotUS doesn't give him free reign to exile them from the country or just straight up zero them w/ this upcoming immunity decision.
To be fair, Mike Johnson is on Putin’s payroll
I mean, in fairness, the report did find that he broke the law, but the investigator declined to prosecute based on his findings. Decline to prosecute =/= found no laws were broken.
Edit for the butthurt: page 1, paragraph 2 of the report:
"Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen."
As others have said, whether they could establish mens rea in a court of law is another question. But they found evidence of willfulness.
Juries and judges are the ones who should be making those decisions though. Not a political rival.
The report found that there was insufficient evidence and therefore it wasn't worth a jury or judge's time to review the case (which is what decline to prosecute means in this situation)
There is sufficient evidence to say he broke the law, but there is insufficient evidence to say he did it with malicious intent. I think it's fair to say "he broke the law", you just can't say "he willfully broke the law"
That makes no sense. The laws in question require willfulness. So if you can't say there was willfulness, you can't say the laws were broken.
For instance, assault with a deadly requires willfulness, so if a baseball bat slips out of a baseball player's hands and clobbers someone in the stands you wouldn't say the player broke the law but lacked willfulness, you'd just say they didn't break the law.
And who's to decide if the baseball bat was willfully thrown? The jury! You could still be charged with assault because 1000 people saw your bat hit someone in the face, so its 100% plausible to say you broke the law.
If the law says don't cross the line, and you accidentally cross the line, you broke the law, regardless of willfulness. Its up to a jury to decide if youre guilty
Its not like the police have an "accident detector" they roll up to the scene to determine if a law was broken.
The law includes willfulness as part of “the line to cross”, so again, no. Without the willfulness included, then there was not a broken law. This really isn’t hard to understand.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If intent is an element of a crime and there isn't reliable evidence of intent, then the elements of the crime are not met.
(Compare with, say, Trump who was hiding his documents, asking his lawyers and staff to lie, and demonstrating left and right he intended to break the law.)
Lol, I love how you quote one sentence that's contradicted the very next paragraph where they explicitly state that they didn't have the evidence to prove it.
You're literally just quoting propaganda that isn't even supported by the rest of the document.
Also, I love the idea that the person who immediately turned over what they had and cooperated fully with investigators is being accused of 'willful retention' as if it wasn't just a lazy attempt at both sidesing this.
they said they didn't think they had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Its not the same thing, and if you read the report there are hundreds of pages of evidence, its not like they were short on evidence.
It seems to me the biggest factor in not charging him was actually his senility.
they said they didn't think they had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yeah, because there isn't much 'evidence' there. It's all just circumstantial conspiracy theory baking. It really feels like they're just grasping at straws, especially when they paint a grand conspiracy and then immediately point out the completely innocent possibilities that are more likely.
It seems to me the biggest factor in not charging him was actually his senility.
Or, maybe, because he willfully turned all the documents over and didn't attempt to retain them?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ohhhh… Now do the Mueller report
The report's author assumed that it was wilful - they didn't find anything to back up that assumption.
load more comments
(3 replies)
If they can't establish Mens Rea then they didn't find that he broke the law.
Some of the evidence they uncovered is like this: Years ago, Biden mentioned document A. We found document B somewhere else years later. If we can establish A and B were the same document, then we could establish willfullness, because it means Biden moved it instead of returning it, but we are unable to prove A and B are the same.
So they had evidence of something that they thought might be a crime, but even they don't know.
The key to politics is not to speak a verifiable lie while lieing all day long through rhetotical tricks.
This is a distraction from the Intelligence committee's news.
I bet they found a backchannel between Johnson & the Kremlin.
Hey look! It's the Gingrich Administration Redux!
view more: next ›