3 ms·
Are the people downvoting this (presumably Trump supporters), that AMI admitted guilt in attempting to influence the 2016 by using their well known tactics to s
by cromwellian 8y ago
Are the people downvoting this (presumably Trump supporters), that AMI admitted guilt in attempting to influence the 2016 by using their well known tactics to snub a story damaging to the candidate, and that their plea agreement stipulates that they would no longer commit anymore crimes, and that by blackmailing Bezos, they're essentially broken their plea agreement?
This is the very definition of a criminal enterprise. Breaking federal election laws, blackmailing those investigating your crimes. If the connection to the Trump campaign bothers you, that too is factual, given that AMI's agreement involved assistance they gave to the Trump campaign that was illegal, and the owner, David Pecker, is a close personal friend of the President.
There's pretty good circumstantial evidence from this, and the Cohen tapes, that using power and privilege to "deal with" personal or political enemies does not give pause to these people.
Thus, mafia-like behavior.
- davidw 8y agoI think HN has Trump bots.
- dmode 8y agoDef Trump bots. Mention anything negative about Trump and watch the downvotes
- dang 8y agoI think it's that people are allergic to partisan flamebait, with good reason. Also, these comments usually break the site guidelines. So do comments alleging astroturfing and related things (bottage, shillage) without evidence, so could you guys please not post those? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- cromwellian 8y agoExcept that it is factual that AMI is involved in a criminal enterprise, since they plead guilty to crimes involving improper attempts to influence the 2016 election.
- dang 8y agoOk, but I don't think it changes the point. Facts aren't neutral, because there are infinitely many of them and you have to select which ones to mention. Since different sides prefer different facts, they can just as easily amount to a partisan shot as non-facts can. More, actually. Beyond that, there is huge variation in how one phrases facts and how they relate to context. None of that is neutral or factual, even if the selected facts themselves are.