3 ms·

The “witness statement” comes from disgraced former Ukranian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, and was made directly to Dmitry Firtash’s legal team. Firtash is a Ukrani

The “witness statement” comes from disgraced former Ukranian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, and was made directly to Dmitry Firtash’s legal team. Firtash is a Ukranian oligarch linked to the Russian mafia. It’s not entirely clear to me yet what Shokin is getting out of it. Firtash is trading his willingness to manufacture fake dirt on Biden in return for the Trump administration dropping his extradition to the US to stand trial for corruption. He has been stranded in Vienna for years, and wants to go back to running his mob-tied business empire. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/the-debunked-biden-allegations-are-incredibly-useful-to-dmitry-firtash https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/the-debunked-biden-a... https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/watch-this-closely-new-details-on-how-giuliani-pal-met-ukrainian-oligarch https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/watch-this-closely-n... https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/03/giuliani-claims-ukraine-corruption-case-firtash-dmytro-wanted-extradition-whistleblower-impeachment-biden/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/03/giuliani-claims-ukraine... https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/oligarch-used-giuliani-as-means-to-gain-trump-s-favor-reports-71650885773 https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/oligarch-used-giul... etc. Shokin’s affadavit is full of holes. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-...

rayiner 7y ago
I strongly suspect you are correct. But notice that you had to go to witness credibility. In an American court of law, that means the assertion would survive a motion to dismiss. A jury would have to decide whether the witness was telling the truth, or lying based on ulterior motivations. Do you think the Facebook should be making calls on things that would be “jury questions” in a legal proceeding? And if so, do you think Facebook employees are an unbiased jury on that front?
- jacobolus 7y ago
  When the truth is something like “A Russian-mob-tied Ukranian oligarch and his disgraced pet prosecutor is trying to make up dirt about Biden who was sent as the representative of the US/NATO countries to demand Ukraine fire that corrupt prosecutor standing in the way of corruption investigations, because the oligarch thinks he can trade manufactured dirt for political favors with the US president.” Then restating that as “Biden promised Ukraine $1 billion to stop investigating his son’s crimes” is pretty much slander. * * * Personally I think that Facebook should not run political ads, period.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Your “truth” is an inference that you are drawing based on circumstantial evidence that contradicts the witness’s story. Even if I agree with you that conclusion is probably correct, in US law we would treat that as a “disputed fact” that would require a jury to resolve. I think Facebook shouldn’t moderate political content, full stop, but if it did, surely the limit is things that provably false without making judgment calls or evaluating credibility. E.g. “Hilary Clinton was indicted for her emails but Obama pardoned her.” It’s shocking to me that anyone would espouse Facebook making editorial decisions on political ads based on inferences from the evidence that in a court of law a judge wouldn’t be empowered to make. And if Facebook moderators should be able to make inferences and weigh credibility in deciding “truth” doesn’t that circle back to my point about education spending? The US spends more on education than all but 1-2 other OECD countries. Can’t a moderator infer from that the assertion that schools are underfunded is false?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

rayiner 7y ago

I strongly suspect you are correct. But notice that you had to go to witness credibility. In an American court of law, that means the assertion would survive a motion to dismiss. A jury would have to decide whether the witness was telling the truth, or lying based on ulterior motivations. Do you think the Facebook should be making calls on things that would be “jury questions” in a legal proceeding? And if so, do you think Facebook employees are an unbiased jury on that front?

jacobolus 7y ago
When the truth is something like “A Russian-mob-tied Ukranian oligarch and his disgraced pet prosecutor is trying to make up dirt about Biden who was sent as the representative of the US/NATO countries to demand Ukraine fire that corrupt prosecutor standing in the way of corruption investigations, because the oligarch thinks he can trade manufactured dirt for political favors with the US president.” Then restating that as “Biden promised Ukraine $1 billion to stop investigating his son’s crimes” is pretty much slander. * * * Personally I think that Facebook should not run political ads, period.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Your “truth” is an inference that you are drawing based on circumstantial evidence that contradicts the witness’s story. Even if I agree with you that conclusion is probably correct, in US law we would treat that as a “disputed fact” that would require a jury to resolve. I think Facebook shouldn’t moderate political content, full stop, but if it did, surely the limit is things that provably false without making judgment calls or evaluating credibility. E.g. “Hilary Clinton was indicted for her emails but Obama pardoned her.” It’s shocking to me that anyone would espouse Facebook making editorial decisions on political ads based on inferences from the evidence that in a court of law a judge wouldn’t be empowered to make. And if Facebook moderators should be able to make inferences and weigh credibility in deciding “truth” doesn’t that circle back to my point about education spending? The US spends more on education than all but 1-2 other OECD countries. Can’t a moderator infer from that the assertion that schools are underfunded is false?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]