3 ms·

How can you not find the fact that China owns the company directly involved in USA voting problematic? I truly fail to see how you cannot see that is an issue?

• dragonwriter 6y ago
  > How can you not find the fact that China owns the company directly involved in USA voting problematic? Well, for one thing, that's not a fact. The PRC (assuming, arguendo, the claims about control of the Chinese firms involved are correct) owns a controlling interest in UBS Securities CO, LTD, a Chinese investment bank. UBS Securities, a Swiss bank, owns a minority interest in that Chinese bank. UBS Securities was paid some amount of money by State Street Capital in connection with a $400 million offering of securities by State Street Capital. State Street Capital co-owns, with Dominion's management team, Dominion voting systems. There is no rational way this set of facts supports the conclusion "China owns the company directly involved in USA voting". "China owns the majority of a Chinese bank in which a minority stake is owned a Swiss bank who received money in relation to a securities offering by a US private equity firm which co-owns the company directly involved in USA voting" is not really a cause for any particular concern that I can see.