What? Are you fucking kidding me? New York Times posts an article advocating against free speech.

[Kwak]

Is this relevant here?

Prosecutors offered a clue on Saturday when they said they detained two men, one the father of a pupil at the school and another on the radar of intelligence services, who they said had used social media to turn a dispute over the civics class into a campaign against the teacher.

That evening, he put out another Facebook video, giving the name of the teacher and identifying the school.


On Oct. 12, another video appeared on YouTube, featuring the father of the pupil. A man off-camera interviewed the man’s daughter. The voice off-camera said President Emmanuel Macron was inciting hatred of Muslims and threatened a demonstration if the teacher was not removed.

The man off-camera was known to intelligence services, anti-terrorism prosecutor Jean-Francois Ricard said on Saturday, though he did not say in what capacity. The father of the pupil has a half-sister who in 2014 joined Islamic State in Syria, Ricard said.

Both men were detained by police after Paty’s killing.

Beheaded French teacher was target of angry social media campaign

Samuel Paty, the teacher beheaded outside his school in a Paris suburb, was described by his pupils and their parents as caring and professional. But he was killed after becoming the target of an angry campaign on social media.

www.reuters.com

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I dont think this is going to have the effect you want. Anti-Slapp laws were necessary because rich people can just claim everything is slander and keep you stuck in courts for years. Like, your addition of 'sane' person is going to cover a lot of things. Calling someone a pedophile didnt do anything to Musk. And I dont think it would change unless you really crackdown on speech, going after every insult

Lastly, it would only benefit rich people. With these sort of casee you have to prove financial harm and you and I probably will never be worth enough to make such a claim. So the rich are able to lie and insult while everyone else has to watch what they say, especially arouns rich people

That would be one of the changes. Change it from prove harm to prove no harm.
That means most cases would then skip that bit to fight on the arguments of the reliability of the evidence in the claim.

You are right rich assholes would drag the cases out still but they can and do anyway, which is another issue that kind of needs to be sorted out.

 

[lil devils x]

They investigated and found that the foundation looked like a pay to play scheme and found workers who thought the same, and warned the foundation of that.

No, they investigated in 2017, AFTER that article was written. AT the time, they said they were "calling for an investigation" in that article, that has already happened now remember? That Insinuation that it looked like it could be taken as such never amounted to anything coming to fruition in the actual investigation, The GOP exhausted all efforts and Clinton came out looking better than before because the " insinuation" turned out to be nothing wrong happening at all. Once they turned over all their financials and make them pubic, there was no wrong doing found. Bill wasn't even paid more than other speakers at the same time. DID you miss the part in the article where they said the investigation had not happened yet? That the lawyers they asked to audit just said that it looks like some of that could be taken as such, not that it was, but that wasn't the actual investigation here at all.

 

[lil devils x]

The investigations did not find literal contracts outlining exactly how Hillary Clinton would use her position in the government to benefit the various donors to the Clinton Foundation who were also paying Bill Clinton millions of dollars for speeches. Squeaky clean.

The investigations didn't happen until AFTER that article was written, all you have there are the lawyers the Clinton's asked to audit saying some of this could be taken wrong, but not that there was any actual wrongdoing. The actual investigation happened later and found no wrongdoing. No matter how many time you have read that since 2016, you STILL think this was somehow meaning something other than it was.

You do understand the purpose of the lawyers right? That the Clinton's wanted them to see if there was something that "could be spun" to look bad, not that there was anything actually wrong. That was what the Clinton's themselves PAID the lawyers to do for them. That doesn't mean any of that actually happened. It is funny that when the Clintons pay people to try and figure out if there was anything there, and they don't actually find anything but instead tell them that people could try to spin this to look bad so then the Clintons make sure they make all their records 100% transparent so there can be no confusion and the later investigation finds them to have had no wrongdoing, you STILL go back to the very lawyers the Clinton's paid to tell them of how this could be misconstrued, as EVIDENCE and ignore the later investigations findings when the lawyers themselves made it CLEAR no actual wrong doing taking place.

That is the funny thing here. You take a snippet and think it means something more than it does when the lawyers themselves who came to these conclusions said that it actually doesn't. How do you know more than the lawyers that were paid by the Clintons t do this for them in the first place do? Hmm...

The lawyers say someone could misrepresent this to mean something it does not, so then you go and misrepresent it, just like they said might be done. LMAO!

 

[MrCalavera]

I wonder how we ever got out of serfdom, then.

Bubonic Plague.

...Hmm.

 

[Iron]

So... It's become America. Because its definitely Capitalists, Authoritarian and a technocracy. I dont think the word efficient fits though

Are you doing this on purpose?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

No, they investigated in 2017, AFTER that article was written. AT the time, they said they were "calling for an investigation" in that article, that has already happened now remember? That Insinuation that it looked like it could be taken as such never amounted to anything coming to fruition in the actual investigation, The GOP exhausted all efforts and Clinton came out looking better than before because the " insinuation" turned out to be nothing wrong happening at all. Once they turned over all their financials and make them pubic, there was no wrong doing found. Bill wasn't even paid more than other speakers at the same time. DID you miss the part in the article where they said the investigation had not happened yet? That the lawyers they asked to audit just said that it looks like some of that could be taken as such, not that it was, but that wasn't the actual investigation here at all.

That was an investigation, that's what an audit is. The investigation found that the foundation appeared to be a pay to play endeavor, and the people in the organization were concerned it was too.

 

[Iron]

Bubonic Plague.

...Hmm.

Covid suddenly sounds appealing

 

[Trunkage]

Are you doing this on purpose?

No I'm accidentally pressing random letter that happen to creating a cogent sentence

I'm not American. I can see how much they are destroying this world and how full of propaganda it is that isn't based on history or reality

They're little better than China or Russia

 

[Gordon_4]

That was an investigation, that's what an audit is. The investigation found that the foundation appeared to be a pay to play endeavor, and the people in the organization were concerned it was too.

Okay; did they find definitive proof that it was a pay to play endeavour? Or any other evidence of wrongdoing? Appearances are one thing to kick off an investigation and good on its staff for throwing up a few flags because they were worried, but did the audit find any actual malfeasance with which to sanction or prosecute the foundation?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Okay; did they find definitive proof that it was a pay to play endeavour? Or any other evidence of wrongdoing? Appearances are one thing to kick off an investigation and good on its staff for throwing up a few flags because they were worried, but did the audit find any actual malfeasance with which to sanction or prosecute the foundation?

I don't know if that's the purpose of an internal audit. They did say that the appearance of being a pay to play scam meant that foundation members should be very very certain to tell donors that they aren't a pay to play scam, no matter how they look.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Okay; did they find definitive proof that it was a pay to play endeavour? Or any other evidence of wrongdoing? Appearances are one thing to kick off an investigation and good on its staff for throwing up a few flags because they were worried, but did the audit find any actual malfeasance with which to sanction or prosecute the foundation?

From my understanding there was no email saying "So if I pay you this money you get us a meeting to deal with our issue". However there was a suspiciously high number of people who donated and then suddenly got to talk with or make deals with officials.

 

[lil devils x]

Okay; did they find definitive proof that it was a pay to play endeavour? Or any other evidence of wrongdoing? Appearances are one thing to kick off an investigation and good on its staff for throwing up a few flags because they were worried, but did the audit find any actual malfeasance with which to sanction or prosecute the foundation?

No, in fact the lawyers specifically stated "there is no evidence of any quid pro quo." They said what they found might make it look like some donors might expect something, but there was no evidence of anything like that ever actually taking place.

Though, if you have ever worked fundraising for charity, you do not usually vet donors, you just take their donation, offer them a charity receipt and thank them and move on to the next one. If they donate millions, you do a photo op and like make a plaque or something to hang on the wall somewhere. That is what they usually get even when donating to medical charities or hospitals. I would assume the same would be done for the Clinton Foundation. I wouldn't expect donors to be vetted when the money is going to charity, it isn't like the Clintons were taking and using the money for themselves, as was proven by their extremely transparent financials.

Almost of the accusations made against them are just made up conspiracy nonsense. That isn't saying that there isn't actual things to be pissed at the Clintons for, there certainly is. Just there is no point inn making up nonsense like this when there are legitimate reasons to be pissed at them. For example, bill Bombing the medicine factory, Their arms deals with Saudi Arabia, Benghazi, Calling blacks " super predators" and a lot more of actual things to dislike her for, but this whole Clinton Foundation BS was just disinformation. sort of like the whole Clinton murdering people and trafficking children in the pizza parlor basement. The fact that people still even believe any of this garbage is why we really need to work on truth vs fiction.

 

[Gordon_4]

From my understanding there was no email saying "So if I pay you this money you get us a meeting to deal with our issue". However there was a suspiciously high number of people who donated and then suddenly got to talk with or make deals with officials.

Jesus Christ. Why is it that people always expect there to be this singularly damning piece of evidence that busts the case wide open? And to expect it to be as easily discoverable as that? Here’s a pro-tip that seems to evade people; criminals operating at this level are not stupid. They do not leave shit like that laying around. That’s why audit investigators are so important: they’re trained to look at a whole lot of information noise and read between the lines to see if there is anything nefarious going on.

If the auditors didn’t fimind anything, the most likely explanation is that there is nothing to find. Or they’re the worst auditors in the history of ever.

No, in fact the lawyers specifically stated "there is no evidence of any quid pro quo." They said what they found might make it look like some donors might expect something, but there was no evidence of anything like that ever actually taking place.

Though, if you have ever worked fundraising for charity, you do not usually vet donors, you just take their donation, offer them a charity receipt and thank them and move on to the next one. If they donate millions, you do a photo op and like make a plaque or something to hang on the wall somewhere. That is what they usually get even when donating to medical charities or hospitals. I would assume the same would be done for the Clinton Foundation. I wouldn't expect donors to be vetted when the money is going to charity, it isn't like the Clintons were taking and using the money for themselves, as was proven by their extremely transparent financials.

Almost of the accusations made against them are just made up conspiracy nonsense. That isn't saying that there isn't actual things to be pissed at the Clintons for, there certainly is. Just there is no point inn making up nonsense like this when there are legitimate reasons to be pissed at them. For example, bill Bombing the medicine factory, Their arms deals with Saudi Arabia, Benghazi, Calling blacks " super predators" and a lot more of actual things to dislike her for, but this whole Clinton Foundation BS was just disinformation. sort of like the whole Clinton murdering people and trafficking children in the pizza parlor basement. The fact that people still even believe any of this garbage is why we really need to work on truth vs fiction.

However, part of financial transparency is the provenance of the money they receive. Some larger charities probably do screen their large donors to make sure the money is not laundered, proceeds of crime or from enemy/untrusted state actors for reasons that should be obvious.

 

[lil devils x]

From my understanding there was no email saying "So if I pay you this money you get us a meeting to deal with our issue". However there was a suspiciously high number of people who donated and then suddenly got to talk with or make deals with officials.

Hmm.. You know what I just realized.. There are a ridiculously high amount of people who have donated to the Hospital charity that have had surgery at the Hospital.. Hmm suspicious. Hillary was already ideal for secretary of state due to her numerous contacts she already obtained while First Lady with numerous officials globally and already had a report with them. Of course she used those contacts made as first lady to raise money for the foundation, and it makes sense they would also still be contacts that they used for official business considering she met those contacts initially when she was first lady of the United States, because that is what they actually do here.

 

[lil devils x]

Jesus Christ. Why is it that people always expect there to be this singularly damning piece of evidence that busts the case wide open? And to expect it to be as easily discoverable as that? Here’s a pro-tip that seems to evade people; criminals operating at this level are not stupid. They do not leave shit like that laying around. That’s why audit investigators are so important: they’re trained to look at a whole lot of information noise and read between the lines to see if there is anything nefarious going on.

If the auditors didn’t fimind anything, the most likely explanation is that there is nothing to find. Or they’re the worst auditors in the history of ever.

And like it is somehow suspicious that a former First Lady of the United States, former United States Senator, would have an extensive officials contact list and use that list for charity events. Of course she did. She would have been crazy not to. That doesn't mean there is any wrong doing, that is just common sense if you want to raise money for charity. She would still need to do business with them as Secretary of State, that doesn't mean there is anything suspicious of her having a rapport with them already though due to her history. Her contact list and rapport with so many officials and world leaders would be the reason why they would WANT her for Secretary of State, not a reason for them not to.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Jesus Christ. Why is it that people always expect there to be this singularly damning piece of evidence that busts the case wide open? And to expect it to be as easily discoverable as that? Here’s a pro-tip that seems to evade people; criminals operating at this level are not stupid. They do not leave shit like that laying around. That’s why audit investigators are so important: they’re trained to look at a whole lot of information noise and read between the lines to see if there is anything nefarious going on.

If the auditors didn’t fimind anything, the most likely explanation is that there is nothing to find. Or they’re the worst auditors in the history of ever.




However, part of financial transparency is the provenance of the money they receive. Some larger charities probably do screen their large donors to make sure the money is laundered, proceeds of crime or from enemy/untrusted state actors for reasons that should be obvious.

Here's my question. Why did the auditors tell them to make things clear to donators that they aren't a pay to play scam instead of, say, recommending the crossover between the Clinton's personal and philanthropic lives and money be examined and dismantled to prevent their organization from looking exactly like a quid pro quo trap?

 

[lil devils x]

Here's my question. Why did the auditors tell them to make things clear to donators that they aren't a pay to play scam instead of, say, recommending the crossover between the Clinton's personal and philanthropic lives and money be examined and dismantled to prevent their organization from looking exactly like a quid pro quo trap?

Because Bill was a former US president. Hillary was a former First lady and Senator. Her contact list was mostly Officials and world leaders. When she had charity events, chances are she used that same contact list to try and get donations, as anyone else in her same position would. She would be crazy not to. Her already having a rapport with many of these people is WHY she would be a good fit for Secretary of State because she already knows the people she would be negotiating with, being able to work them for charity donations means she can also work them for good contracts for the US. That does not mean wrong doing. You would expect those lists to overlap.

It is due to her extensive political history and life that made her contact lists overlap, not that there was any actual wrong doing going on.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Because Bill was a former US president. Hillary was a former First lady and Senator. Her contact list was mostly Officials and world leaders. When she had charity events, chances are she used that same contact list to try and get donations, as anyone else in her same position would. She would be crazy not to. Her already having a rapport with many of these people is WHY she would be a good fit for Secretary of State because she already knows the people she would be negotiating with, being able to work them fro charity donations means she can also work them for good contracts for the US. That does not mean wrong doing. You would expect those lists to overlap.

But it made their organization look exactly like a quid pro quo trap, to the point where the people working there thought they were. Even her daughter thought it was.

 

[Gordon_4]

Here's my question. Why did the auditors tell them to make things clear to donators that they aren't a pay to play scam instead of, say, recommending the crossover between the Clinton's personal and philanthropic lives and money be examined and dismantled to prevent their organization from looking exactly like a quid pro quo trap?

Because with no evidence of wrong doing, I suspect the auditors made the recommendation they felt had the best chance of being followed to help the foundation’s compliance be better communicated rather than one that is borderline punitive but with no legal backing to enforce.