Question: has the US congress officially declared war on Iran/Russia, and if not, surely there is no legal basis for charging Scott with helping an enemy? Seems to me that the ‘official displeasure’ of some deepstate parasites is insufficient grounds for going after someone proffering different opinions. I’m ignorant, therefore just asking.
as I said: wer am Wege baut, hat viele Baumeister. And people are not trained to listen carefully. They tend to jump to conclusions before they have understood what you are saying. That's a phenomenon that has to do with our upbringing as children and our culture and it has to do with the emotional state that arises in a person, when he listens to divergent opinions. In most people this emotion blocks the clear thinking (and listening)...
So there are (at least) two main faults in this text of Mark Wauck: You didn't say that Scott Ritter's critizism of US (and Western) policy is "imprudent behavior" - as I understand it you just said that you shouldn't be surprised when the outspoken critizism crosses a red line for bellicose countries - the more the countries get weak and aggressive. The comparison with Tokio Rose is correct: we are in a state of (undeclared but factual) war. Of course anybody should offer their critizism - but you have to be aware that the country at war will react if it seems it necessary (as I say - the weaker the country gets, the more aggressive it will be).
The second fault is that you didn't say that Ritter violated FARA. In the opposite: you said that you don't know enough facts to come to that conclusion (you repeated that at least twice). Whether taking money is a violation of FARA depends of other facts besides taking money in itself, which legally is perhaps indicative, but not conclusive evidence. But that wasn't you point at all. Your point was that taking money presents an indicative that you should avoid in any case in an environment like this - acting otherwise is imprudent and it hurts the case.
So you see: We live in a world where it's about belonging to the right camp, not a world of rational analysis, which is a pity...
This attack on Ritter is motivated by partisan politics and intended to stymie his efforts with respect to Project Dawn. His stated goal is to organize a cohort of voters that regard nuclear war avoidance as a primary imperative for the November election. Scott (and his partners) have been working to organize and hold rallies in key swing states that would encourage candidates to take a stand on this issue. The idea is to get thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of these voters to commit to only voting for candidates that will favor policies that emphasize nuclear war avoidance. The Deep State wants him sidelined until after the election, much like Bannon.
You know what, I have come to the conclusion that it was a major error of omission by the framers that they failed to include a definitions section in the US Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights. If I had the authority to prohibit nearly all corporate entities political activities, interstate political contributions, etc . . . sadly I've no way to make my dreams become reality.
Remember the Citizen’s United decision. The right celebrated this decision, and now it’s come home to bite the right as corporations have gone woke and lurched leftward and they do influence politics via fascist interaction with government and money donated for the cause of globalism.
If you are an eGOP or greater conservative their is a higher chance they will help.
One of the partners represents legal insurrection, Ron Coleman, and lives in NY. They represented the gop party.
In San Jose they represented the plaintiffs of the Trump rally and all they got was an apology.
Due to the Russian collusion smear I doubt they will represent this. Plus the Jewish angle. And the money angle. It would be an expensive case to defend, and the plaintiff is not a rich person, and i doubt there would be much of a payout. I hope I’m wrong… legal stuff is expensive and at $400 plus an hour adds up quickly. General Flynn bankrupted himself defending the lawfare deployed against him.
Be funny if rt funds a lawyer. As happened when the fbi indicted a Russian firm, and soon as US lawyers were hired, the fbi folded.
RT can pay him to do anything legal, and criticizing the govt is (well, was....) legal.
the bar to proving FARA violations in the past were high.
"(i) engages within the United States in __political activities__ for or in the interests of such foreign principal;" (emphasis __added___)
political activities
(o) The term “political activities” means any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party;
Source (via
22 USC § 611(o)
So, when I cared about such, the threshold for such was the same as lobbying - if what you were doing on behalf of the foreign govt was lobbying, then FARA kicked in.
Essentially means going to the government or its officers to try to change US policy.
He can yack on Judge Nap all day long in an overt attempt to affect US public opinion (which clearly seems to be his objective), and it's not an activity that requires FARA registration AFAIK.
Well, if the term "foreign principal" means ONLY "(1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party;..." then it seems clear that simply accepting payment from RT, or perhaps even taking some direction from their editorial board prior to publication - which after all is done all the time at virtually every publication - should not be a basis for a FARA violation.
However, on the other hand the left (and no doubt our current U.S. administration) likely views RT as being funded by the Russian government and as a propaganda arm of it. Just take a look at the Wikipedia view of RT:
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the "powers that be" think this is enough of a link to harass and intimidate Ritter as an example to others who share his views. And of course they will (I am sure) love to learn of all of his connections and have access to his personal and professional information for possible legal violations of any kind.
Doing business with an agent of a foreign government isn't illegal. Nor is associating with a know intel officer of a foreign government. It's about what Ritter intends and is doing.
PS - so, it sure looks to me more like law fare - tie him up in paperwork and the threats of court, etc. - than a real FARA investigation, unless there's something else pertinent and yet to be disclosed.
Question: has the US congress officially declared war on Iran/Russia, and if not, surely there is no legal basis for charging Scott with helping an enemy? Seems to me that the ‘official displeasure’ of some deepstate parasites is insufficient grounds for going after someone proffering different opinions. I’m ignorant, therefore just asking.
Standard of proof? We don't need no steenkin' standard of proof.
I'm sure it's been commented many times before, but the process is the punishment.
I just sent this email to Gilbert Doctorow.
Gilbert,
as I said: wer am Wege baut, hat viele Baumeister. And people are not trained to listen carefully. They tend to jump to conclusions before they have understood what you are saying. That's a phenomenon that has to do with our upbringing as children and our culture and it has to do with the emotional state that arises in a person, when he listens to divergent opinions. In most people this emotion blocks the clear thinking (and listening)...
So there are (at least) two main faults in this text of Mark Wauck: You didn't say that Scott Ritter's critizism of US (and Western) policy is "imprudent behavior" - as I understand it you just said that you shouldn't be surprised when the outspoken critizism crosses a red line for bellicose countries - the more the countries get weak and aggressive. The comparison with Tokio Rose is correct: we are in a state of (undeclared but factual) war. Of course anybody should offer their critizism - but you have to be aware that the country at war will react if it seems it necessary (as I say - the weaker the country gets, the more aggressive it will be).
The second fault is that you didn't say that Ritter violated FARA. In the opposite: you said that you don't know enough facts to come to that conclusion (you repeated that at least twice). Whether taking money is a violation of FARA depends of other facts besides taking money in itself, which legally is perhaps indicative, but not conclusive evidence. But that wasn't you point at all. Your point was that taking money presents an indicative that you should avoid in any case in an environment like this - acting otherwise is imprudent and it hurts the case.
So you see: We live in a world where it's about belonging to the right camp, not a world of rational analysis, which is a pity...
But: please keep it up!
All the best
Andreas
This attack on Ritter is motivated by partisan politics and intended to stymie his efforts with respect to Project Dawn. His stated goal is to organize a cohort of voters that regard nuclear war avoidance as a primary imperative for the November election. Scott (and his partners) have been working to organize and hold rallies in key swing states that would encourage candidates to take a stand on this issue. The idea is to get thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of these voters to commit to only voting for candidates that will favor policies that emphasize nuclear war avoidance. The Deep State wants him sidelined until after the election, much like Bannon.
You know what, I have come to the conclusion that it was a major error of omission by the framers that they failed to include a definitions section in the US Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights. If I had the authority to prohibit nearly all corporate entities political activities, interstate political contributions, etc . . . sadly I've no way to make my dreams become reality.
Remember the Citizen’s United decision. The right celebrated this decision, and now it’s come home to bite the right as corporations have gone woke and lurched leftward and they do influence politics via fascist interaction with government and money donated for the cause of globalism.
Sucks don't it, you should try being Khaan for a while.
Seems the approach by DoJ smells like Jack Smith had some recent downtime.
Is there any legal organization focused on the 1st amendment and defending free speech?
ACLU no longer is if the defendant is the wrong politics, unfortunately.
Some organizations are defending religious freedom.
I have heard and read about Dhillon Law Group. They specialize in First Amendment rights.
My swag based on what I’ve read….
If you are an eGOP or greater conservative their is a higher chance they will help.
One of the partners represents legal insurrection, Ron Coleman, and lives in NY. They represented the gop party.
In San Jose they represented the plaintiffs of the Trump rally and all they got was an apology.
Due to the Russian collusion smear I doubt they will represent this. Plus the Jewish angle. And the money angle. It would be an expensive case to defend, and the plaintiff is not a rich person, and i doubt there would be much of a payout. I hope I’m wrong… legal stuff is expensive and at $400 plus an hour adds up quickly. General Flynn bankrupted himself defending the lawfare deployed against him.
Be funny if rt funds a lawyer. As happened when the fbi indicted a Russian firm, and soon as US lawyers were hired, the fbi folded.
I'm with you until the last.
RT can pay him to do anything legal, and criticizing the govt is (well, was....) legal.
the bar to proving FARA violations in the past were high.
"(i) engages within the United States in __political activities__ for or in the interests of such foreign principal;" (emphasis __added___)
political activities
(o) The term “political activities” means any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party;
Source (via
22 USC § 611(o)
So, when I cared about such, the threshold for such was the same as lobbying - if what you were doing on behalf of the foreign govt was lobbying, then FARA kicked in.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/1602 for lobbying.
(www.law.cornell.edu is a fabulous resource).
Essentially means going to the government or its officers to try to change US policy.
He can yack on Judge Nap all day long in an overt attempt to affect US public opinion (which clearly seems to be his objective), and it's not an activity that requires FARA registration AFAIK.
Great Substack, greatly appreciate it.
Well, if the term "foreign principal" means ONLY "(1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party;..." then it seems clear that simply accepting payment from RT, or perhaps even taking some direction from their editorial board prior to publication - which after all is done all the time at virtually every publication - should not be a basis for a FARA violation.
However, on the other hand the left (and no doubt our current U.S. administration) likely views RT as being funded by the Russian government and as a propaganda arm of it. Just take a look at the Wikipedia view of RT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the "powers that be" think this is enough of a link to harass and intimidate Ritter as an example to others who share his views. And of course they will (I am sure) love to learn of all of his connections and have access to his personal and professional information for possible legal violations of any kind.
Oh, and what are the implications of RT itself already having registered under FARA for Ritter's case? I don't know...
Doing business with an agent of a foreign government isn't illegal. Nor is associating with a know intel officer of a foreign government. It's about what Ritter intends and is doing.
PS - so, it sure looks to me more like law fare - tie him up in paperwork and the threats of court, etc. - than a real FARA investigation, unless there's something else pertinent and yet to be disclosed.
I'm guessing too. Thanks.