Does anyone know where I can find a time line of this case? I’m really curious how it took four years to litigate something this egregious. Four years to reach a settlement, not even a litigate court ruling.
Do you have a source that shows that he failed multiple times?
I wonder how many do-overs the rest of us would get after blatantly lying on security clearance applications.
Zero. The answer is zero. When you fill out the form for your security clearance application you are told to retain a copy and use it when completing your renewals because even minor differences between applications will raise questions. Dot correct previous mistakes, let them ride since they passed scrutiny before.
Being caught in an outright lie would be immediately disqualifying for anyone except, apparently, Kushner.
Do you know where that graphic comes from? The data on opensecrets.org indicates that Biden has received $5,688,069 between 1990 and 2024.
I’m not disagreeing that this is a problem. This is undoubtedly a route through which foreign money is making it into US politics and Biden is one of the biggest recipients of Pro-Israel funds. It just isn’t as much money as indicated by the graphic. It is $5,688,069 spread over 34 years but loaded heavily to more recent years.
Biden donations from Pro-Israel sources by election cycle:
2023-2024: $1,459,405
2021-2022: Unsure - Not in top 20 and can’t find full dataset
2019-2020: $3,753,304
All other election cycles, Biden doesn’t appear in the top 20. Simple math indicates that, outside of 2019, 2020, 2023, and 2024, Biden received an additional $475,360 over the rest of his career.
I don’t like to see that Biden received $3,753,304 in the 2019-2020 campaign cycle. That is way too much foreign influence in my opinion, even if it technically came from American organizations. That said, Biden spent $1,614,843,740 in 2019-2020 meaning that only 0.23% of that was from Pro-Israel groups.
Thanks for the context. I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted by some people. Given the timing, I don’t see that this either constitutes insider trading or implies prejudice (even if he is prejudiced). I do wonder, though, if something happened in the news cycle around August 14th that might have prompted his sale at that point. I don’t trust Alito to do anything in good faith around the subject of trans rights.
allowing them to profit through “normal/legal” channels prevents them from taking bribes or seeking other forms of income.
This doesn’t seem to have worked. Thomas and Alito are the glaring examples, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that they all take bribes of one form or another, whether intentionally or unintentionally because their actions bear no personal consequences other than enrichment.
I think there is more nuance to it than this. Certain government officials who are in sensitive positions should be barred from holding stocks except through a blind trust, an index fund, a mutual fund, or some other vehicle that they can’t directly control or influence. Those “certain government officials” should include members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches who tend to be privy to information that would, if acted upon, constitute insider trading. This would include policy-makers as well as those around the policy-makers whose knowledge would create a conflict of interest.
That is all to say, I don’t think that someone working in government IT, doing wildlife research, or doing HR work for a government agency should be required to divest from their stock portfolios. That should be limited to people whose jobs create an inherent conflict of interest.
It’s not like it needs to go into a news paper. It’s a website headline. “condemns” is only three letters longer than “slams” and doesn’t sound lick clickbait.
I’m so tired of that word replacing “strongly criticizes”, “rebukes”, “condemns”, “denounces”, or “repremands”. Why do articles have to use such a stupid, lazy word? Does it actually draw more clicks?
My guess is that these were wealthy women who were able to afford the transfer. I highly doubt that the hospital or any insurance company paid for the transfers. I would bet that there were other women who were unable to afford similar care and had to suffer the consequences.
The headline said exactly what happened. The aid group stated that they believed that their truck was bombed in a targeted attack. They didn’t say who they thought made the attack but requested that the Canadian government reach out to Israel to request an answer. They also requested an investigation by Canadian authorities.
It is fairly clear that the aid organization thinks Israel committed the bombing but they are allowing the Canadian government the latitude to be delicate with the situation.