HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why Is The Media Not Talk...

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 05:33 PM

 

Why Is The Media Not Talking About The Republicans Who Took Russian Money / Help

The ones not named Trump?

From laundering millions through the NRA to the "Russian Operatives" who funded PAC's with laundered money, and sent money to the inauguration?

I have heard dozens of Republicans are in trouble, but where is our press?

Why are they silent?

We know the Russians gave tons of $$ to the NRA and then coordinated ILLEGALLY with candidates. Not a peep.

C'mon press, you can do better.

It's not just Trump.

6 replies, 720 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Is The Media Not Talking About The Republicans Who Took Russian Money / Help (Original post)
PaulX2 Jan 12 OP
PaulX2 Jan 12 #1
PaulX2 Jan 12 #2
Igel Jan 12 #5
guillaumeb Jan 12 #3
pwb Jan 12 #4
uponit7771 Jan 12 #6


Response to PaulX2 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 05:40 PM

2. More On Illegal Coordination With The NRA - Where Are The Arrests?

 

Arrests, ha. Not like anyone ever goes to jail for breaking laws when they help Republicans.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/424878-three-gop-senate-candidates-nra-may-have-illegally-coordinated-ads-report

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PaulX2 (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:34 PM

5. Because of what the article points out.

It's not illegal for two parties to have the same PR firm, provided that the two activities have some "firewall" between them. The media so far have just said, "Two parties had the same PR firm."

Now, PR firms often have some sort of bias or side that they're on. They have expertise in that particular area. So they'd naturally attract politicians, organizations, other individuals on that side. It's like politicians' getting support from lobbyists--lobbyists are going to support those that already tend to think like them, not those who'll never give them the time of day; on the other hand, it often looks like the money's amounted to a bribe, not pursuing common goals. The two things look the same and untangling them is difficult, except for those for whom suspicion is proof.

Now, what does that firewall look like? There's the question. The two PR campaigns have to have different people running them, at least at the planning stage. But if there's one person who manages media contacts and contracts and both funnel down to that person, who has no control over the content or amount, is that okay? Should they be in different branches? What if they're not but the two people don't talk? What if they're in different branches but worked together for 5 years and are friends so they *do* talk? How's that different from being in the same branch and talking because they run into each other on the way out of the building at the end of the day? And if they say that they talked about their families and not about those two clients, what then?

So you look at the policies and procedures that are in place to prevent coordination, knowing full well that coordination can still occur. You look at what was done, to see signs of coordination, but also knowing that what looks like coordination may not be, it may be because the two clients are merely similar or because the two executives in charge of the two campaigns worked on something similar together last year. Or maybe two low-level employees have adjacent cubicles, so the executives maintained the firewall but it broke down at the bottommost level. Then there are feedback loops, where you're doing one campaign, see the televized or print ads put out by your colleague one floor down while watching tv or reading the Post, and work off of what you saw. That *really* looks like coordination--but it's the kind of coordination that, say, Sanders' and Clinton's campaigns might have had in attacking Trump when Sanders' team saw something HRC's team put out and leveraged it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PaulX2 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 05:49 PM

3. The media prefers to talk about the 2020 election.

And Rashida Tailb saying the word motherfucker.

And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PaulX2 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 05:54 PM

4. Because most so called Media is Opinion not news.

Pay the talkers big money and they turn republican. Thus no mention of republican crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PaulX2 (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2019, 06:48 PM

6. They're trying to protect CU as legislation. Without CU this 3rd level financing with Russian money

... is no go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread