politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The DOJ announced the arrest of a man working on behalf of Iran attempting to recruit assassins a couple of weeks ago:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pakistani-national-ties-iran-charged-connection-foiled-plot-assassinate-politician-or-us-0
No. That says a man who had recently visited the Middle East, and make no mention of a specified target...
That is in no way the same as "Iran tried to assassinate trump".
https://apnews.com/article/iran-pakistan-murderforhire-trump-justice-department-5a3abe0895ae7c2be14f89fc4e49bc53
This is a story that has been building for a few months. While I'm not particularly convinced that this specific threat was particularly credible, there's been plenty of reporting that the Biden DOJ is taking this seriously.
It's not really surprising to me that Iran would want Trump dead. I don't think they were anywhere close to actually accomplishing that, but I can certainly believe they'd try.
Yes, Trump and the rest of the rightwing are going to blow it up into something bigger than what actually happened, but it's important to understand the truth in the lie because the story is potentially consequential in the wider relationship between the US and Iran.
That's still not showing any connection to the Iranian government...
Just that this guy has a wife and children that live in Iran...
Which is a pretty good reason why he spends time in Iran btw.
In your quote the "from Iran" just doesn't mean what you think it means
I understand this might seem a little pedantic, but the difference is fucking huge and trump's campaign is exploiting the same misunderstanding that you're having right now
In fact, there are a couple of other possibilities.
He's a lone wolf who just happens to have a connection to Iran.
He's based in Iran but actually working for Hamas or Hezbollah.
He actually is working for Iran but not going after the former prez (being deemed too hard of a target after two assassination attempts), rather they might aim for former VP Mike Pence, or Bolton again.
Some combination of the above (e.g. a lone wolf going after Bolton).
I suppose we'll just have to wait the trial and see what the investigation uncovers.
My "misunderstanding" is having followed this story for more than a single headline.
Marcy Wheeler has written extensively about it for months now. She's been at the center of the story to the extent that she was one of the journalists that (presumably Iran) attempted to leak hacked Trump campaign documents through. She's very adamantly of the stance that there is a real threat because it's been corroborated by multiple sources who don't have any interest in propping up Trump.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/09/25/dont-make-the-same-mistake-with-iran-that-denialists-made-with-russia/
Trump's a blowhard. He's absolutely going to use the story as a wedge. Don't do his work for him by dismissing the possibility of what appear to be real threats out of hand.
I'm not saying we know the exact nature of what's going on or that any threat is particularly immediate; what I am saying is that there's enough information available from sources that aren't affiliated with Trump that the possibility should be taken seriously.
Yet she offers absolutely zero evidence it is connected to Iran's government...
You're conflating evidence of them hacking, and saying that proves there was a state sponsored effort to recruit an assain to kill trump.
We do t even know if he's the target...
What is so hard to understand about literally any of this?
I've honestly ran out of ways to keep saying the two very basic points here
Repeating yourself does seem to be your priority here.
If you had actually read through the piece I linked instead of looking for something to immediately disagree with in the snippet I quoted, you'd see she linked to this story. The entire reason we're hearing about this now is because Trump was briefed on the threat by US intelligence and Trump is literally incapable of not immediately repeating what he's been told.
And if you took 20 seconds to Google after that, you'd find that the DNI has publicly confirmed that the briefing with Trump happened. Additionally, the same story has Anthony Blinken confirming that the US has been tracking Iranian threats against Trump as well as other past and current officials. It even links to multiple previous reports discussing an increased threat profile dating back months just like I said was the case.
My point is that Trump is not the only source and that there's been corroboration from parties who really don't care about making Trump look good. I'm not inclined to believe the story because Trump said it and, yes, Trump is absolutely a liar; I'm inclined to believe it because it's been fairly widely reported well before Trump said anything at all.
He has a connection to Iran - wife and kids live there. Not as strong as saying he works for or is an agent of the gov't there, though. The devil's advocate might say that, "he's got kids in Iran so Iran has the power to compel him to do this, and of course Iran isn't going to issue him a gov't ID that says
gov't assassin recruiterif anything they'd try to distance themselves as much as possible to give themselves plausible deniability."Still, it's reasonable to ask for evidence. I'd imagine more proof is forthcoming soon though - the FBI usually doesn't comment on active investigations, which this would be (if the FBI is really investigating it, as opposed to the CIA or some other agency).