This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Last week, a child-predator sting operation in Las Vegas run by the FBI snagged 8 people. One of those people was Tom Artiom Alexandrovich, who is the head of the Technological Defense Division at the Israel National Cyber Directorate. This is a significant official under Netanyahu. He was booked into the Henderson Detention Center and charged with luring a child with a computer for a sex act, a felony that carries up to 20 years in prison, but then the next day he was back in Israel:
Netyanhu's office claimed Alexandrovich was never arrested, but the arrest charges are a matter of record, which only brings us another stark example of the nation of Israel's unbelievable capacity for lying.
So why was Alexandrovich let go while the 7 others caught in the sting remained in prison and have already appeared in court? According to Shaun King's sources:
Inexplicably, Shaun King's tweets about this story were deleted after receiving tens of millions of views in engagement on X.
An X account run by the U.S. State Department actually released a brief statement today after the outcry on X, confirming that Alexandrovich was not on a diplomatic visa but claiming that:
Hmmm, ok. So he was the only one released from jail while the other 7 caught in the same operation remained imprisoned and have already had court hearings, and his passport was not revoked, he was allowed to fly to Israel the next day... yet the U.S. government did not intervene. Well someone intervened, who did? Who made the decision and why?
The interim US Attorney for the District of Nevada is a radical, Israeli-born Jewish Zionist Sigal Chattah. Did she make the call and why? Of course we all know why.
So where does that leave us? The story has escaped any iota of investigation from the American mainstream press. The U.S State Department provides no explanation for how this happened.
It's another data point in support of my own prior beliefs on the Epstein case in contrast to @2rafa's position on the case. I think @2rafa's case is reasoned well enough and does provide an alternate explanation for the suspicious constellation of unanswered questions. But it really does come down to my own prior beliefs, my confidence that if Epstein were involved with Israeli intelligence the US government would do anything to stop that information from becoming public. That, in my view, provides a better explanation for the unanswered questions, the massive pivots by the Trump administration on the investigation, the suspicious caginess, than 2rafa's explanation for the constellation of evidence. If 2rafa were right, I think the feds would to a damn good job proving it to the entire world.
This is all very familiar. Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida who oversaw the 2008 plea deal that significantly reduced Epstein's charges, reportedly told President Trump's transition team that Epstein "belonged to intelligence" and to "leave it alone". 2rafa brushes this off as hearsay, and attributes Epstein's sweetheart deal to human error by the prosecutors and perhaps being leaned on by connected Wall Street friends. The claims of Epstein being said to belong to itnelligence? That's all hearsay (which it is to be fair). But this isn't a criminal court, I do consider repeated claims, even by Epstein himself, of being related to intelligence to be significant evidence even if it wouldn't be allowed in a criminal court.
Those exact same arguments can and will be used for this case too: there's no nefarious explanation, the prosecutors just dropped the ball and forgot to take his passport away and let him fly to Israel unlike the 7 others arrested in the same sting... any claims that U.S. government intervened are false, they say, and any claims that there was pressure by the U.S government are merely hearsay so far (and they are).
Like I said, this story does not surprise me in the least, it conforms to my prior beliefs regarding the priorities of the US government and the extent to which its institutions are compromised by Jewish-Israeli influence. However, my bold prediction is that Alexandrovich will be extradited because I do not believe those in power to be so incompetent as to not throw Alexandrovich to the wolves for the sake of retaining the diminishing shreds of credibility they have left.
There is currently a big push by Nick Fuentes against a rising JD Vance on the accusation that the MAGA movement has been compromised and appropriated by Israeli influence. Alexandrovich escaping justice under the Trump/Vance administration would be too symbolic of a proof for the exact criticisms Fuentes has of the MAGA movement. The story is going to give him credibility, animate and grow his audience, I don't see why Trump/Vance would allow this to happen just to avoid prosecuting one guy who as far as I can tell seems disposable.
The alleged Acosta quote isn't merely hearsay. If an individual who heard the quote went on the record and said he personally heard Acosta say that, then it would be hearsay, and would be entitled to a certain amount of weight, less than if Acosta went on the record himself, but still a decent amount, regardless of admissibility in court. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an unnamed "Senior Administration official" who told a journalist that Acosta said that, and we don't even know if the official in question even heard the quote themself or is merely repeating a rumor. That is, at minimum, double hearsay with an anonymous intermediary. It's the kind of thing that is only to be believed by someone who is already motivated to believe it.
Go back and read my writeup from a couple weeks ago on what actually happened in DOJ during the initial Epstein investigation, and explain to me how him being an intelligence asset or whatever fits in. At what point was Acosta told to "leave it alone"? How does a guilty plea involving jail time and sex offender registration equate to leaving it alone? Why were Epstein's attorneys so dissatisfied with the deal that they spent nearly a year trying to get out of it after it was signed? Why didn't senior DOJ officials in Washington side with Epstein when he referred the matter for departmental review? If Epstein had dirt and was pissed at the government for prosecuting him, why didn't he use it during the near decade between his release and rearrest, during which time he was the subject of numerous lawsuits?
There's an extensive record of the initial Epstein deal and if no one inserting wild conspiracy theories about Epstein getting off easy because he was a Mossad agent has done the basic work of familiarizing themself with that record. Instead they start from the premise that Epstein was involved in intelligence and work backward, ignoring anything that doesn't support their theory. Not doing so is like writing about European economic development in the second half of the 20th century without knowing about WWII.
I really appreciated your write up the other week, found it convincing, and reference the contents in arguments with conspiracy minded individuals.
One comment I got was "fine, if Acosta didn't say that why does he refuse to comment under oath."
Any chance you have something I can toss out in response to that?
I'm not sure what refusals they're referring to, since he answered Epstein questions during his confirmation hearings and again during a House Oversight Committee hearing after it became big news, though I'm not sure if the latter worked the intelligence angle (the former was only five minutes and was unremarkable). He did explicitly tell OPR that he had no information about Epstein being an intelligence asset, though I'm not sure if this interview was under oath. He isn't scheduled to testify in front of the current House committee, but I can't see any information indicating any refusal or reluctance, only that he isn't on the witness list.
I imagined the answer was something like this, as you clearly demonstrated the mainstream media coverage of this is exceptionally poor and I can see one of the primary vendors creating the impression impacting my family member with limited associated reality.
Sigh.
Thank you!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The press release claims they were charged with "Luring a Child with Computer for Sex Act". Likely NRS 201.560 1b, 4a. One to ten years, same as for statutory sexual seduction. Interestingly enough, using a computer is a mitigating circumstance, doing the same without a computer, network etc carries a penalty of two to 15 years.
So the cops posed as 15yo's or younger. Grown men going for sex with 15yo's is bad. I mean, it could be that the cops only implicitly mentioned their supposed age, as in, "I was $AGE when $EVENT happened", but otherwise I have no problem with this sting as far as I can tell. Depending on the specific circumstances, I think that a minimum sentence of a year is a bit harsh though. If a 15yo manages to get on tinder, she will likely find some adult guy willing to fuck her in very short order if she does not mention her age. Doing the same as a sting, with the only difference being that you mention the age will likely catch a steady supply of guys without changing the situation of the real minors one bit.
Of course, it could also be that these men were grooming what they thought to be 8yo's on Roblox or whatever, but cynically, that would be a lot more work per person caught, and also be a lot more impressive, so they would mention it in the press release.
--
The left will of course make hay with this story. Trump's handling of the Epstein case is already suspicious as fuck, so the narrative "MAGA leadership believes important people get to fuck 14yo's" is already there. Add to that the Israel connection, where the narrative of the left is that the US is bending over backwards to give Israel whatever they want. "Trump supports Israel murdering kids in Gaza, so why would he not support them raping kids in Vegas" or something.
Of course, the people who claim that Jews have an undue amount of influence will also make hay with this story. Jews ritually murdering Christian babies would probably fit better into their traditional narratives, but Jewish men getting away with sexual misconduct -- especially against minors -- is still a juicy story for their side.
On part of the Israeli guy, this seems a major failure of judgement. I mean, that guy was in fucking Vegas, and could not be arsed to hire a hooker who at least claimed to be 18? The obvious solution on Trump's and Nethanyahu's part would have been to just let him get convicted to the minimum sentence and put on probation after half a year. No cybersecurity expert should be worth this PR disaster.
It's probably simple arrogance.
More options
Context Copy link
At first glance this sounds wrong, but I'm not sure I'm actually upset that trying to "lure a child" IRL (effectively) is considered worse than typing into the Ethernet on a keyboard.
More options
Context Copy link
Optics! Think about the optics!
Maybe they feel that in modern time, when scandals come and go with lighting speed, when public with attention span of gnat stops caring once last hour's breaking news rolls out of screen, worrying about "optics" is no more necessary.
Maybe they are right.
Optics matter, sometimes. I vaguely recall reading on WP over some Eastern European government which fell because they pardoned someone who had been convicted in some orphanage child sex scandal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your source is Shaun King? Talcum X hisself?
The rest is pretty bog-standard conspiratorial huffing. You could pull some police-blotter item on literally any group in the world and construct some bullshit secret conspiracy. Of course, with Da Jooos, there's always some genius like Shaun King to get things started.
I always find people making mocking "Da Jooos" comments to be mildly annoying, and ultimately counterproductive when talking about cases like this. Nobody is alleging some kind of bullshit secret conspiracy here - the "conspiracy" is completely out in the open and not even being disputed in the slightest. You have an Israeli partisan for an attorney general, who was complained about massively before they were appointed, letting an Israeli official get away with extremely serious offences. They're openly proud about what they're doing and boast about it (well until they got attention for it and deleted their account) to boot. There's no need to mock people for being credulous antisemites in a case like this unless you want to make sure that absolutely nobody gives a shit about antisemitism in the future. After seeing people use "oh you think DA JOOS" are behind this too when people object to official actions by the Israeli government I just can't take people who participate in that kind of juvenile mockery of legitimate concerns seriously.
More options
Context Copy link
Saagar from Breaking Points says he has a copy of the arrest documents and will release them today.
https://x.com/esaagar/status/1957589200540225927
More options
Context Copy link
The responsible mainstream media should be asking itself why Shaun King, Talcum X, Martin Luther Cream, is being handed the opportunity to break this story.
Because anyone can be a sensationalist?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it would be more fair to say, despite any conspiracy and maximally antagonistic JIDF posting, that the guy who started this is the guy who got himself arrested in America on account of luring a child to have sex with him and the fact that the same man is now free as a bird in Israel and not trapped in a small concrete box in Nevada.
It certainly does not help the JIDF case in this matter that the person ultimately responsible for his release, whether they were actually involved or not, is an Israeli born Jew and alleged zionist. Along the with the District attorney allegedly being jewish as well. Though that may all be besides the point.
The 'conspiracy angle' between this and Epstein is not known to me, and I don't see it being false as a relevant point to anything Joo related in totality, as there is still a long and ugly history of nasty jewish pedophiles making use of their jewishness to evade justice. This just seems like another example of that ugly reality which is allowed to persist for reasons the JIDF posters are sure to be able to rationalize away as perfectly coincidentally natural.
Correct, insofar as pedos (and many other sorts of criminals) seek to flee overseas to countries without easy extradition to the US. The Saudis, for example, seem to have something of a state policy of bailing out and whisking away their nationals away from American justice.
But I strongly suspect that all of this a rounding error being blown out of proportion because of who's involved. If there are base-rate statistics showing that jews are disproportionately likely to commit sex crimes, that would clearly indicate a problem. If there are statistics showing that that jews accused of crimes have disproportionately lower rates of conviction once charged, then that's likely a problem whether or not they are abusing aaliyah as the mechanism.
Otherwise it's just chinese cardiologists.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fuentes pushed voting for Kamala (on some kind of nebulous basis that she was anti-Israel) and the Groypers are now spamming pictures of Gavin Newsom’s blonde family compared to Vance’s “brown” family (and pictures of both men as teenagers) and declaring their intention to vote for Newsom in 2027. Amusingly, libleft Ezra Klein / Destiny fan types post the same comparisons regularly too, albeit without the overt racial angle. You might also mention the Loomer - MTG court harem bitchfight, which while vaguely related to Israel is more longstanding than that and primarily revolves around two aging whores insulting each other on social media while claiming they alone represent the true will of the leader, who should immediately stop listening to the other woman.
The whole thing has taken on an increasingly ridiculous energy, like when Vance’s supporters responded to the Newsom groypers by saying that Newsom’s wife was was actually Jewish (as far as I know she isn’t). The Groypers, in turn, said that no, because Newsom’s wife was allegedly raped by Harvey Weinstein she surely actually disliked Jews more than most, and was therefore likely basedTM.
Why? This seems like a pretty random comparison. Your theory for Epstein is that his operation was an Israeli intelligence plot to gain kompromat. What does that have to do with an Israeli official getting arrested in a sex sting (with 7 other people, who have a mix of Anglo, Hispanic and South Asian names) unless you’re suggesting that the sting was also an Israeli intelligence plot (in which case why was he arrested and his arrest publicly announced)? The Israeli government obviously used diplomatic pressure for his release since a senior intelligence official under serious felony charge is highly vulnerable to interrogation, not only by the US but by anyone else who can get to him in jail or on bail. They may have traded something, they may not, but Shaun King certainly doesn’t know.
It's really not ridiculous at all. The 2016 Alt-Right, despite its overt anti-semitism, was willing to look the other way and support Trump regardless of his obvious inclinations towards Israel. But experience has proven MAGA was played like Cultural Conservatives were played by the Neocons- "White America" received its worst ever cultural hostility and abysmal political achievements from the Trump administration while Israel was given everything. It is a Zionist tactic to use their substantial influence in US media and politics to commandeer nascent political movements and maneuver them in favor of Israel. This has clearly been done with MAGA, and Vance is their candidate.
As much as I criticize Nick, he is 100% correct that support for Zionism is not compatible with America First, you cannot have both, Vance is the obvious attempt to, as JewishInsider put it, Vance puts pro-israel spin on America First. I'm not falling for that again, I'm not going to look the other way on GOP support for Zionism because all evidence has proven where that leads every single time.
This is...dubious.
More options
Context Copy link
Vance’s central supporter is Thiel, who is gentile German. Thiel seems broadly sympathetic to zionism (hardly uncommon) but is more of a libertarian and was apparently pushing Trump against involvement in the Iran Israel flare up a few months ago.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It seems worth noting that maga tells Fuentes to take a hike when they notice him at all; the democrats do not react this way to socialists.
To be fair, if you’re the minority party, you need every vote and supporter you can get. That’s how elections work— get the numbers, or take a seat while the other side does whatever they want. If MAGA wasn’t in power, they would not worry about Fuentes unless he was driving away potential red voters.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As I understand, his reading here is that (1) this case provides evidence that the US government and criminal justice system puts higher value on Israeli intelligence interests over prosecution of pederasts, and are willing and able to engage in perversions of justice and coordinate gaslighting of any public observers to implement this preference; (2) for the "there is nothing particularly fishy about Epstein" theory, the assumption that the above conjunction is wrong is load-bearing. The argument generally is one of compounding implausibility - "Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence" is an extraordinary claim, as is "the USG first sabotaged any legal means to stop him, and then killed him or arranged for him to kill himself when it could no longer be delayed", as is "the USG apparatus successfully conspired to maintain official denial the aforementioned facts", so a theory that requires the three of them to hold is extraordinary indeed - unless the three statements are not in fact independent, in which case the resulting probability may in the extreme case just almost equal the probability of the single proposition of "Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence" alone, which looks a lot better when weighed off against the "series of unfortunate events" null hypothesis.
tl;dr: his posited comparison is that in both cases, the USG had a tradeoff between "help Israeli intel" and "prosecute pedos" and chose the former.
Only if the former case was Israeli intel, which is the point under discussion.
Right, I think I addressed that in the longer paragraph above. At least as I remember it, the dismissal of Epstein being Israeli intel did implicitly rely on dismissing the joint probability of the entire theory. If there is in fact a positive correlation between "Israeli intel" and "pedo coverup conspiracy", the conditional evidence flow actually almost appears to reverse - rather than having "Epstein is Israeli intel & there was a pedo coverup conspiracy in his case" being especially unlikely because the two components are individually unlikely (or even more unlikely, if conspiracy theorists are posited to succumb to their usual temptation to see all conspiracy tropes the moment they catch a whiff of one), we now have P(Israeli intel | pedo coverup conspiracy) and P(pedo coverup conspiracy | Israeli intel) both greatly increased over the baseline probabilities, and evidence of either one also amounts to evidence of the other.
Not really. Assuming the maximalist realistic interpretations of both events are true, there is:
Epstein was part of an Israeli kompromat operation targeting powerful people that was covered up by the US government / CIA etc.
A senior Israeli official was caught in a sting operation and avoided a lengthy jail sentence because the US government let him go home under pressure from Israel.
It is doubtful that the sting op targeting some (other than this guy) randoms in Nevada involved targeting part of the same kind of operation as that alleged to be run by Epstein, although I suppose more will be revealed.
The second is a diplomatic incident where a senior foreign official is caught and then allowed to leave (like the Harry Dunn killing case), the first is an allegation about a blackmail scheme run by someone supposedly working for the government that employed the official in the second allegation. That they both involve sex crimes doesn’t really link them together.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like they're blowing their load too early on the Newsom stuff. If the pivot came closer to a primary cycle I'd back it but I feel like he's giving himself too long acting like this without getting boring, cancelled or both
More options
Context Copy link
When you have a far right whose most important political principle is "whatever makes the libs cry is good", and also "libs" will always end up meaning whoever is the enemy at the time, it should go without saying that inter-far-right wars will always end up acquiring a specifically ridiculous character.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Would this have even been a crime in Israel? Quick Googling shows that the age of consent in Israel is 16, but I didn't find any information about the age of the person Alexandrovich was contacting.
I ask because I don't think it's too uncommon for any allied country to exert pressure on behalf of a citizen or even for local officials to allow flight from jurisdiction when the sex crime in the US isn't a crime in the home country. I can't find anything to confirm the pattern, but I do remember a local case a couple decades ago in Colorado involving a Swiss citizen.
Age of consent is also 16 in Nevada. So presumably the alleged (most likely non-existent) minor was younger than that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The other 7 were denied bail?
lol
More options
Context Copy link
Well, we certainly know why you think so, but you've been warned before about this kind of "We all know"... I don't think we can even call it Dark Hinting since the accusation is very evident even if not explicitly stated.
A casual Google search finds stories on local Fox News and US News and World Report. Whether it should have been a bigger story depends on your priors, I suppose.
I'm not going to ding you for single-issue posting (again), and you are allowed to write a post full of speculation and the most uncharitable conclusions possible (I am, of course, greatly amused that you, of all people, are citing Shaun King, of all people). But sure, maybe this is all evidence of ZOG string-pulling. I'd like to know what the precedent is for other senior foreign government officials being caught in situations like this- it does not immediately strike me as unlikely that such an official would be questioned and allowed to leave the country, with some sort of assurances that they will present themselves for trial later. But if you show me where this did not happen in equivalent circumstances, maybe my priors will shift slightly on "Netanyahu got a little special juice from Trump."
But definitely knock it off with this "We all know" attempted consensus-building.
I read the other comments so I'm responding to the whole chain rather than just this one comment.
You have a really twitchy mod finger for SS, and anyone talking about the actions of the state of Israel and its proponents.
The wiki article notes this, on her article:
Including a couple of other notes of her calling people she is against out of pocket, denigrating, terms. I'd daresay there is enough information on her loyalties from those proclamations. It's fair to call anyone who is Israeli born, who wants to kill gazan children, Zionist.
I'm confused why you choose to go after him so frequently.
You're incorrect about the modding. SS gets modded frequently for breaking rules (numerous) and he's still actually given more slack than some people harping on one-note issues in an inflammatory way and constantly making generalizations about the people they hate are given.
As for Chattah, I will simply reiterate that the thread began with an assumption that the District AG for Nevada personally intervened to give special considerations to an Israeli charged with a crime, and that she did this because she is a Zionist. So far, no one has offered any evidence for either claim. Instead, you are simply making arguments that she's a Zionist. Being a Zionist, or Jewish, or Israeli-born (it's other people who slide between these characteristics depending on what is convenient for their argument at the time, not me) does not prove any of the following: (1) That she intervened at all. (2) That she intervened out of loyalties to Isreel. (3) That Alexandrich's treatment is unusual.
This is basic reasoning and shouldn't be as difficult to grasp as it seems to be, but a lot of people really get wrapped around the axle when it comes to Jews.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's something kind of funny to both accusing @SecureSignals of engaging in consensus building when he says we all know what he means, and saying that we all know what he means.
A much more frustrating element of SecureSignals' writing is that he will often make some passing mention of some supposed ironclad consensus that exists on this one niche topic, that requires no sourcing or validation (after all, it is the consensus!).
He will then of proceed to conspicuously deny universally agreed-upon facts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not "dark hinting" it is identifying a real problem that the status of this prosecutor as a dual-citizen born in Israel taints decisions like this, leaving the strong impression that the underlying decisions were motivated by her own identification and "dual" loyalty. An Israeli citizen in a position of power in the US giving Israeli foreign nationals extraordinary etxtra-legal protection is something that is to expected, not something that is "darkly hinted." We can't trust Israeli dual citizens to enforce law when the interests of the Israeli government are at stake. Period. No dark hinting there. She should not be in this position of authority.
I work in the accounting field and there is this concept of “independence”. We cannot be seen to give or take favors from our clients, in practice or appearance. We go through great pains to do this as one might assume we allow our clients to cook the books in return for other consideration.
An honorable Jewish Israeli judge would throw the book at this guy because they wouldn’t even want the appearance of impropriety. But that really doesn’t happen.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, that is a general argument you can make: Israeli-born citizens should not be allowed to be attorney generals. Or they should recuse themselves in any case involving Israelis. Or Jews. Or they shouldn't be allowed to be government officials. Or lawyers. Or something.
You could make those arguments.
Your problem here is that first of all, we don't even know she is a dual-citizen (the US doesn't officially recognize dual citizenship, but I assume Israel still considers her a citizen unless she formally renounced it, but unless you prove she still has an Israeli passport you're just speculating), and second, we definitely don't know she actually did intervene in this case.
You implied it with "The interim US Attorney for the District of Nevada is a radical, Israeli-born Jewish Zionist Sigal Chattah. Did she make the call and why? Of course we all know why."
Your "We all know why" is the consensus-building part, and you went straight from "If she did this" (implied: we all know she did) to "We all know why" (explicitly stated).
If, hypothetically, 95% of Italian-American community supported the Mafia, would be Italian-American prosecutor or judge dealing with organized crime case seen as impartial?
More options
Context Copy link
What is this supposed to mean? The US allows dual citizenship explicitly, and there is no shortage of official US government material acknowledging this possibility and even outlining special rules surrounding it. How much more recognising can you get than writing "U.S. dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country (or countries, if they are nationals of more than one). " in official communication?
More options
Context Copy link
That's like the worst kind of rules lawyering. One's personal convictions don't evaporate just because the US doesn't recognize dual-citizenship. It's not the piece of paper that drives a man/woman to choose their own ethinc group for favoritism.
Exactly so. So even if she was born in Israel, claiming she is loyal to Israelis above her duties as a US citizen or an attorney general requires more evidence than "She's a Jew."
More options
Context Copy link
And the flip side of that is that the piece of paper does not drive a man/woman to choose their own ethnic group for favoritism. Which is to say, many people keep old passports out of convenience or utility, not ethnic identitarianism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know, I think if he argues and provides receipts that the attorney general is a Zionist, it's fair to say "we all know" in that he's referencing that people will protect their own. I've seen many folks on here do similar things with regards to 'woke' and progressive groups.
That being said the bias in the post is obvious, but it sounds like you have experience with that. I appreciate that even the most heretodox voices are heard here.
The attorney general being a Zionist does not mean that "we all know" that she intervened in the case, let alone subverted the law on behalf of another Jew.
It's not impossible, but you can't just wave at your own confirmation biases and say "We know this is true." And yes, people do get warned for making similar consensus-building assertions about progressive groups.
I can't help but feel you're being a bit sneaky here. I believe it is a safe assumption that someone working in the upper echelons of the Israeli government and reporting directly to Benjamin Netanyahu is a Zionist, and "let alone subverted the law on behalf of another Zionist" is actually substantially more plausible as something that everyone knows. You've switched between "Zionist" and "Jewish" as if they're the same thing in order to make your opponent's argument seem less credible, which feels against the spirit of the rules here to me.
You seem to have knee-jerked a reply without actually paying attention to the details under discussion.
We're talking about the AG of Nevada. Not an Israeli government official.
And assuming all Jews are Zionists is SS's position, not mine.
I was talking about the Israeli government official involved in the case - Tom Artiom Alexandrovich (who has such a slavic name I would not be surprised if he was the descendant of one of the ethnic Russians who snuck in rather than an actual jew). The claim I believed I was making (my apologies if I was unclear) was that people who work directly under Netanyahu in the Israeli government are all zionists, not that all jews are zionists.
Okay, but I was not talking about him, I was talking about Sigal Chattah.
This is the part I was specifically referring to - Tom is the "another Jew" in question. This is what I objected to - it doesn't matter what ethnicity Tom is (based solely on name and physiognomy he really does seem like one of those fake russian jews anyway) - what matters is that he's highly involved in the government of Israel. A zionist, someone manifestly devoted to ensuring the continuity of the state of Israel, intervening on behalf of a high-ranking individual in the state of Israel, is a serious issue and would remain a serious issue even if Tom was ethnically Japanese. Reducing it to a matter of ethnicity as opposed to direct political allegiance makes his argument weaker, which is what I was concerned with.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ok fair. I'm just a big softie and I get sad when people get banned. But I appreciate the job you do.
He's not banned.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If macron got caught sexting a minor on American soil, do you think he’d be boing to jail? Sirskiy? Mark Rutte? British royals?
I think the kid gloves are just ‘cabinet official in a major U.S. ally’. Whether that alliance serves US interests is another matter.
Macron is a head of state which means he has diplomatic immunity. Royals enjoy similar and very long lived privileges.
Random ministers and secretaries, even members of parliaments, unless specifically acting as diplomats do not and should not enjoy immunity from prosecution for crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of a foreign state.
You're either so important putting you in jail could start a war or you are not.
Diplomatic immunity is the legal fact, but there's also a layer of diplomatic discretion underneath it. Sometimes you sweep things under the rug to keep your friends happy. If anything it's more effective as a gesture because you didn't have to do it. "Sure thing Benny old chum, I'll take care of this as a personal favor to you."
'Guy with connections gets off with slap on the wrist' is a story as old as law itself. It happens all the time and needs no special explanation.
As an example, deployed US soldiers and others stationed in allied nations often get processed by the American (UCMJ, as appropriate) justice system. It's obviously unfortunate when it happens, and sometimes leads to local protests and upset local officials, but at the high level neither side sees it as worth ending the arrangement (historically, "better US troops than Soviet ones", I'm sure). See the death of Harry Dunn in the UK and various incidents in Okinawa and Germany.
I'm not here to defend the process, merely to note that it happens.
There's a lot of space between "Ending the relationship" and "Don't even mention it."
Lodging formal complaints, and making public that they are doing so to assuage public concern, can lead to Israel telling its government officials do not diddle kids.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If some French cyber chief were in America on a non-diplomatic visa yes I think he would be in jail. Obviously on a diplomatic mission is a different story be he was not on a diplomatic visa.
The "major U.S. ally" schtick is really starting to run its course. It's obviously deeper than that and completely unlike the relationship of the US to any other ally. Israeli-born Sigal Chattah is just super passionate about US alliances right...
What if the head of the French DGSE was on a recreational / personal visit to the US on a non-diplomatic visa? I have no doubt he would quickly be allowed to return to France under significant diplomatic pressure. Why? Because the leverage of going to US jail as a foreign sex predator is enough to get almost anyone to say anything, and he would know a lot of things, and everybody knows it.
How is this different (in fact it’s far smaller scale) than senior Saudi royals and those affiliated with the bin Ladens being allowed to leave the US immediately after 9/11 while US airspace was closed to all commercial air traffic and almost all private traffic? You will say they weren’t charged with a crime, but given the circumstances involved that is a largely circular argument.
More options
Context Copy link
Do you expect the USA to press charges against prince Andrew?
More options
Context Copy link
Can you point to any other diplomatic personnel or senior political staffers of first world countries who have been arrested in the U.S. for sex-related crimes? Don't we sort of take it for granted that people in power are fucking deviant horndogs - isn't it a totally normal headline that prostitutes/escorts "descend" upon Davos and similar major-power conference locations?
The correct comparison here would be a non-diplomatic foreign government official from a friendly country. A good comparison here is actually the Harry Dunn case in the UK. An American government official without diplomatic immunity killed a motorcyclist while driving on the wrong side of the road. She was released with the expectation that she would show up to court. It turned into a big diplomatic mess because the US government smuggled her out of the country on a military plane and tried to retroactively claim diplomatic immunity under a highly questionable legal interpretation.
The expectation especially among friendly countries is that foreign government officials who are charged with a crime will respect the laws of their host country and show up for court. This is especially true among first-world democracies with trustworthy legal systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
More options
Context Copy link
I would think you should be the one pointing to other foreigners who were here not on a diplomatic visa who were arrested and charged with trying to have sex with a minor and then were just inexplicably allowed to leave the country with pending felony charges.
Roman Polanski; Chinese billionaire Richard Liu; the Saudis have a habit of having their government bail out their nationals after their arrests, including for rape and child porn...
Neither Polanski or Liu are examples of that. Liu was released due to lack of evidence. Polanski got a sweetheart deal like the Epstein case. The Saudi cases are far closer to this example, but still seem to be different:
So his passport was revoked and he was given an ankle bracelet. The escape involved a replaced passport and more coordination. This is not an escape where the US government is arguably looking the other way, this is the US Government letting him keep his passport and leave the country. And still the Saudi cases invite scrutiny with many demanding accountability. It's a different story here to say the least.
Steve Bannon's passport was seized when he was charged with Contempt of Congress... This is not SOP and is not even the case with these Saudi fugitives.
So you've got lots of examples, but obviously no one case will be exactly the same, so you can nitpick endlessly to claim somehow this one was unique and special because Jews. You have failed so far to meet the challenge of offering anything other than "Jews" as evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link