686

Trump Accidentally Proves That Putin Did Help Him Run for President (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 1 day ago by spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

One of the documents describes Putin and senior officials overseeing proxy efforts to spread claims that Biden, as vice president, engaged in criminal activity in his dealings with Ukraine and Burisma. The document says operatives affiliated with the Russian government advanced these narratives with U.S. officials and other prominent figures, through personal interactions as well as audio and documentary releases via U.S. and Ukrainian outlets.

It goes on to say these figures were conspiring to intensify their efforts as the election approached, aiming to “orchestrate a high-profile corruption scandal” implicating Biden and the Democratic Party in order to help Trump win.

The document describes an intelligence assessment that Russian government-linked proxies were working to damage Biden’s candidacy ahead of the vote, relying in part on U.S. officials and other prominent people to amplify the narratives, though many of the people involved remain redacted in the public version.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago

Russia, like China and the USA and Saudi Arabia and Israel, spend money and time on every Presidential election, whichever candidate they think will suit their interests more (as they always do).

We were aware of this when we allowed "Super PACs" to funnel money directly to bOtH pArTiEs without that pesky middleman (the law). So... of course we have President Trump, he is the end result of our own party's unlimited greed.

When your government is for sale, you get what they pay for. I'd wager Musk and Bezos spent much more money on the last campaign than Russia, this is a "red herring".

[-] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 28 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

We did what now?

Super PACs became possible due to the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizen's United decision. "We" had nothing to do with it, just like "we" had nothing to do with the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.

"We" do desperately need another 5 SC justices.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

YES - expand the court. it's needed beyond this corrupt cabal; the sitting court can't handle the caseload. expand the court and refigure the circuit courts instead of this mishmash - it's beyond time to remedy this one part of our judiciary, and it's something congress (blue wave) could do in short order.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitAssignments.aspx

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026

686 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30436 readers

2131 users here now

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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News