US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Username Required said:
Its Mike Pompeo. It's not dog food. She never said those words. Its from 6 years ago.

A video has been viewed tens of thousands of times in multiple Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram posts alongside a claim it shows an Italian journalist giving dog food to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The claim is false; the video actually shows Italian journalist Alice Martinelli offering Pompeo a slice of Parmesan cheese in a protest against US tariffs on European goods.

The video shows Italian journalist Alice Martinelli presenting a block of Parmesan cheese to Pompeo during his meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte in Rome on October 1, 2019.

The video’s Arabic-language title translates to English as: “An Italian journalist embarrasses Pompeo with a gift he did not expect".

The video’s caption translates to English as: “The satirical program correspondent on Italian television Alice Martinelli gave a piece of Parmesan cheese to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during his meeting with his Italian counterpart Giuseppe Conte. The Italian correspondent described the gift as a symbol of Italy's concern about Washington's policy, which could threaten many Italian food producers.

“This act angered Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who said: 'Italy cannot be protected this way... let me do my job as prime minister,' after which security officers took her out of the room. The US authorities plan to impose tariffs on a number of European goods, which worries Italy, which believes that this plan may harm local food producers."

Around two weeks after the stunt, the US imposed tariffs on European goods on October 18, 2019, as reported here by AFP.

www.thenews.com.pk

Fact-check: Italian journalist gives dog food to US Secretary of State?

A video has been viewed tens of thousands of times in multiple Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram posts alongside a claim it shows an Italian journalist giving dog food to US Secretary of...
www.thenews.com.pk www.thenews.com.pk

www.yahoo.com

Why an Italian journalist gave Pompeo Parmesan

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo received an unexpected, and probably unwanted, gift while visiting Rome: a big wedge of Parmesan cheese. Pompeo was in the middle of a photo op with Italy's Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte but the cheese didn't come from the prime minister. It actually came from...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com


"The logo for Russian video agency Ruptly appears on the top left-hand corner of the video."

"A keyword search of Ruptly’s archive found this 48-second video published on October 2, 2019, on its verified Arabic-language channel."

"Below are two screenshots comparing the video in the misleading Facebook post (L) and the Ruptly video (R):"
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Believing stupid fake shit no matter where it comes from damages everyone. There is enough real shit coming out from the current administration that falsification and exaggeration is wholly unnecessary. Though I understand that bridging the gap between the two isn't really that hard all of the time.
 
Username Required said:
Its Mike Pompeo. It's not dog food. She never said those words. Its from 6 years ago.

A video has been viewed tens of thousands of times in multiple Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram posts alongside a claim it shows an Italian journalist giving dog food to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The claim is false; the video actually shows Italian journalist Alice Martinelli offering Pompeo a slice of Parmesan cheese in a protest against US tariffs on European goods.

The video shows Italian journalist Alice Martinelli presenting a block of Parmesan cheese to Pompeo during his meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte in Rome on October 1, 2019.

The video’s Arabic-language title translates to English as: “An Italian journalist embarrasses Pompeo with a gift he did not expect".

The video’s caption translates to English as: “The satirical program correspondent on Italian television Alice Martinelli gave a piece of Parmesan cheese to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during his meeting with his Italian counterpart Giuseppe Conte. The Italian correspondent described the gift as a symbol of Italy's concern about Washington's policy, which could threaten many Italian food producers.

“This act angered Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who said: 'Italy cannot be protected this way... let me do my job as prime minister,' after which security officers took her out of the room. The US authorities plan to impose tariffs on a number of European goods, which worries Italy, which believes that this plan may harm local food producers."

Around two weeks after the stunt, the US imposed tariffs on European goods on October 18, 2019, as reported here by AFP.

www.thenews.com.pk

Fact-check: Italian journalist gives dog food to US Secretary of State?

A video has been viewed tens of thousands of times in multiple Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram posts alongside a claim it shows an Italian journalist giving dog food to US Secretary of...
www.thenews.com.pk www.thenews.com.pk

www.yahoo.com

Why an Italian journalist gave Pompeo Parmesan

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo received an unexpected, and probably unwanted, gift while visiting Rome: a big wedge of Parmesan cheese. Pompeo was in the middle of a photo op with Italy's Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte but the cheese didn't come from the prime minister. It actually came from...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com


"The logo for Russian video agency Ruptly appears on the top left-hand corner of the video."

"A keyword search of Ruptly’s archive found this 48-second video published on October 2, 2019, on its verified Arabic-language channel."

"Below are two screenshots comparing the video in the misleading Facebook post (L) and the Ruptly video (R):"
Click to expand...

Ta for the correction
 
bluethrunthru said:
I have seen vlogs on You Tube made by Americans in the UK or Europe who confirm what you describe. They are blown away that the NHS exists - they can't believe French high speed rail exists - the German autobahn zipper system for merging when you hit traffic requires a discipline they have never seen
Click to expand...
Yeah, but in Germany you have the stress of remembering that "merge in turn" is "use the rip closure procedure"

Verwanden das Reißverschlussverfahren
 
Last edited:
BobKowalski said:
Funnily enough, my wife and I were discussing whether American culture/society traumatises Americans. The work culture/gun culture/healthcare - the terror of being seen weak or dependent and where individualism takes precedent over society or the common good.

It was sparked by Americans living abroad who described how they learnt how to relax and the absence of constant stress, a stress they didn’t know they felt until it was removed. One woman described it as no longer checking out where the emergency exits where when she went to the cinema in case of a shooting.

Obviously, this is apocryphal but it was interesting nonetheless.
Click to expand...

BobKowalski said:
Click to expand...
 
bluethrunthru said:
I have seen vlogs on You Tube made by Americans in the UK or Europe who confirm what you describe. They are blown away that the NHS exists - they can't believe French high speed rail exists - the German autobahn zipper system for merging when you hit traffic requires a discipline they have never seen
Click to expand...
The real wonder Americans should have is why the US is the only western democracy not to have a universal healthcare system funded by tax or insurance or co-pay or a combination thereof. The richest country has the only people bankrupted by having to pay for healthcare.
Of course, Trump wants to cut their partial system to the bone and hand the proceeds to his billionaire pals. Under his tax bill 17 million Americans will lose access to Medicaid. Can they find two republicans to vote against it in the Senate?
“The NHS proves that Britain is a socialist society.”
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
The real wonder Americans should have is why the US is the only western democracy not to have a universal healthcare system funded by tax or insurance or co-pay or a combination thereof. The richest country has the only people bankrupted by having to pay for healthcare.
Of course, Trump wants to cut their partial system to the bone and hand the proceeds to his billionaire pals. Under his tax bill 17 million Americans will lose access to Medicaid. Can they find two republicans to vote against it in the Senate?
“The NHS proves that Britain is a socialist society.”
Click to expand...



Not that you ever cared. Bur here is video evidence of Judge Dugan's actions. Make of it whatever you want.

:)
 
Dax777 said:



Not that you ever cared. Bur here is video evidence of Judge Dugan's actions. Make of it whatever you want.

:)
Click to expand...

You still forget the lies the DoJ tell. Is there audio to confirm what they say? Her evidence may well expose this nonsense. Just wait for the case.
Don’t attribute to me your base motives.
An interesting response to a post about healthcare.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
You still forget the lies the DoJ tell. Is there audio to confirm what they say? Her evidence may well expose this nonsense. Just wait for the case.
Don’t attribute to me your base motives.
An interesting response to a post about healthcare.
Click to expand...
The video matches up with the facts in their complaints.

1. That they didn't go into her court. Instead were waiting until the court was done.

2. That the Judge left her courtroom to come accost the agents in the hallway.

3. That she instructed the to go aee the Chief Justice.

4. That the defendant and his lawyer exited using a door not normally available to the public.

All on tape.

Sure, we don't have audio. But we'd have to suspend common sense to conclude the defendant and his lawyer, of their own free volition and without prompting, decided to exit via a backdoor not available to the public.

But like you said, lets wait and see.

Apologies for responding to a post addressing a different topic. Just saw your name and wanted to update you in case you didn't know about the video since you were interested in the case.
 
Dax777 said:
The video matches up with the facts in their complaints.

1. That they didn't go into her court. Instead were waiting until the court was done.

2. That the Judge left her courtroom to come accost the agents in the hallway.

3. That she instructed the to go aee the Chief Justice.

4. That the defendant and his lawyer exited using a door not normally available to the public.

All on tape.

Sure, we don't have audio. But we'd have to suspend common sense to conclude the defendant and his lawyer, of their own free volition and without prompting, decided to exit via a backdoor not available to the public.

But like you said, lets wait and see.

Apologies for responding to a post addressing a different topic. Just saw your name and wanted to update you in case you didn't know about the video since you were interested in the case.
Click to expand...

If there is no audio, you do not know what she said. He evidence refutes what the ICE agents allege. So wait for the case. Due process and all that. I know you think supporting the rule of law is “hysterical” but it has stood the test of time.
Note: Her authority covers the whole building, not just one room.
 
KS55 said:
If there is no audio, you do not know what she said. He evidence refutes what the ICE agents allege. So wait for the case. Due process and all that. I know you think supporting the rule of law is “hysterical” but it has stood the test of time.
Note: Her authority covers the whole building, not just one room.
Click to expand...
What evidence are you referring to?
And what claims specifically by the ICE agents did it refute?
Also, you don't know what her authority covers. These are some of the claims to be argued hence why we should let the case play out and not make false assertions about who lied or didn't lie in their complaint.

For someone who claims to champion due process, you sure like putting your thumb on the scale when describing the facts.
 
Dax777 said:
What evidence are you referring to?
And what claims specifically by the ICE agents did it refute?
Also, you don't know what her authority covers. These are some of the claims to be argued hence why we should let the case play out and not make false assertions about who lied or didn't lie in their complaint.

For someone who claims to champion due process, you sure like putting your thumb on the scale when describing the facts.
Click to expand...
Her lawyers have filed a motion for the case to be dismissed. Her statement is included in that. She says she told them to arrest him elsewhere but not in the courthouse. I guess you have not read the docket.
Further she says she told them this was official policy which they could check with the chief justice (the pointing).
Please stop personal insults or just fuck off. I am describing the evidence offered, the facts will be tested in court as I have repeatedly said.
Now, here’s the joke. The motion to dismiss is based on SCOTUS ruling in favour of Trump’s immunity. The submission says she was carrying out judicial duties and, therefore, had immunity. Hence my view that her authority covered the courthouse, which is subject to local rules.
PS You are quite wrong to say that who the judge believes is not relevant. While in most cases the judge will not rule on that point (except in a civil bench trial) who he/she believes in a contested case will have a huge bearing on the conduct of the case. Go and sit through one to see that in action.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
Her lawyers have filed a motion for the case to be dismissed. Her statement is included in that. She says she told them to arrest him elsewhere but not in the courthouse. I guess you have not read the docket.
Further she says she told them this was official policy which they could check with the chief justice (the pointing).
Click to expand...
The evidence refutes what the Ice agents alleged"
That was your original claim. What evidence? And what specific claim does it refute? Nothing you've said above shows either.

KS55 said:
Please stop personal insults or just fuck off
Click to expand...
What insult. I simply described what you did in your original reporting about this story.

KS55 said:
. I am describing the evidence offered, the facts will be tested in court as I have repeatedly said.
Click to expand...
Ok.

KS55 said:
Now, here’s the joke. The motion to dismiss is based on SCOTUS ruling in favour of Trump’s immunity. The submission says she was carrying out judicial duties and, therefore, had immunity. Hence my view that her authority covered the courthouse, which is subject to local rules.
Click to expand...
Bur thos os simply her argument. That you reported ot as a fact was my point about putting your finger on the scale in the way youve been describing this story. These are all arguments. She is arguing judicial immunity. This is not evidence that 1) the immunity exists for illegal scts or 2) that it it extends beyond are court room. You saying " her authority covers the whole building" is exactly what needs to be adjudicated. Yet you state them as it they are undisputed facts

Again, i will say im hard pressed to see how judicial immunity covers helping a fugitive evade arrest. But its the only argument she really has.

KS55 said:
PS You are quite wrong to say that who the judge believes is not relevant. While in most cases the judge will not rule on that point (except in a civil bench trial) who he/she believes in a contested case will have a huge bearing on the conduct of the case. Go and sit through one to see that in action.
Click to expand...
You've missed the point. The Court will believe what the evidence shows, not what one sode or the other hopes.
 
Dax777 said:
The evidence refutes what the Ice agents alleged"
That was your original claim. What evidence? And what specific claim does it refute? Nothing you've said above shows either.


What insult. I simply described what you did in your original reporting about this story.


Ok.


Bur thos os simply her argument. That you reported ot as a fact was my point about putting your finger on the scale in the way youve been describing this story. These are all arguments. She is arguing judicial immunity. This is not evidence that 1) the immunity exists for illegal scts or 2) that it it extends beyond are court room. You saying " her authority covers the whole building" is exactly what needs to be adjudicated. Yet you state them as it they are undisputed facts

Again, i will say im hard pressed to see how judicial immunity covers helping a fugitive evade arrest. But its the only argument she really has.


You've missed the point. The Court will believe what the evidence shows, not what one sode or the other hopes.
Click to expand...
That’s it no point talking to you again. I’ve told you over and over again that I’m quoting the evidence proffered. Ice. evidence was she sent them to see the Chief justice, full stop. Her eveidence clearly disputes that.
You are ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top