Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)

2. I read the brief and don't see a problem with it

Reply to summer_in_TX (Original post)

Sat Dec 30, 2017, 02:34 AM

Dec 2017

It's fairly neutral in content and does not advocate for any particular policy. It simply advises the court that Russia does in fact engage in the type of conspiracies that Roger Stone is being sued for.

The Nation is not a disinterested party in this. They've been writing some extremely pro-Russia articles. It's been suggested that they themselves are taking directions from Moscow, or at least are unwitting pawns.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does amicus brief from former intel chiefs risk justifying stifling of dissent? [View all] summer_in_TX Dec 2017 OP

I cannot comment on the substance of this, PoindexterOglethorpe Dec 2017 #1

I read the brief and don't see a problem with it marylandblue Dec 2017 #2

Examples? shanny Dec 2017 #3

See this article marylandblue Dec 2017 #5

No thanks. shanny Dec 2017 #6

I thought you meant examples of Russian manipulation of the far left marylandblue Dec 2017 #7

Even if not written in legalese, the brief could have important consequences shanny Dec 2017 #8

This is the problem. Igel Dec 2017 #4