• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

There’s some extremely good trouble headed their way.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Women: they get shit done

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

Shelter in place is one thing. shelter in pants is quite another.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Militantly superior in their own minds…

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Everybody saw this coming.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

We have all the best words.

Tick tock motherfuckers! Tick fucking tock!

Not all heroes wear capes.

This fight is for everything.

I’m only here for the duck photos.

I swear, each month of 2020 will have its own history degree.

Shocking, but not surprising

The willow is too close to the house.

Fuck if i know. i just get yelled at when i try it.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

Mobile Menu

  • Look Forward & Back
  • Balloon Juice 2021 Pet Calendar
  • Site Feedback
  • All 2020 Fundraising
  • I Voted!
  • Take Action: Things We Can Do
  • Team Claire, and Family
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • BJ PayPal Donations
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Nature & Respite
  • Information As Power
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Nature & Respite
  • Look Forward & Back
You are here: Home / Archives for Politics / An Unexamined Scandal

An Unexamined Scandal

The Key Takeaways from the Whistleblower Complaint and the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s Accompanying Letter

by Adam L Silverman|  September 26, 201910:15 am| 56 Comments

This post is in: 2020 Elections, America, An Unexamined Scandal, Domestic Politics, Foreign Affairs, Open Threads, Politics, Silverman on Security

I’ve now done a first read through of both the whistleblower complaint and the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s accompanying letter. I think the following from the whistleblower’s complaint and the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s letter are the key takeaways. Emphasis is my own.

Here’s the key takeaway that sets up why this is an “urgent concern” and clearly under the purview of the Director of National Intelligence, according to Inspector General Atkinson’s accompanying letter. And, as I wrote last week, it is because what the President had done, and what whichever staff had done to misclassify the Memorandum of Conversation (MEMCON) by upclassifying it, creates a serious counterintelligence matter. Counterintelligence matters are clearly under the purview of the Director of National Intelligence. This is from page 3 and it is the first full paragraph on that page.

As stated above, to constitute an “urgent concern” under 50 U.S.C. Section 3033(k)(5)(G)(i), the information reported by the Complainant must constitute “[a] serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information”8 Here, the Complainant’s Letter alleged, among other things, that the President of the United States, in a telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on July 25, 2019, “sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid.” U.S laws and regulations prohibit a foreign national, directly or indirectly, from making a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.9 Similarly, U.S. laws and regulations prohibit a person from soliciting, accepting, or connection with a Federal, State, or local election.10 Further, in the ICIG’s judgement, alleged conduct by a senior U.S. public official to seek foreign assistance to interfere in or influence a Federal election would constitute a “serious or flagrant problem [or] abuse” under 50 U.S.C. Section 3033(k)(5)(i), which would also potentially expose such a U.S. public official (or others acting in concert with the U.S. public official) to serious national security and counterintelligence risks with respect to foreign intelligence services aware of such alleged conduct.

Here’s the larger and more important key takeaway that provides the full context as to why this is a counterintelligence concern. It can be found in the whistleblower’s complaint. From the final section on page 3:

II. Efforts to restrict access to records related to the call

In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced – as is customary – by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.

  • White House officials told me they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level-officials.
  • Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the cal did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.

I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict access to other records of the call, such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in.

And from the first substantive paragraph on page 1 of the “Classified Appendix” of the whistleblower’s complaint:

(U) Additional information related to Section II

According to multiple White House officials I spoke with, the transcript of the President’s call with President Zelenskyy was placed into a computer system managed directly by the National Security Council (NSC) Directorate for Intelligence Programs.This is a standalone computer system reserved for codeword-level intelligence information, such as covert action. According to the information I received from White House officials, some officials voiced concerns internally that this would be an abuse of the system and was not consistent with the responsibilities of the Directorate for Intelligence Programs.According to White House officials I spoke with, this was “not the first time” under this Administration that a Presidential transcript was placed into this codeword-level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive – rather than national security sensitive – information.

What the whistleblower is alleging is repeated deliberate misclassification of information. Specifically misclassification by upclassification in order to avoid embarrassing the President and for protecting him from the consequences of his own actions. Essentially an attempt to use the classification to cover for and protect the President. The classification system is not supposed to be, by regulation and guideline, used to prevent embarrassment to the government or to government officials. These parts of the regs and guidelines are, of course, honored more in the breach than in the observance. Regardless, routinely misclassifying information is a serious counterintelligence concern. And the people who have been doing it, as well as those who knew about it and didn’t report it to their Special Security Officer (uniformed and civilian personnel) or Facility Security Officer (contractors) is in real jeopardy.

And Congress really needs to determine just how broad and deep the alleged misclassification scheme goes, who was involved, and what, exactly was misclassified and why. If the whistleblower’s allegations here are correct and can be sustained, there is a huge problem in the White House, under guidance by the White House Counsel’s Office, to purposefully misclassify and mishandle classified information. Which is illegal, a serious insider threat, and a serious counterintelligence issue!

Update at 11:50 AM EDT

There is one other important key takeaway here based on the allegations made by the whistleblower and delineated in Section II and the appendix to Section II that I transcribed above, as well as Acting DNI Maguire’s testimony this morning. In responding to Congressman Schiff’s questioning, Acting DNI Maguire finally made it clear that he first went to the White House Counsel’s Office and then to the Office of Legal Counsel with his questions regarding executive privilege. Here’s the important key takeaway: the whistleblower alleges an ongoing series of criminal acts – misclassifying US government information to avoid embarrassment to the President, appropriate congressional oversight of the President, and any potential political (impeachment, not being reelected) or criminal jeopardy to the President as a consequence of his own behavior. The whistleblower alleges that there is an ongoing criminal scheme, instigated and overseen by attorneys in the White House Counsel’s Office, to misclassify information. Acting DNI Maguire took the allegations to the White House Counsel’s Office that is alleged to be engaging in criminal behavior regarding the deliberate mishandling and misclassifying information for an opinion on whether he needs to comply with the law and forward the complaint to Congress in a timely manner. The White House Counsel’s Office is not a good faith actor in this, they’re alleged to be part of an ongoing series of crimes. This is equivalent of a police chief taking a criminal complaint to the accused criminal to ask whether they should forward the criminal complaint to the prosecutor’s office for action. The alleged criminals were allowed to actively participate in the coverup!

Open thread!

 

The Key Takeaways from the Whistleblower Complaint and the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s Accompanying LetterPost + Comments (56)

Another One Bites The Dust: Joi Ito, MIT, and Jeffrey Epstein

by Tom Levenson|  September 7, 20196:09 pm| 66 Comments

This post is in: An Unexamined Scandal, C.R.E.A.M., Assholes, Blatant Liars and the Lies They Tell, Jump! You Fuckers!, Sociopaths

I haven’t said anything here about events at my home institution, MIT around the news that Joi Ito, the director of the ‘tute’s Media Lab had taken donations for the lab and cash for investments under his control from Jeffrey Epstein — after his conviction for various forms of the sexual predation of girls and very young women.

That’s for two reasons: for one, a sprint through the first week of the semester and a simultaneous dash through the second submission draft of a book manuscript (completed just this afternoon), and for the other a desire to pursue my concerns with MIT faculty officers and the administration before saying anything in public.

I haven’t done that yet, but Ronan Farrow’s devastating report for The New Yorker, published last night, has made the conversations I thought I might have moot, while opening up new questions to be pursued going forward.

Here’s a sample of Farrow’s reporting:

The financial entanglement revealed in the documents goes well beyond what has been described in public statements by M.I.T. and by Ito…

The documents and sources suggest that there was more to the story. They show that the lab was aware of Epstein’s history—in 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges of solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution—and of his disqualified status as a donor. They also show that Ito and other lab employees took numerous steps to keep Epstein’s name from being associated with the donations he made or solicited. On Ito’s calendar, which typically listed the full names of participants in meetings, Epstein was identified only by his initials. Epstein’s direct contributions to the lab were recorded as anonymous. In September, 2014, Ito wrote to Epstein soliciting a cash infusion to fund a certain researcher, asking, “Could you re-up/top-off with another $100K so we can extend his contract another year?” Epstein replied, “yes.” Forwarding the response to a member of his staff, Ito wrote, “Make sure this gets accounted for as anonymous.” Peter Cohen, the M.I.T. Media Lab’s Director of Development and Strategy at the time, reiterated, “Jeffrey money, needs to be anonymous. Thanks.”

In the wake of that story Ito has now resigned as director and professor of the practice at MIT. He has also quit the boards of the MacArthur Foundation and The New York Times, with, I’m sure, more to drop.

Much of Farrow’s reporting reveals a director and members of his staff gone rogue.  MIT’s central fund raising apparatus had already listed Epstein as a disqualified donor, meaning the Institute and its members weren’t supposed to seek or accept funds from him, and Ito and his team consciously worked to circumvent that restriction.

That’s good for MIT and its central leadership: it shows that the major donors people had already reached the right conclusion about reputation-washing for Epstein and had, they thought, shut it down. Still, though it looks like internal safeguards were in place, I’ve still got some questions.

For example:  how could a major center at MIT evade reporting on donors? What is the process for such reporting?  Was the policy subverted by Ito and the Media Lab? Was it ineffective, failing to ask the right questions? Was there any active failure on the part of the central administration office overseeing fund raising by the Media Lab (and other autonomous self-governing regions w/in MIT)?

Additionally, the fact that Ito raised funds both for the center he ran and his private business bugs me.  MIT has a pretty relaxed policy on outside professional activities by its faculty and other members, but there is both required disclosure (I and every faculty member has to file an OPA report every year) and an explicit conflict of interest policy that is supposed to be more rigorous for senior people like directors of centers and labs.  Did he report his business activities, including soliciting investments? Did any of his actions violate MIT’s COI policy? Were such violations included in whatever disclosures he did make? If so, how did they slip by? If not, what needs to happen, if anything, to prevent such COI?

We may get some answers.  After earlier announcing that the investigation into Ito’s relationship with Epstein would be internal, and intended to discover lessons for the future, the Institute’s president, Rafael Reif sent out an all-comers email that reads in part:

Because the accusations in the story are extremely serious, they demand an immediate, thorough and independent investigation. This morning, I asked MIT’s General Counsel to engage a prominent law firm to design and conduct this process. I expect the firm to conduct this review as swiftly as possible…

That’s good; I hope the investigators get as broad a brief as they need. It’s important to establish who knew and did what when, both inside the Media Lab and in the reporting chain within central administration. And when I say “important,” I don’t mean just in a retributive justice sense.

MIT has come a long way in the last fifty years, and the last twenty, to transform itself from an almost all-male institution to one in which women can flourish.  For the last several years, roughly half of MIT’s incoming undergraduate classes have been women.  Since 2000, MIT has put into place several affirmative policies to improve recruitment, retention and the opportunities open to women faculty.  And every year we welcome another five or six hundred female teenagers to campus.

The willing, eager association with a convicted sexual predator and the willingness of senior and very  high profile MIT figures to trade reputation-gilding for cash says something loud and clear to those newest young women at MIT, and to everyone else here as well.  That’s the message that has to be unwritten — more, it needs to be condemned by word and action.

Last…this has been something of an inside baseball kind of post, but as Anand Giridharadas (@anandwrites) has been aruing, it’s a crash course in the reality of a supra-national rich boys club that owes allegiance to no nation or institution.  Epstein was protected and rewarded by his ability to associate with high profile people and organizations — a protection purchased with cold cash, not any contribution of ideas or intellect.  He was a sexual criminal, so it’s easy to see how this charmed circle dynamic is malign.

But the same dynamic protects bad ideas, distortion of work, the exercise of unmerited power in all kinds of domains, as very rich individuals choose what they want to pay for (and what the polities they control or overwhelmingly influence should pursue). And, as Giridharadas has emphasized over and over again (and not just him, of course) those .01 percenters are loyal to the Republic of Wealth, and not the United States, or MIT or whatever.

It’s easy (as well as obviously right) to condemn Epstein and those he suborned.  But he’s far from the only problem.

Open thread.

Image: Anonymous, Kitchen Interior with the Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Lazarus, c. 1610

Another One Bites The Dust: Joi Ito, MIT, and Jeffrey EpsteinPost + Comments (66)

Dark Pre-Dawn Open Thread: Trump Rallies His (Extremely) Base

by Anne Laurie|  June 19, 20194:55 am| 36 Comments

This post is in: 2020 Elections, Getting The Band Back Together, Hail to the Hairpiece, Open Threads, Republican Stupidity, All Too Normal, Bring on the Brawndo!

new Quinnipiac Florida poll as President Trump announces his 2020 re-election campaign at Orlando rally:

Biden 50%, Trump 41%

also,

Sanders 48%, Trump 42%
Warren 47%, Trump 43%
Harris 45%, Trump 44%
O’Rourke 45%, Trump 44%
Buttigieg 44%, Trump 43%

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) June 18, 2019

MSNBC is not carrying the Trump re-election event live.

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 19, 2019

I’ll put most of this below the fold, but my Irish sense of grievance convinces me that you shouldn’t take your eyes off these people, not for one bloody-minded minute.

It was Dan Dale’s first live-tweeting of a Trump rally for CNN — flatter than Dale’s usual, but that’s probably not his fault.

“Trump took extraordinary steps to make the 2018 House races all about his depiction of asylum seekers as a national security threat, and…Republicans suffered their biggest electoral wipeout in the House since Watergate.” – ?@ThePlumLineGS? https://t.co/AcMWA5jdOb

— Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) June 18, 2019

Per the Washington Post:

… [A]t around 1:30 p.m., clouds charged in, and with them a heavy breeze that left vendors trying to hold their tents to the ground. Just as the man at the gate announced that he could not let anyone else into the arena, thunder boomed. Shortly after, a voice on the loudspeaker declared that anyone not in line at that moment would not be making it into the building right away.

Moments later, a drenching rain fell.

show full post on front page

The abrupt closing of the gates left supporters in ponchos debating whether to run for cover or lose their place in line. Thunderstorms were in the forecast all evening, threatening to dampen the excitement of what the Trump campaign predicted would be a gathering of thousands outside the arena…

By the time Trump took the stage, less than 200 people were gathered outside, many of them choosing against entering the arena, which was still allowing entrants until just before the speech….

After about an hour, a stream of people began to head out of the arena. A few meandered back to the field, hunting for their folding chairs and coolers by the light of the big screen. President Trump had not finished yet.

Folks are rocking in the pre-rally area to “Sweet Home Alabama,” with the lyric, “Watergate does not bother me. Does your conscience bother you?”

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 18, 2019

This should be the lead story out of Orlando no matter what Trump says tonight. https://t.co/9YWkvgdaqx

— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) June 18, 2019

Reminder: They are saying Pinochet because too many normal people know who Hitler is. https://t.co/X0YBI3Zcsm

— ?? (@leftkist) June 18, 2019

The Proud Boys white supremacist group has been stopped by bicycle police in Orlando. pic.twitter.com/ivjCsmaShx

— Philip Crowther (@PhilipinDC) June 18, 2019

Eric Trump just said there are 100,000 people here in Orlando for Trump’s rally. The 20,000 seat arena is currently not full.

— Philip Crowther (@PhilipinDC) June 18, 2019

Not cultish at all https://t.co/5LqhEcK8m7

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) June 19, 2019

The NYTimes is beginning to doubt the glamour:

President Trump delivered a fierce denunciation of the news media, the political establishment and what he called his radical opponents on Tuesday as he opened his re-election campaign in front of a huge crowd of raucous supporters by evoking the dark messaging and personal grievances that animated his 2016 victory…

He extolled his record as president — the growing economy, the tax cuts and deregulation — but did not offer any new policies or a cohesive agenda for a second term that might expand his political appeal. As he formally declared his intention to run again, he told the audience that his new slogan would be “Keep America Great,” pledging to wage a relentless battle on behalf of his supporters…

Mr. Trump had relentlessly hyped Tuesday’s event as a dramatic moment in his journey to a second term. But in the end, it was not so different from the dozens of rallies he has held during the past two years.

Standing in front of a sea of people wearing his signature red “Make America Great Again” hats, Mr. Trump unleashed a torrent of attacks, falsehoods, exaggerations and resentments that were the trademark of his first campaign and have been on almost daily display during his time in the White House. His warning for his voters: The establishment will stop at nothing to rob you of another four years…

For Mr. Trump, the rally was the beginning of what polls suggest will be a difficult 18 months as he seeks another four years in the White House. Already trailing Democrats in many voter surveys and having never cracked 50 percent in approval ratings since taking office, Mr. Trump has turned himself into one of the most polarizing presidents in American history…

To win re-election, Mr. Trump must convince those supporters that he has not forgotten them despite having failed to make good on some of his most important campaign promises: The wall he promised along the border with Mexico is still not built. Obamacare has not been fully repealed. The nation’s infrastructure is still aging and crumbling. The economy is booming, but many people still feel the sting of financial uncertainty…

Without a new message or a clear agenda for a second term, Mr. Trump’s advisers are banking on the belief that the same basic playbook — Mr. Trump’s preternatural ability to shock and entertain — will again animate his core voters and retain the swing voters who gambled on him in 2016…

Former Bernie supporter says she switched to Trump after opening her own business and realizing that raising the minimum wage would hurt her ability to hire. https://t.co/kXS1K2XaoP

— Annie Karni (@anniekarni) June 18, 2019

Rather than reinterviewing more white working-class Trump voters, I would love for the Times and other newspapers to check in with people like James Baker, who also constitute Trump’s base. We let elites and the GOP establishment off the hook when we focus only on that group. https://t.co/F98NU2BAgB

— Lawrence Glickman (@LarryGlickman) June 19, 2019

These Trump supporters have been to more than FOUR DOZEN rallies: A guy who fears Buttigieg, a woman who makes solo cross-country drives to see Trump, and a man who named his Alaskan malamute after the president only to have the pup shot dead by a neighborhttps://t.co/AYZ8KrBdGu

— Michael C. Bender (@MichaelCBender) June 18, 2019

Most of the protesters cleared out after the last speaker. Baby Trump balloon still stands. #TrumpRally #TrumpInOrlando pic.twitter.com/D02pjvTx6C

— Karina Elwood (@karina_elwood) June 19, 2019

High Priest in the Church of the Savvy Jack Schafer, in Politico:

… This evening’s announcement is designed to make the public and the news media forget, if only for a few days, the two dozen Democrats running against him who have been robbing him of mindshare, or as he calls it, his “ratings.” Next week’s Democratic debates sufficiently threaten his status as the top newsmaker that he has made tentative plans to live-tweet the event, reports the Wall Street Journal, to make sure the debates end up being about Trump.

The president’s advisers have warned Trump that he should lay off Twitter lest his running commentaries on the Democrats turn some also-ran contestants into real contenders. But he cares not so long as he grabs a major share of the headlines that editors had reserved for Joe Biden and friends. Like the gulls in Finding Nemo chanting, “Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine!” when they see a scrap of edible garbage floating in the sea, Trump’s ego shouts “Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! Me!” whenever he spies some other politician flapping his wings for the press…

From the debates to the caucuses to the primaries to the Democratic National Convention, Trump will be there, posturing as the unofficial 25th Democratic candidate. He will not go away. He will not be silent. He will not stop tweeting. Unless you pay him attention he does not exist.

Dark Pre-Dawn Open Thread: Trump Rallies His (Extremely) BasePost + Comments (36)

C.R.E.A.M. Open Thread: Beating Our Plowshares Into Swords

by Anne Laurie|  June 1, 20195:53 pm| 92 Comments

This post is in: An Unexamined Scandal, C.R.E.A.M., Foreign Affairs, Republican Venality, Trump Crime Cartel

In an interview with Jared Kushner, @jonathanvswan brings up Saudi Crown Prince MBS and says

1. He orders the murder of a WaPo journalist

2. Kidnaps the Lebanese Prime Minister

3. He indiscriminately bombs civilians in Yemen

Then he asks, "What do you see in this guy?" pic.twitter.com/Bw9pO93Xhh

— Yashar Ali ? (@yashar) May 31, 2019

We already know the answer to that one: MONEY!

Take heed, tyrants!

If *you* murder a dissident reporter, hack up his body with a bone saw and then lie to America about it, we'll retaliate by expediting an arms sale to you.

And if you're not careful, we'll knock 10% of the price. So watch your ass.https://t.co/k9ivRKe2fo

— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) May 24, 2019

Sure, it’ll further destabilize the Middle East, not to mention violating American law, but those Arabs have money!!! How is anyone with the kind of ethical code that allows them to work for Donald Trump gonna turn down money?

The Washington Post Editorial Board:

… If the new gift to the crown prince is allowed to stand, Mr. Trump will have established a new precedent: Presidents may sell arms anywhere in the world without congressional review simply by claiming an unspecified emergency. Even supporters of Mr. Trump and of arms sales to Saudi Arabia ought to be troubled by this. Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is at least thinking about it: In a statement, he said he was “reviewing and analyzing the legal justification for this action and the associated implications.”

Mr. Risch has a ready remedy: He can allow a vote in his committee on legislation to block the sales until the Saudi regime stops bombings in Yemen and meets other basic conditions, including the release of women’s rights activists it has detained and tortured. Congress has an obligation to rein in Mr. Trump’s wanton embrace of the Saudi strongman; it also must defend its basic foreign policy prerogatives. It’s time for Mr. Risch to show whether he is up to that challenge.

Mr. Risch is a Republican. The only ‘challenge’ he can see is whether he’ll fold fast enough & enthusiastically enough to please his Dear Leader…

Old enough to remember being told by Bros that Hillary was the "war hawk" and that if it came down to it, they'd rather vote for Trump bc he wasn't an interventionist. https://t.co/qUNQ9PIyMt

— Anna Maltese (@MalteseAnna) May 24, 2019

doesn’t this contradict claimed need to bypass congress on emergency basis? says asked congress over year ago & didn’t get answer wanted? https://t.co/ixKARFBrSi

— Laura Rozen (@lrozen) May 24, 2019

I got to Pompeo saying “The United States is, and must remain, a reliable security partner to our allies and partners around the world” and threw the hell up. https://t.co/z7PyZBEyxV

— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) May 24, 2019

They didn’t fail to act. They opposed what you want, and now you’re abusing power to get your way https://t.co/KtAfX7T8aV

— Daniel Larison (@DanielLarison) May 24, 2019

C.R.E.A.M. Open Thread: Beating Our Plowshares Into SwordsPost + Comments (92)

Social Media Open Thread: ‘President’ Grampa Has PROBLEMS!!! With You People…

by Anne Laurie|  April 24, 20195:31 pm| 112 Comments

This post is in: An Unexamined Scandal, Dolt 45, Hail to the Hairpiece, Open Threads, Republican Stupidity, Repubs in Disarray!, All Too Normal, Cybersecurity

"Two people close to Trump told The Daily Beast that Trump has repeatedly griped to associates about how President Obama had more Twitter followers than he has, even though—by Trump’s own assessment—he is so much better at Twitter than Obama is." https://t.co/GwAVXB3OxF

— Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) April 23, 2019

Trump spent a "significant portion" of his meeting with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey complaining that he was losing followers. https://t.co/VbtnNUkOAi

— Will Sommer (@willsommer) April 23, 2019

… In a statement, Twitter said the meeting — initiated by the president — focused on “protecting the health of the public conversation ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections and efforts underway to respond to the opioid crisis.” Twitter partners with the federal government on a program to encourage Americans to dispose of prescription drugs they no longer need to prevent against abuse.

In March, Trump accused Silicon Valley’s largest companies of harboring a “hatred” for “a certain group of people that happen to be in power, that happen to have won the election.” In doing so, Trump threatened potential regulation, telling reporters at a press conference that the government may “have to do something about it.”

Previously, Trump joined a chorus of Republicans in claiming that Twitter secretly limits the reach of conservatives, a tactic known as “shadow banning” that Twitter has vehemently denied. And the president regularly has raised fears about changes in his follower count. Twitter’s heightened crackdown against spam, however, long has affected both liberals and conservatives on the site.

In response, Twitter regularly has stressed its political neutrality. “Impartiality is our guiding principle,” Dorsey told lawmakers last year who grilled him over allegations that the site and its social-media peers exhibit bias against conservatives. Over the past year, Dorsey has sought to huddle with high-profile right-leaning pundits and political figures, hoping to assuage their concerns about censorship…

Dorsey long has faced pressure to curtail Trump’s tweets, as critics contend that the president regularly violates the site’s policies against harassment and abuse. Twitter has long maintained that it applies a different standard to prominent public figures, given that their comments — even offensive ones — remain in the public interest. But the company in March said it soon would adopt a new approach, labeling offensive tweets so users know why such content hasn’t been removed…

Reminder: Dorsey was *not* invited to Trump's 2016 sit-down with big tech CEOs. https://t.co/i9qLknmxl0

— John Paczkowski (@JohnPaczkowski) April 23, 2019

Trump’s Twitter support is as much of a fraud as he is. https://t.co/6hlkBJcb71

— The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) April 24, 2019

show full post on front page

Let's inventory his followers, shall we pic.twitter.com/Y85k5XVa0K

— leoluminary ?? (@leoluminary) April 23, 2019

Next up: Trump privately worries Twitter may ban him as part of crackdown on accounts with no actual human behind them. https://t.co/iAcPftULbi

— The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) April 24, 2019

"Why does Game of Thrones trend and I do not?"
"Mr President?"
"MAKE ME TREND LIKE IM A LANNISTER"
"Your memes are not as good sir"

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) April 23, 2019

It is good that Jack had to listen to Trump complain about his follower count and other soft-skulled MAGA junk, but I imagine that basically every world leader Trump talks to hears the same shit. Trump has definitely talked to Macron about Diamond & Silk.

— David Roth (@david_j_roth) April 23, 2019

Social Media Open Thread: ‘President’ Grampa Has PROBLEMS!!! With You People…Post + Comments (112)

Oleg Deripaska Comes To Kentucky

by Cheryl Rofer|  April 16, 20191:51 pm| 75 Comments

This post is in: An Unexamined Scandal, Impeachment, Republican Venality, Trump Crime Cartel, Trump-Russia, hoocoodanode

Do you remember Oleg Deripaska, Paul Manafort’s business partner to whom he owed $17 million? The Russian aluminum oligarch?

Well, he’s building an aluminum plant in, of all places, Kentucky, the home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Sanctions have been lifted, of course.

Here’s the announcement from Deripaska’s company, RUSAL.

Just a matter of a canny businessman seeing an opportunity, I’m sure.

 

Oleg Deripaska Comes To KentuckyPost + Comments (75)

The Electoral College: Kill It With Fire

by Anne Laurie|  March 20, 20199:36 pm| 133 Comments

This post is in: An Unexamined Scandal, Proud to Be A Democrat, Ever Get The Feeling You've Been Cheated?, Nobody could have predicted

(Tom Toles via GoComics.com)
.

Not that it has many defenders among the BJ commentariat, I’m guessing, but here’s some interesting tidbits if you care to share:

The Electoral College is a relic of slavery & the 3/5 compromise. It let slave states wield more influence than their voting population merited. We need to move toward a “1 person, 1 vote” standard. That’s why I introduced an amendment to eliminate the #ElectoralCollege. #HJRes7 pic.twitter.com/Wsx1D3wvS9

— Steve Cohen (@RepCohen) March 19, 2019

Abolishing it would give Presidential candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, a reason to visit the state and hear from voters there. What was a baked in 3 electoral votes for one side becomes a pool of 350,000+ potential votes in a race that may be decided by less than that. https://t.co/DNxJtS2SKh

— Devin Nunes' Mullet (@Zeddary) March 20, 2019

The current Electoral College debate confirms that powerful parts of the Republican Party have given up on trying to become a party that could be confident of winning elections by winning more votes. https://t.co/8SsxkeF6Mv

— Jacob T. Levy (@jtlevy) March 20, 2019

1. Yes; such calls came *before* 2016. 11 of the 13 states that have joined national popular vote compact did so before 2016.

2. Undemocratic outcomes in 40% of this century’s elections will tend to help people see a system’s flaws aren’t theoretical. https://t.co/vstydjjRz7

— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) March 20, 2019

show full post on front page

Besides which, “the candidate who won 3 million more votes could’ve won the election if she ran a better campaign” is not an argument in favor of a system that declares the candidate who got 3 million fewer votes the winner. It is a disingenuous diversion by a power-hungry hack.

— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) March 20, 2019

If you eliminated the electoral college candidates would devote resources to places where you could shift significant numbers of persuadable or mobilizable voters. That's not just big dense cities. https://t.co/QcccrRhCeX

— Angus Johnston (@studentactivism) March 19, 2019

Under the Electoral College, your incentive is to pound the few close states over and over, whatever the cost, because they're all that matters. Under a popular vote, you scramble for votes wherever you can find them, because a vote is a vote wherever you get it.

— Angus Johnston (@studentactivism) March 19, 2019

There are legitimate mechanisms for protecting minority rights in a democracy—civil rights, civil liberties, even supermajority safeguards. But none of those mechanisms involve handing governing power to an electoral minority because the majority is repulsive to you.

— Angus Johnston (@studentactivism) March 19, 2019

It's a widely known psychological phenomenon that the loss of privilege can feel like harm. It doesn't mean it actually is harm. https://t.co/3zusrmhQyI

— laura olin (@lauraolin) March 19, 2019

Just to remind everyone — the R's were planning to blow up the Electoral College if the 2000 election went wrong for them.

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) March 19, 2019

People talk about how getting rid of the electoral college will mean too much focus on places like "LA". Donald Trump lost LA County by 50 points… there are more Trump voters there than there are in the state of Iowa.

— Will Jordan (@williamjordann) March 20, 2019

More people live in the red than the purple. pic.twitter.com/mCqYpMh0nZ

— Will Jordan (@williamjordann) December 3, 2017

Campaigning for the Popular Vote is much easier & different than campaigning for the Electoral College. It’s like training for the 100 yard dash vs. a marathon. The brilliance of the Electoral College is that you must go to many States to win. With the Popular Vote, you go to….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2019

Of course, because there’s always a tweet https://t.co/0j9lO7N0tG

— Dana Houle (@DanaHoule) March 20, 2019

If you think putting the American people back in command of our political system is a “power grab” by your political foes, you might want to think long and hard about why you are in public service. #ForThePeople pic.twitter.com/Ci0ad9I2Lr

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) March 19, 2019

The Electoral College: Kill It With FirePost + Comments (133)

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 68
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Do Something!

Call Your Senators & Representatives
Directory of US Senators
Directory of US Representatives

Vaccine Venting (latest)
Vaccine Venting (all)

I Got the Shot (latest thread)
I Got the Shot! (all)

Take Your Shot – Explain the %

🎈Ways to Support Our Site

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal
Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice ⬇  

Recent Comments

  • Mathguy on Recipe Open Thread: Foolproof English Muffin Toasting Bread (Apr 16, 2021 @ 9:58pm)
  • Steeplejack on Recipe Open Thread: Foolproof English Muffin Toasting Bread (Apr 16, 2021 @ 9:58pm)
  • prostratedragon on Recipe Open Thread: Foolproof English Muffin Toasting Bread (Apr 16, 2021 @ 9:57pm)
  • mali muso on Recipe Open Thread: Foolproof English Muffin Toasting Bread (Apr 16, 2021 @ 9:55pm)
  • RedDirtGirl on Recipe Open Thread: Foolproof English Muffin Toasting Bread (Apr 16, 2021 @ 9:55pm)

Team Claire, and Family

Claire Updates
Claire is Home!

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year

Featuring

John Cole
Silverman on Security
COVID-19 Coronavirus
Medium Cool with BGinCHI
Furry Friends

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Submit Photos to On the Road
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Meetups: Proof of Life
2021 Pets of Balloon Juice Calendar

Culture: Books, Film, TV, Music, Games, Podcasts

Noir: Favorites in Film, Books, TV
Book Recommendations & Indy Recs
Mystery Recommendations
Netflix Favorites
Amazon Prime Favorites
Netflix Suggestions in July
Longmire & Netflix Suggestions

Twitter

John Cole’s Twitter

[custom-twitter-feeds]

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc