buzzfeed--2020-05-29--It’s Unclear What Trump’s Section 230 Executive Order Will Do Beyond Bully Social Media Companies

“ Twitter slapped Trump on the wrist , ” law professor Eric Goldman told BuzzFeed News .
“ Trump responds with an attempt to blow up the entire internet.
” President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting social media companies on Thursday .
The move came after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets as containing `` potentially misleading misinformation . ''
`` Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias , '' the order reads .
`` Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently as last week , Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax , and Twitter did not flag those tweets .
Unsurprisingly , its officer in charge of so-called ‘ Site Integrity ’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets . ''
“ This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS !
” the president tweeted on Thursday morning before attacking by name the Twitter employee whom some conservatives have falsely claimed was responsible for adding the fact-check label @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive order on Thursday , the president said he would shut down Twitter if his lawyers found a way to do it .
`` I 'd have to go through a legal process , '' he told reporters .
Trump ’ s executive order will affect Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , which protects online platforms like Facebook and Twitter from being held liable for content posted by their users .
The 1996 law states : `` No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by another information content provider.
” US Attorney General William Barr said Thursday that the executive order will not revoke Section 230 , but did not further explain how the order would impact it , only saying that social media companies have stretched the meaning of its original intention .
The president argued on Thursday that once a platform like Twitter edits content , it `` ceases to become a neutral public platform and becomes an editor with a viewpoint . ''
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has dubbed Section 230 the “ one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom of expression.
” Passed following two court decisions that forced early internet services to choose between moderating content and enjoying immunity from being sued over what users posted on them , Section 230 solved the `` moderator 's dilemma '' by allowing internet services to both patrol user-generated content and sidestep lawsuits for content they hosted .
Although the Communications Decency Act was passed on a bipartisan basis , Jeff Kosseff , assistant professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy , told BuzzFeed News that Section 230 has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ You have one contingent saying there is too much moderation , ” he said , “ but then you have another contingent saying overall there is not enough moderation.
” But legal experts said that regardless of whether the provision needed to be changed , Trump 's action Thursday will add even more confusion to what responsibility platforms have about what is posted in their communities .
“ How [ Trump ’ s executive order ] would work is very unclear .
If there are effects , it will take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the courts , ” Katie Fallow , senior staff attorney at Columbia University ’ s Knight First Amendment Institute , told BuzzFeed News .
“ I believe the purpose of this is to put a burden on the social media companies.
” Fallow said it was ironic that the executive order treats Twitter , a private company , as a public square where people have free speech rights protected by the First Amendment when conservatives historically have opposed government regulation of speech on private property .
The executive order is unlikely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eric Goldman , a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law .
“ It 's largely atmospherics .
It 's largely performative , ” he told BuzzFeed News .
“ Twitter slapped Trump on the wrist , ” Goldman said .
“ Trump responds with an attempt to blow up the entire internet.
” In advance of Trump ’ s announcement , FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel released a statement on Thursday saying an order pulling the agency into Trump ’ s spat with Twitter was a bad idea .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be frustrating .
But an Executive Order that would turn the Federal Communications Commission into the President ’ s speech police is not the answer .
It ’ s time for those in Washington to speak up for the First Amendment .
History won ’ t be kind to silence , ” Rosenworcel said .
In his remarks , the president made it clear that the order was retaliation for Twitter fact-checking his tweets .
The executive order says that the `` Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this order . ''
Attorney General Bill Barr has been exploring options to change Section 230 for months .
In a December speech , Barr said the Justice Department had “ started thinking critically ” about the issue , describing social media companies ’ relative immunity as “ staggering.
” But the Department of Justice ’ s focus , according to Barr ’ s speeches , has been less about political bias and more about whether or not social media companies are doing enough to make the internet safe .
In February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workshop on the future of Section 230 .
Barr said in his opening remarks that the threat of lawsuits could force social media companies to do more to limit speech that facilitated terrorism and human trafficking ; the issue of whether Twitter and other platforms were targeting conservative speech barely came up , according to coverage of the workshop by the Verge .
Mary Anne Franks , the president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative and a member of Twitter 's Trust and Safety Council , criticized Trump ’ s order , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that conservatives are being discriminated against on social media , ” she told BuzzFeed News .
Franks also took issue with the way the executive order was announced : first by press secretary Kayleigh McEnany to reporters on a flight back to Washington on Wednesday night and then leaked later that evening .
“ I think the leaked order is trolling all these legal scholars , ” Franks said .
Franks didn ’ t think the executive order would change much in the law , but it would influence how online platforms carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It 's meant to have a cultural impact , not a legal impact , ” she said .
“ All they did was slap a tiny label on something that will probably not have any real effect except make him angry .
It 's really a shame this really modest step in that direction has set this off.
” Ahead of the executive order ’ s signing on Thursday morning , Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg differentiated his company from Twitter , saying during a Fox News interview that Facebook should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Private companies probably should n't be , especially these platform companies , should n't be in the position of doing that , ” he said , adding , “ In general , I think a government choosing to censor a platform because they 're worried about censorship does n't exactly strike me as the right reflex there.
” In a statement late on Thursday , Facebook spokesperson Liz Bourgeois said that repealing or limiting Section 230 would `` restrict more speech online , not less . ''
The Trump fact-check on Twitter infuriated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at an employee incorrectly believed to be responsible for applying the label .
On Wednesday evening , Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey defended the Trump fact-check , tweeting , `` Fact check : there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company , and that ’ s me .
Please leave our employees out of this .
We ’ ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally .
And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make . ''
The dispute between Trump and Twitter also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law still protects social media companies like @ Twitter because they are considered forums not publishers , ” Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted on Tuesday .
“ But if they have now decided to exercise an editorial role like a publisher then they should no longer be shielded from liability & treated as publishers under the law.
” On Wednesday , Sen. Josh Hawley shared an open letter to Dorsey .
“ .
@ jack a few questions for you below , ” he wrote .
“ Bottom line : Why should @ twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a mere distributor of other people ’ s content if you are going to editorialize and comment like a publisher ?
Shouldn ’ t you be treated like publisher ?
” Last year , Hawley introduced legislation to amend Section 230 to revoke what he called “ the immunity big tech companies receive ... unless they submit to an external audit that proves by clear and convincing evidence that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral.
” He said on Tuesday that he plans to introduce similar legislation again .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liability shield was not tied to an expectation that platforms would act in a neutral manner toward political speech that they hosted .
The law 's text makes no such requirement either .
But conservatives like Hawley have recently attempted to tie the two together , arguing that platforms should only enjoy immunity from lawsuits if they act in a politically neutral fashion .
In a statement last June , Hawley said , “ With Section 230 , tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys : complete exemption from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a forum free of political censorship .
Unfortunately , and unsurprisingly , big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.
” Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon , who drafted Section 230 along with former Republican Rep. Chris Cox , said in an interview with BuzzFeed News Thursday that he thinks it ’ s clear Trump is targeting the provision in his order because it “ protects private businesses ’ right not to have to play host to his lying.
” “ The bottom line is , I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatening 230 in order to chill speech , bully , you know , companies — Facebook and YouTube and Twitter — into giving him favorable treatment , and today he proved that that take was right , ” Wyden said .
In February of last year , Barr argued that “ [ t ] echnology has changed in ways that no one , including the drafters of Section 230 , could have imagined.
” But Wyden said he thinks Barr ’ s argument is less about the changing landscape of the internet and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think Barr ’ s agenda has been really clear from the beginning .
What he has been interested in is a speech control program , because he , like the president , feels that any coverage that isn ’ t favorable to him is somehow a crime , ” he said .
The attack on Section 230 is also antithetical to conservative principles , the senator argued .
“ And the idea that these … conservative officials think that the government should take control of private companies and dictate exactly how they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head what you think conservative principles are all about , ” he said .
“ Now , I understand these conservative politicians are upset that there are large corporations do n't toe their party line , and then when they talk about it — shout about it — it 's popular with their base .
But they ’ re just plain wrong.
” Wyden said he ’ s particularly bothered by the argument some conservatives have made that Section 230 requires platforms to be neutral , something the law itself , he noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He also said he ’ s disturbed by the idea of a panel deciding what constitutes neutrality or discrimination against conservative ideas .
Nathaniel Persily , a professor at Stanford Law School , told BuzzFeed News that Trump ’ s executive order “ is the first missive in a larger battle over whether Section 230 is a special privilege that 's given to internet platforms or whether it 's a core extension of the First Amendment.
” Persily said an attack on Section 230 was bound to happen , whether from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden told the New York Times he also wanted to revoke Section 230 , saying , `` The idea that it ’ s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked , immediately should be revoked , number one . ''
On Thursday , Biden for President Spokesperson Bill Russo told BuzzFeed News that the executive order was an `` extreme abuse of power . ''
`` It will not be the position of any future Biden Administration — or any other administration that is aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Amendment means private companies must provide a venue for , and amplification of , the President 's falsehoods , lest they become the subject of coordinated retaliation by the federal government .
Joe Biden understands that no President should use Executive Orders as menus to abuse the power of the presidency , '' he said .
Russo added that `` Vice President Biden believes that social media companies should be held accountable for disseminating content they know to be false , just as any other private company would be . ''
Regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump 's action is already being celebrated in right-wing media and among his base online .
Daphne Keller , director of the program on platform regulation for Stanford ’ s Cyber Policy Center , told BuzzFeed News that the executive order was political theater .
“ This reads like a stream of consciousness tweetstorm that some poor staffer had to turn into the form of an executive order , ” she said .
Keller said that an informed public debate about the power of platforms over public discourse was important .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order had led to .
“ This is a distraction , ” she said .
“ We have only ourselves to blame if it makes us avert our gaze from the crises that are right in front of us : 100,000 Americans dead in a profoundly mismanaged pandemic , for example , or the potential failure of democratic process in the 2020 elections.
” Addy Baird and Zoe Tillman contributed reporting to this story .

But the Department of Justice’s focus, according to Barr’s speeches, has been less about political bias and more about whether or not social media companies are doing enough to make the internet safe. In February, the Department of Justice held a workshop on the future of Section 230. Barr said in his opening remarks that the threat of lawsuits could force social media companies to do more to limit speech that facilitated terrorism and human trafficking; the issue of whether Twitter and other platforms were targeting conservative speech barely came up, according to coverage of the workshop by the Verge.
Mary Anne Franks, the president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative and a member of Twitter's Trust and Safety Council, criticized Trump’s order, saying it would "reinforce the baseless claim that conservatives are being discriminated against on social media,” she told BuzzFeed News.
Franks also took issue with the way the executive order was announced: first by press secretary Kayleigh McEnany to reporters on a flight back to Washington on Wednesday night and then leaked later that evening.
“I think the leaked order is trolling all these legal scholars,” Franks said.
Franks didn’t think the executive order would change much in the law, but it would influence how online platforms carry out their fact-checks and moderate content.
“It's meant to have a cultural impact, not a legal impact,” she said. “All they did was slap a tiny label on something that will probably not have any real effect except make him angry. It's really a shame this really modest step in that direction has set this off.”
Ahead of the executive order’s signing on Thursday morning, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg differentiated his company from Twitter, saying during a Fox News interview that Facebook should not be an “arbiter of truth.”
“Private companies probably shouldn't be, especially these platform companies, shouldn't be in the position of doing that,” he said, adding, “In general, I think a government choosing to censor a platform because they're worried about censorship doesn't exactly strike me as the right reflex there.”
In a statement late on Thursday, Facebook spokesperson Liz Bourgeois said that repealing or limiting Section 230 would "restrict more speech online, not less."
The Trump fact-check on Twitter infuriated Republicans and set off waves of abuse at an employee incorrectly believed to be responsible for applying the label.
On Wednesday evening, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey defended the Trump fact-check, tweeting, "Fact check: there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that’s me. Please leave our employees out of this. We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make."
The dispute between Trump and Twitter also included members of Congress.
“The law still protects social media companies like @Twitter because they are considered forums not publishers,” Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted on Tuesday. “But if they have now decided to exercise an editorial role like a publisher then they should no longer be shielded from liability & treated as publishers under the law.”
On Wednesday, Sen. Josh Hawley shared an open letter to Dorsey.
“.@jack a few questions for you below,” he wrote. “Bottom line: Why should @twitter continue to get special treatment from government as a mere distributor of other people’s content if you are going to editorialize and comment like a publisher? Shouldn’t you be treated like publisher?”
Last year, Hawley introduced legislation to amend Section 230 to revoke what he called “the immunity big tech companies receive ... unless they submit to an external audit that proves by clear and convincing evidence that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral.”
He said on Tuesday that he plans to introduce similar legislation again.
At the time of its passage, the liability shield was not tied to an expectation that platforms would act in a neutral manner toward political speech that they hosted. The law's text makes no such requirement either. But conservatives like Hawley have recently attempted to tie the two together, arguing that platforms should only enjoy immunity from lawsuits if they act in a politically neutral fashion.


buzzfeed--2020-05-28--The ACLU Is Suing Clearview AI To Stop “Privacy-Destroying Face Surveillance”

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Clearview AI on Thursday , arguing that the facial recognition startup violated the privacy of Illinois residents in amassing a database of more than 3 billion photos scraped from websites and social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter .
In describing a “ nightmare scenario ” in the complaint filed in Illinois state court , the ACLU and other groups representing domestic violence survivors , sex workers , and immigrants said they were suing to put an end to Clearview ’ s “ unlawful surreptitious capture and storage of millions of Illinoisans ’ sensitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the facial recognition startup violated the state ’ s Biometric Information Privacy Act ( BIPA ) , a 2008 law that prevents companies from collecting or storing fingerprints or scans of citizen ’ s faces without their consent .
While the BIPA allows Illinois residents to sue companies for up to $ 5,000 for each violation , Nate Freed Wessler , an ACLU staff attorney , told BuzzFeed News that the plaintiffs were not seeking money .
“ We ’ re not seeking monetary damages , only injunctive relief , he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the faceprints it illegally captured and also stop capturing them in the future.
” Since a story in the New York Times in January revealed it to the public , Clearview AI has come under scrutiny from lawmakers , news organizations , and civil liberties groups like the ACLU , which has called the company ’ s business “ privacy-destroying face surveillance.
” In February , a BuzzFeed News investigation found that Clearview had provided its facial recognition software to more than 2,200 federal agencies , police departments , and private companies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tool was “ strictly for law enforcement.
” In recent months , the company has been hit with a slew of lawsuits in New York , California , Virginia , and Vermont .
In federal court in Illinois , a separate lawsuit seeking class action status is currently asking that a judge issue a temporary injunction against Clearview AI to prevent it from using the biometric information of current and past Illinois residents until the case reaches a conclusion .
In response to the proposed temporary injunction , Clearview AI recently said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Illinois citizens and would cease relationships with all private companies .
Responding to Thursday ’ s ACLU lawsuit , Clearview lawyer Tor Ekeland likened Clearview AI to “ a search engine that uses only publicly available images on the internet . ''
( In past interviews , Clearview CEO Hoan Ton-That has conceded that even if once-public photos are taken down or made private , they still remain in the company ’ s databases . )
“ It is absurd that the ACLU wants to censor which search engines people can use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Ekeland told BuzzFeed News .
“ The First Amendment forbids this.
” Wessler called Clearview ’ s argument a perversion of the First Amendment and a misreading of the ACLU ’ s lawsuit .
“ Clearview is as free as it wants to look at public photos , ” he said .
“ What they can ’ t do surreptitiously and without consent is generate people ’ s faceprints .
That is conduct and not speech , and that conduct is not protected by the First Amendment.
” In February , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement agencies that target undocumented people , including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection , had used Clearview to run thousands of searches .
The company has also marketed its facial recognition tool to help police find and arrest sex workers , according to Clearview advertisements BuzzFeed News obtained via public record requests .
Clearview has also provided its product to entities it designated as “ friends ” and told cops to “ run wild ” with its software .
Thursday ’ s lawsuit isn ’ t the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2019 pitch documents to local police departments that were obtained by BuzzFeed News , the company claimed that a panel of reviewers used ACLU methodology to verify that its facial recognition was “ 100 % accurate.
” The ACLU pushed back , calling the Clearview ’ s efforts a misguided attempt at “ manufacturing endorsements . ''

The American Civil Liberties Union sued Clearview AI on Thursday, arguing that the facial recognition startup violated the privacy of Illinois residents in amassing a database of more than 3 billion photos scraped from websites and social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter.
In describing a “nightmare scenario” in the complaint filed in Illinois state court, the ACLU and other groups representing domestic violence survivors, sex workers, and immigrants said they were suing to put an end to Clearview’s “unlawful surreptitious capture and storage of millions of Illinoisans’ sensitive biometric identifiers.” The lawsuit alleges that the facial recognition startup violated the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), a 2008 law that prevents companies from collecting or storing fingerprints or scans of citizen’s faces without their consent.
While the BIPA allows Illinois residents to sue companies for up to $5,000 for each violation, Nate Freed Wessler, an ACLU staff attorney, told BuzzFeed News that the plaintiffs were not seeking money.
“We’re not seeking monetary damages, only injunctive relief, he said. “We want to see Clearview delete the faceprints it illegally captured and also stop capturing them in the future.”
Since a story in the New York Times in January revealed it to the public, Clearview AI has come under scrutiny from lawmakers, news organizations, and civil liberties groups like the ACLU, which has called the company’s business “privacy-destroying face surveillance.” In February, a BuzzFeed News investigation found that Clearview had provided its facial recognition software to more than 2,200 federal agencies, police departments, and private companies, despite its CEO’s claim that the tool was “strictly for law enforcement.”
In recent months, the company has been hit with a slew of lawsuits in New York, California, Virginia, and Vermont. In federal court in Illinois, a separate lawsuit seeking class action status is currently asking that a judge issue a temporary injunction against Clearview AI to prevent it from using the biometric information of current and past Illinois residents until the case reaches a conclusion.
In response to the proposed temporary injunction, Clearview AI recently said it would restrict its use of data from Illinois citizens and would cease relationships with all private companies.
Responding to Thursday’s ACLU lawsuit, Clearview lawyer Tor Ekeland likened Clearview AI to “a search engine that uses only publicly available images on the internet." (In past interviews, Clearview CEO Hoan Ton-That has conceded that even if once-public photos are taken down or made private, they still remain in the company’s databases.)
“It is absurd that the ACLU wants to censor which search engines people can use to access public information on the internet,” Ekeland told BuzzFeed News. “The First Amendment forbids this.”
Wessler called Clearview’s argument a perversion of the First Amendment and a misreading of the ACLU’s lawsuit.
“Clearview is as free as it wants to look at public photos,” he said. “What they can’t do surreptitiously and without consent is generate people’s faceprints. That is conduct and not speech, and that conduct is not protected by the First Amendment.”
In February, a BuzzFeed News investigation found that law enforcement agencies that target undocumented people, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, had used Clearview to run thousands of searches. The company has also marketed its facial recognition tool to help police find and arrest sex workers, according to Clearview advertisements BuzzFeed News obtained via public record requests. Clearview has also provided its product to entities it designated as “friends” and told cops to “run wild” with its software.
Thursday’s lawsuit isn’t the first time the ACLU has clashed with Clearview. In 2019 pitch documents to local police departments that were obtained by BuzzFeed News, the company claimed that a panel of reviewers used ACLU methodology to verify that its facial recognition was “100% accurate.” The ACLU pushed back, calling the Clearview’s efforts a misguided attempt at “manufacturing endorsements."


buzzfeed--2020-05-28--Congress Asked The CDC For Data On How The Coronavirus Is Affecting Communities Of Color. The CDC Se

Congress Asked The CDC For Data On How The Coronavirus Is Affecting Communities Of Color. The CDC Sent Back Links To Its Public Website.

Local residents fill out paperwork at a mobile COVID-19 testing station in Compton , California , April 28 .
St. John 's Well Child and Family Center is providing testing sites in African American and Latino communities that have been neglected in terms of testing as compared to wealthier areas of Los Angeles County .
BuzzFeed News has reporters around the world bringing you trustworthy stories about the impact of the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member and sign up for our newsletter , Outbreak Today .
WASHINGTON — As communities of color are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked the CDC to collect national data on the race and ethnicity of COVID-19 cases and deaths .
On the day of the deadline set in law by Congress , the CDC responded with a page of links that referred back to its public website .
The Department of Health and Human Services , which oversees the CDC , “ should be embarrassed by the lazy , incomplete , 2.5-page copy-and-paste job it calls a ‘ report ’ on the racial disparities of COVID-19 cases , ” Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the CDC , sent the report to Congress on March 15 .
The links that CDC forwarded include some racial and ethnic data on the coronavirus , but it is incomplete .
The report includes a link to the CDC ’ s updating data on cases and deaths across the US , but only includes race and ethnicity information for less than half of the 1.7 million people who have tested positive for COVID-19 .
The report also linked to the CDC ’ s data on hospitalizations broken down by race and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data from specific network hospitals in 14 states , totaling just about 10 % of the US population .
“ This wholly inadequate response tells us nothing except what we already knew : the Trump Administration would prefer to ignore the disproportionate impact this crisis is having on communities of color , ” Sen. Patty Murray , the lead Democrat on a Senate Health Committee , said in a statement .
The CDC did not respond to several questions on how it obtained its data or the timeframe in which it will update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Redfield wrote that the CDC data does suggest “ a disproportionate burden of illness and death among racial and ethnic minority groups , ” adding that “ studies are underway to confirm these data.
” The CDC did not respond to BuzzFeed News ’ requests to specify what kind of studies are being conducted .
The report comes after Congress passed its most recent coronavirus stimulus package , which required the CDC to report COVID-19 race and ethnicity data to several congressional committees , as they investigate the disproportionate effects of COVID-19 on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a group of bipartisan members of Congress urged the Trump administration to gather data on high-risk communities in order to better understand the racial disparity and aid those communities in response to the pandemic .
Health experts say complete reports are key to addressing COVID-19 disparities in communities of color .
“ Thus far , the fragmented data we are getting from HHS , state , and local sources paint a very fragmented , but troubling picture , ” Northeastern University health policy expert Leo Beletsky told BuzzFeed News in an email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to understand the full scope of the issue and to target resources where they are most needed .
Beletsky went further to suggest the administration ’ s slow-walk of the data is an effort to avoid criticism of its coronavirus response and conversations about longstanding health disparities among people of color .
“ Ultimately , these data will force some very difficult conversations about bungled responses so far , as well as about broader questions of race and racism in America .
This is why agencies are dragging their feet on making these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley , who also signed onto the initial letter to the CDC asking for race and ethnicity data for COVID-19 , told reporters on Wednesday that black people represent nearly 40 % of all COVID-19 cases in Boston ( 38 % according to city data ) , despite being 25 % of the population .
“ We will use every tool at our disposal to uncover why this administration waited so long to take any action and make clear the grave consequences of their inaction , ” Pressley told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while oversight is critical , we must also keep up the pressure on this administration to take action now before we are robbed , unnecessarily , of even more lives.
” Sen. Tim Scott , the lone black Republican senator and the only GOP member to call on the CDC to provide race and ethnicity data of COVID-19 victims , is instead urging states to report their own data .
“ In South Carolina , we regularly receive and can readily access disaggregated demographic data on both cases and fatalities , ” Scott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Our model is effective and consistent , and I hope other states and stakeholders would follow suit in reporting these critical numbers that can only help us stop the spread in our most vulnerable communities.
” As of Wednesday , black people , who make up about 27 % of South Carolina ’ s population , accounted for 52 % of the coronavirus cases , according to state data .
The House-passed Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act ( HEROES ) also would require the CDC to provide race and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assist states with their collection of data .
But that bill has not passed the Senate , where Republicans have said the legislation is dead on arrival .
In the meantime , the CDC is still required to provide another report within 30 days of the one just released .
“ We are not done pushing for answers and action here , not by a long shot , ” Murray said .

WASHINGTON — As communities of color are disproportionately dying from the coronavirus, Congress asked the CDC to collect national data on the race and ethnicity of COVID-19 cases and deaths.
On the day of the deadline set in law by Congress, the CDC responded with a page of links that referred back to its public website.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, “should be embarrassed by the lazy, incomplete, 2.5-page copy-and-paste job it calls a ‘report’ on the racial disparities of COVID-19 cases,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted last week.
Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the CDC, sent the report to Congress on March 15. The links that CDC forwarded include some racial and ethnic data on the coronavirus, but it is incomplete. The report includes a link to the CDC’s updating data on cases and deaths across the US, but only includes race and ethnicity information for less than half of the 1.7 million people who have tested positive for COVID-19.
The report also linked to the CDC’s data on hospitalizations broken down by race and ethnicity, but that page only includes data from specific network hospitals in 14 states, totaling just about 10% of the US population.
“This wholly inadequate response tells us nothing except what we already knew: the Trump Administration would prefer to ignore the disproportionate impact this crisis is having on communities of color,” Sen. Patty Murray, the lead Democrat on a Senate Health Committee, said in a statement.
The CDC did not respond to several questions on how it obtained its data or the timeframe in which it will update the information. And while incomplete, Redfield wrote that the CDC data does suggest “a disproportionate burden of illness and death among racial and ethnic minority groups,” adding that “studies are underway to confirm these data.” The CDC did not respond to BuzzFeed News’ requests to specify what kind of studies are being conducted.
The report comes after Congress passed its most recent coronavirus stimulus package, which required the CDC to report COVID-19 race and ethnicity data to several congressional committees, as they investigate the disproportionate effects of COVID-19 on black and Hispanic people.
Last month, a group of bipartisan members of Congress urged the Trump administration to gather data on high-risk communities in order to better understand the racial disparity and aid those communities in response to the pandemic.
Health experts say complete reports are key to addressing COVID-19 disparities in communities of color.
“Thus far, the fragmented data we are getting from HHS, state, and local sources paint a very fragmented, but troubling picture,” Northeastern University health policy expert Leo Beletsky told BuzzFeed News in an email. “Systematic national data are necessary to understand the full scope of the issue and to target resources where they are most needed.
Beletsky went further to suggest the administration’s slow-walk of the data is an effort to avoid criticism of its coronavirus response and conversations about longstanding health disparities among people of color.
“Ultimately, these data will force some very difficult conversations about bungled responses so far, as well as about broader questions of race and racism in America. This is why agencies are dragging their feet on making these analyses available to lawmakers and the public.”
Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley, who also signed onto the initial letter to the CDC asking for race and ethnicity data for COVID-19, told reporters on Wednesday that black people represent nearly 40% of all COVID-19 cases in Boston (38% according to city data), despite being 25% of the population.
“We will use every tool at our disposal to uncover why this administration waited so long to take any action and make clear the grave consequences of their inaction,” Pressley told reporters on a call. “And while oversight is critical, we must also keep up the pressure on this administration to take action now before we are robbed, unnecessarily, of even more lives.”
Sen. Tim Scott, the lone black Republican senator and the only GOP member to call on the CDC to provide race and ethnicity data of COVID-19 victims, is instead urging states to report their own data.
“In South Carolina, we regularly receive and can readily access disaggregated demographic data on both cases and fatalities,” Scott told BuzzFeed News in a statement. “Our model is effective and consistent, and I hope other states and stakeholders would follow suit in reporting these critical numbers that can only help us stop the spread in our most vulnerable communities.”
As of Wednesday, black people, who make up about 27% of South Carolina’s population, accounted for 52% of the coronavirus cases, according to state data.
The House-passed Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act (HEROES) also would require the CDC to provide race and ethnicity data to Congress with money to assist states with their collection of data. But that bill has not passed the Senate, where Republicans have said the legislation is dead on arrival.
In the meantime, the CDC is still required to provide another report within 30 days of the one just released.
“We are not done pushing for answers and action here, not by a long shot,” Murray said.


buzzfeed--2020-05-28--Sen. Richard Burr, Who Is Under Investigation For Selling Stocks After A Coronavirus Briefing, Is St

Sen. Richard Burr, Who Is Under Investigation For Selling Stocks After A Coronavirus Briefing, Is Stepping Down From A Key Committee Post

BuzzFeed News has reporters across five continents bringing you trustworthy stories about the impact of the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member and sign up for our newsletter , Outbreak Today .
WASHINGTON — A powerful Republican senator who is under federal investigation for selling stocks after receiving private briefings on the coronavirus outbreak is stepping down as the leader of the committee that oversees the nation ’ s spy agencies .
North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr , the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee , will leave the position Friday , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Sen .
Burr contacted me this morning to inform me of his decision to step aside as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee during the pendency of the investigation , ” McConnell said Thursday .
“ We agreed that this decision would be in the best interests of the committee and will be effective at the end of the day tomorrow.
” The announcement comes a day after FBI agents served Burr with a search warrant and seized a cellphone that belonged to him at his DC-area home , the Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant escalation in the federal probe of Burr ’ s stock activities in the weeks before the coronavirus outbreak decimated US markets .
In February , he unloaded between $ 628,000 and $ 1.72 million in stocks as he was receiving regular private briefings about the virus .
In March , when ProPublica first revealed the stock sales , Burr said he `` relied solely on public news reports '' to guide his stock activity and asked the Senate Ethics Committee to review the issue .
But since then , the Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commission have been scrutinizing the sales .
Members of Congress are banned from using the non-public information they glean as lawmakers to inform stock transactions .
Burr has served as chair of the committee — which partially oversees the FBI — since 2015 , and has served as a member for more than a decade ( which he will continue to do ) .
He told reporters on Thursday that he didn ’ t want to “ become a distraction to the committee work — a committee that ’ s really , really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I thought this was the best thing to do , ” he said .
Burr isn ’ t the only senator to face scrutiny over recent stock sales .
Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler , a Republican who joined the Senate in January , has faced backlash for selling millions in stocks the same day all senators received a private briefing about the coronavirus outbreak .
And like Burr , California Sen. Dianne Feinstein , a former chair of the Intelligence Committee and current member , has been asked to provide information to federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed on Thursday .
She reported selling stocks in a biotechnology company in late January , but has said she ’ s “ held all assets in a blind trust of which I have no control.
” “ Senator Feinstein was asked some basic questions by law enforcement about her husband ’ s stock transactions , as I think all offices in the initial story were , ” a spokesperson said in a statement .
“ She was happy to voluntarily answer those questions to set the record straight and provided additional documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her husband ’ s transactions .
There have been no follow up actions on this issue .
”

WASHINGTON — A powerful Republican senator who is under federal investigation for selling stocks after receiving private briefings on the coronavirus outbreak is stepping down as the leader of the committee that oversees the nation’s spy agencies.
North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, will leave the position Friday, according to a statement from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
“Sen. Burr contacted me this morning to inform me of his decision to step aside as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee during the pendency of the investigation,” McConnell said Thursday. “We agreed that this decision would be in the best interests of the committee and will be effective at the end of the day tomorrow.”
The announcement comes a day after FBI agents served Burr with a search warrant and seized a cellphone that belonged to him at his DC-area home, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The search warrant represented a significant escalation in the federal probe of Burr’s stock activities in the weeks before the coronavirus outbreak decimated US markets. In February, he unloaded between $628,000 and $1.72 million in stocks as he was receiving regular private briefings about the virus. In March, when ProPublica first revealed the stock sales, Burr said he "relied solely on public news reports" to guide his stock activity and asked the Senate Ethics Committee to review the issue. But since then, the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission have been scrutinizing the sales. Members of Congress are banned from using the non-public information they glean as lawmakers to inform stock transactions.
Burr has served as chair of the committee — which partially oversees the FBI — since 2015, and has served as a member for more than a decade (which he will continue to do). He told reporters on Thursday that he didn’t want to “become a distraction to the committee work — a committee that’s really, really important to the national security.”
“I thought this was the best thing to do,” he said.
Burr isn’t the only senator to face scrutiny over recent stock sales. Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler, a Republican who joined the Senate in January, has faced backlash for selling millions in stocks the same day all senators received a private briefing about the coronavirus outbreak.
And like Burr, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a former chair of the Intelligence Committee and current member, has been asked to provide information to federal agents about stock sales, her office confirmed on Thursday. She reported selling stocks in a biotechnology company in late January, but has said she’s “held all assets in a blind trust of which I have no control.”
“Senator Feinstein was asked some basic questions by law enforcement about her husband’s stock transactions, as I think all offices in the initial story were,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “She was happy to voluntarily answer those questions to set the record straight and provided additional documents to show she had no involvement in her husband’s transactions. There have been no follow up actions on this issue.”


buzzfeed--2020-05-29--Twitter Put A "Glorifying Violence" Warning Label On A Trump Tweet About Minneapolis Protesters

“ We 've taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts , '' the social media network said of Trump 's tweet .
Twitter put a warning label on a tweet by President Donald Trump about the Minneapolis protests early on Friday , saying that it violated the company ’ s rules about `` glorifying violence . ''
The social network did not remove the tweet , instead letting users click on a link next to the label to view it .
The tweet , the second in a two-part thread from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sparked by the death of George Floyd , `` when the looting starts , the shooting starts . ''
Floyd ’ s death , which came after a police officer crushed his neck under his knee while arresting him , has led to violent protests in Minneapolis this week .
On Thursday night , protesters clashed with officers in the area and set a police building on fire .
The phrase `` when the looting starts , the shooting starts '' has a history .
In 1967 , Miami Police Chief Walter Headley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests in black neighborhoods .
Twitter ’ s decision came after it took similar action earlier this week , labeling a Trump tweet about mail-in ballots as misleading .
That decision infuriated the White House , leading the president to sign an executive order on Thursday targeting social media platforms .
Though the order was short on details , legal scholars argued that it would hamstring social media companies from taking further steps against Trump .
But Twitter doubled down early Friday with its `` glorifying violence '' label , which it added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tweet .
Users will be unable to like , reply to , or retweet the tweet , although retweets with a comment are still possible .
“ You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people , ” Twitter rules state .
“ We also prohibit the glorification of violence.
” The rules were updated in March 2019 .
Asked for comment , a Twitter spokesperson directed BuzzFeed News to a Twitter thread from the company ’ s public relations account .
“ We 've taken action in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspired to commit violent acts , but have kept the Tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the Tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance , ” the company said .
While Twitter typically forces users to remove or delete tweets glorifying violence , it has said in the past that there is a higher standard when it comes to taking action against messages from world leaders .
Trump has previously used his Twitter account , which has more than 80 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nuclear war .
Twitter did not take action against those messages .
As of publication time , Trump has not tweeted again since the label was added .

Twitter’s decision came after it took similar action earlier this week, labeling a Trump tweet about mail-in ballots as misleading. That decision infuriated the White House, leading the president to sign an executive order on Thursday targeting social media platforms.
But Twitter doubled down Friday with its "glorifying violence" label, which it added more than two hours after Trump sent the tweet. Users will be unable to like, reply to, or retweet the tweet, although retweets with a comment are still possible.
“You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people,” Twitter rules state. “We also prohibit the glorification of violence.” The rules were updated in March 2019.
In a Twitter thread on the company’s public relations account, Twitter defended the move.
“We've taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts, but have kept the Tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the Tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance,” the company said.
While Twitter typically forces users to remove or delete tweets glorifying violence, it has said in the past that there is a higher standard for world leaders. Trump has previously used his Twitter account, which has more than 80 million followers, to flirt with the idea of nuclear war. Twitter did not take action against those messages.
Despite Twitter's action on Trump's timeline, the official White House Twitter account quote-tweeted Trump's original post with the same text on Friday morning. Twitter subsequently put the same warning label on the White House's tweet as well.


buzzfeed--2020-05-29--Forget Trump’s Executive Order. Some Lawmakers Want To Use Antitrust To Really Take On Big Tech.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting social media companies Thursday , but despite a lengthy Oval Office diatribe , it ’ s not clear whether it will actually do anything .
“ It isn ’ t going to meaningfully change anything , and I think it ’ s not serious , ” Sarah Miller , executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project , an anti-monopoly think tank , told BuzzFeed News .
But Miller said a “ much more important and serious ” conversation was going on elsewhere in the government : how to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies .
Federal regulators mostly sat back as companies like Google and Facebook gobbled up competitors and grew into massive platforms .
But now a growing number of lawmakers from both parties are arguing that these platforms have become akin to public utilities that need oversight — or something more drastic .
Their motivations don ’ t always align .
Democratic concerns center on social media platforms monetizing the spread of disinformation and corroding the public discourse .
Republicans have accused Facebook and Twitter of silencing conservatives .
But in both cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers of the tech companies .
The results could range from new restrictions on how companies can exploit the personal data of their users , a rewriting of liability laws , or antitrust lawsuits to split the largest companies apart .
Advocates in this unusual bipartisan alliance range from progressive leaders like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Pramila Jayapal to Trump ’ s strongest loyalists .

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting social media companies Thursday, but despite a lengthy Oval Office diatribe, it’s not clear whether it will actually do anything.
“It isn’t going to meaningfully change anything, and I think it’s not serious,” Sarah Miller, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, an anti-monopoly think tank, told BuzzFeed News.
But Miller said a “much more important and serious” conversation was going on elsewhere in the government: how to use antitrust laws to rein in big tech companies.
Federal regulators mostly sat back as companies like Google and Facebook gobbled up competitors and grew into massive platforms. But now a growing number of lawmakers from both parties are arguing that these platforms have become akin to public utilities that need oversight — or something more drastic.
Their motivations don’t always align. Democratic concerns center on social media platforms monetizing the spread of disinformation and corroding the public discourse. Republicans have accused Facebook and Twitter of silencing conservatives.
But in both cases, the solution involves the government checking the powers of the tech companies. The results could range from new restrictions on how companies can exploit the personal data of their users, a rewriting of liability laws, or antitrust lawsuits to split the largest companies apart.
Advocates in this unusual bipartisan alliance range from progressive leaders like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Pramila Jayapal to Trump’s strongest loyalists.


buzzfeed--2020-05-29--Trump Wants To Help Conservatives Sue Twitter For Censorship, But He’ll Face An Obstacle: Justice Br

Trump Wants To Help Conservatives Sue Twitter For Censorship, But He’ll Face An Obstacle: Justice Brett Kavanaugh

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday aimed at making it easier for people to sue Twitter and other social media platforms for what Trump and his allies have denounced as unconstitutional political censorship .
But any future First Amendment lawsuits that Trump has in mind will run into a problem that his order doesn ’ t appear to address : a US Supreme Court decision written by a justice he appointed , Brett Kavanaugh .
Trump ’ s executive order doesn ’ t — and couldn ’ t — change Supreme Court precedent .
Last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private companies aren ’ t government actors subject to the First Amendment ’ s free speech protections just because they open their platforms to the public .
Kavanaugh , one of Trump ’ s two appointees to the Supreme Court , wrote the opinion .
Just this week , the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit cited that Kavanaugh opinion when a three-judge panel rejected a First Amendment claim against Twitter , Facebook , Google , and Apple brought by conservative activists , including far-right media personality Laura Loomer , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ censored in violation of the First Amendment .
And earlier this year , the 9th Circuit relied on the same Kavanaugh opinion to reject an appeal from Prager University , a nonprofit that produces videos about conservative issues , which had sued YouTube for restricting access to some of its videos .
“ Social media platforms are not the government , they are not public fora , trying to superimpose that kind of framework on this makes no sense , and the courts have uniformly held that , ” First Amendment lawyer Bob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s law firm Davis Wright Tremaine has represented BuzzFeed News . )
Trump ’ s order concerns Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , which broadly says that companies that serve as platforms for third-party speech , like Twitter or Facebook , aren ’ t liable for what people post on their sites .
It also says that these companies can ’ t be sued for acting in “ good faith ” to restrict or take down “ obscene , lewd , lascivious , filthy , excessively violent , harassing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contends social media companies aren ’ t acting in “ good faith ” and are using Section 230 as a shield to censor conservative voices .
Trump signed the order after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets and flagged them as containing “ potentially misleading information.
” “ It is the policy of the United States to ensure that , to the maximum extent permissible under the law , this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in ‘ good faith ’ to remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or pretextual actions ( often contrary to their stated terms of service ) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree , ” the executive order states .
The executive order doesn ’ t change anything about how Section 230 is applied in court right away .
Trump directed agencies to propose new rules and draft legislation for Congress that would chip away at the immunity social media companies have against being sued .
The question of just how much immunity social media platforms should get has come up in the federal courts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reasons Trump articulated in Thursday ’ s order .
Victims of terrorism and their families have tried to sue tech companies for serving as platforms for groups such as ISIS to recruit , but they ’ ve lost , in part because courts have found that social media sites are immune under Section 230 .
Rather than focusing on political speech , Attorney General Bill Barr brought up terrorism cases in a speech in February as one area where Section 230 had “ severely diminished ” the power of other tools Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Daniel Weininger , a lawyer for families involved in some of the terrorism-related cases , told BuzzFeed News that it didn ’ t appear Trump ’ s executive order would directly address the Section 230 issues that have come up in their cases .
“ The administration ’ s concern seems to be some sort of pressing the thumbs on the scale of the content that ’ s posted on the platform , and what we ’ re driving at is that there needs to be more activity from the big three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] with respect to the content that is on there , ” Weininger said .
“ We are asking for more vigilance in terms of policing the content.
” Trump ’ s order is couched in terms of the First Amendment .
The first section reads : “ Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy .
Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution .
… In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression , we can not allow a limited number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Americans may access and convey on the internet.
” Several courts have cited Kavanaugh ’ s June 2019 opinion in rejecting First Amendment claims against online platforms .
That case , Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck , wasn ’ t about social media ; it involved a private nonprofit that operated a public access TV channel in New York .
The nonprofit faced a First Amendment claim after it suspended people from the network who had criticized the nonprofit .
Kavanaugh , joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Neil Gorsuch ( Trump ’ s other Supreme Court pick ) , wrote that the nonprofit wasn ’ t acting as a government entity just because it opened up the channel to public speech .
As a private actor , and not a state actor , the nonprofit was “ not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion , ” Kavanaugh wrote .
In February , the 9th Circuit relied on Halleck when it upheld the dismissal of Prager University ’ s lawsuit against YouTube , which had restricted access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos and limited advertising .
The 9th Circuit found that the Supreme Court was clear that private entities don ’ t become state actors just because they operate as a public forum for speech .
“ PragerU ’ s attempt to foist a ‘ public forum ’ label on YouTube by claiming that YouTube declared itself a public forum ... fails .
YouTube ’ s representation that it is committed to freedom of expression , or a single statement made by its executive before a congressional committee that she considers YouTube to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not somehow convert private property into a public forum , ” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the three-judge panel .
And in yesterday ’ s DC Circuit order , a three-judge panel wrote that a First Amendment claim against Google , Facebook , Twitter , and Apple brought by Loomer and conservative advocacy group Freedom Watch failed because there was no evidence that the platforms were “ engaged in state action.
” “ In general , the First Amendment ‘ prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech , ’ ” the DC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had included the italics for emphasis in his opinion .
“ Freedom Watch contends that , because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech , they are engaged in state action .
But , under Halleck , ‘ a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor .
’ ”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday aimed at making it easier for people to sue Twitter and other social media platforms for what Trump and his allies have denounced as unconstitutional political censorship.
But any future First Amendment lawsuits that Trump has in mind will run into a problem that his order doesn’t appear to address: a US Supreme Court decision written by a justice he appointed, Brett Kavanaugh.
Trump’s executive order doesn’t — and couldn’t — change Supreme Court precedent. Last year, the court ruled 5–4 that private companies aren’t government actors subject to the First Amendment’s free speech protections just because they open their platforms to the public. Kavanaugh, one of Trump’s two appointees to the Supreme Court, wrote the opinion.
Just this week, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit cited that Kavanaugh opinion when a three-judge panel rejected a First Amendment claim against Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple brought by conservative activists, including far-right media personality Laura Loomer, who argued they’d been deplatformed and censored in violation of the First Amendment.
And earlier this year, the 9th Circuit relied on the same Kavanaugh opinion to reject an appeal from Prager University, a nonprofit that produces videos about conservative issues, which had sued YouTube for restricting access to some of its videos.
“Social media platforms are not the government, they are not public fora, trying to superimpose that kind of framework on this makes no sense, and the courts have uniformly held that,” First Amendment lawyer Bob Corn-Revere told BuzzFeed News. (Corn-Revere’s law firm Davis Wright Tremaine has represented BuzzFeed News.)
Trump’s order concerns Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which broadly says that companies that serve as platforms for third-party speech, like Twitter or Facebook, aren’t liable for what people post on their sites. It also says that these companies can’t be sued for acting in “good faith” to restrict or take down “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” material.
Trump contends social media companies aren’t acting in “good faith” and are using Section 230 as a shield to censor conservative voices. Trump signed the order after Twitter fact-checked two of his tweets and flagged them as containing “potentially misleading information.”
“It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in ‘good faith’ to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree,” the executive order states.
The executive order doesn’t change anything about how Section 230 is applied in court right away. Trump directed agencies to propose new rules and draft legislation for Congress that would chip away at the immunity social media companies have against being sued.
The question of just how much immunity social media platforms should get has come up in the federal courts in recent years, but not always for the reasons Trump articulated in Thursday’s order. Victims of terrorism and their families have tried to sue tech companies for serving as platforms for groups such as ISIS to recruit, but they’ve lost, in part because courts have found that social media sites are immune under Section 230.
Rather than focusing on political speech, Attorney General Bill Barr brought up terrorism cases in a speech in February as one area where Section 230 had “severely diminished” the power of other tools Congress adopted to provide relief to victims. But Daniel Weininger, a lawyer for families involved in some of the terrorism-related cases, told BuzzFeed News that it didn’t appear Trump’s executive order would directly address the Section 230 issues that have come up in their cases.
“The administration’s concern seems to be some sort of pressing the thumbs on the scale of the content that’s posted on the platform, and what we’re driving at is that there needs to be more activity from the big three [Facebook, Google, and Twitter] with respect to the content that is on there,” Weininger said. “We are asking for more vigilance in terms of policing the content.”
Trump’s order is couched in terms of the First Amendment. The first section reads: “Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. … In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.”
Several courts have cited Kavanaugh’s June 2019 opinion in rejecting First Amendment claims against online platforms. That case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, wasn’t about social media; it involved a private nonprofit that operated a public access TV channel in New York. The nonprofit faced a First Amendment claim after it suspended people from the network who had criticized the nonprofit. Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr., and Neil Gorsuch (Trump’s other Supreme Court pick), wrote that the nonprofit wasn’t acting as a government entity just because it opened up the channel to public speech.
As a private actor, and not a state actor, the nonprofit was “not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion,” Kavanaugh wrote.
In February, the 9th Circuit relied on Halleck when it upheld the dismissal of Prager University’s lawsuit against YouTube, which had restricted access to some of the organization’s videos and limited advertising. The 9th Circuit found that the Supreme Court was clear that private entities don’t become state actors just because they operate as a public forum for speech.
“PragerU’s attempt to foist a ‘public forum’ label on YouTube by claiming that YouTube declared itself a public forum ... fails. YouTube’s representation that it is committed to freedom of expression, or a single statement made by its executive before a congressional committee that she considers YouTube to be a ‘neutral public fora,’ cannot somehow convert private property into a public forum,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the three-judge panel.
And in yesterday’s DC Circuit order, a three-judge panel wrote that a First Amendment claim against Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Apple brought by Loomer and conservative advocacy group Freedom Watch failed because there was no evidence that the platforms were “engaged in state action.”
“In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,’” the DC Circuit panel wrote, quoting Kavanaugh, who had included the italics for emphasis in his opinion. “Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But, under Halleck, ‘a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.’”
Larry Klayman, the founder of Freedom Watch, told BuzzFeed News that the executive order wouldn't directly address the DC Circuit's First Amendment analysis in his case about what counted as a "public forum," but he said he thought the administration was trying to "blunt" the decision and others like it.


buzzfeed--2020-05-29--There Was A Pretty Loud Fart Noise During A Joe Biden Livestream

In the first week of this hell month , we heard someone flushing a toilet during a live hearing of @ @ @ @ @ now May is ending with a large fart noise .
A livestreamed campaign video chat @ @ @ @ @ Biden and Pennsylvania Gov .
Tom Wolf on Wednesday was briefly muffled by the sound @ @ @ @ @ a very wet fart .
Biden was asking about what `` the human cost '' @ @ @ @ @ more federal money does n't arrive to help with the coronavirus economic recovery when the @ @ @ @ @ appeared to lean back in his chair at the same time as the noise , @ @ @ @ @ and shake his head shortly after .

In the first week of this hell month, we heard someone flushing a toilet during a live hearing of the Supreme Court. And now May is ending with a large fart noise.
A livestreamed campaign video chat between presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf on Wednesday was briefly muffled by the sound of what appeared to be a very wet fart.
Biden was asking about what "the human cost" looks like in Pennsylvania if more federal money doesn't arrive to help with the coronavirus economic recovery when the toot rang out.
He appeared to lean back in his chair at the same time as the noise, while Wolf appeared to blink and shake his head shortly after.


buzzfeed--2020-05-30--Despite Calling Trump’s Post On Minneapolis “Divisive And Inflammatory,” Mark Zuckerberg Says It Wil

Despite Calling Trump’s Post On Minneapolis “Divisive And Inflammatory,” Mark Zuckerberg Says It Will Still Be Allowed On Facebook

“ I know many people are upset that we 've left the President 's posts up , but our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies , ” Zuckerberg wrote .
“ We looked very closely at the post that discussed the protests in Minnesota to evaluate whether it violated our policies .
Although the post had a troubling historical reference , we decided to leave it up because the National Guard references meant we read it as a warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook update , Zuckerberg explained that a Thursday post from Trump ’ s personal account stating that “ once the looting starts , the shooting starts ” would be allowed to remain because “ people need to know if the government is planning to deploy force.
” The explanation came about 16 hours after Twitter took action against an identical message posted on its platform , placing a warning label on Trump ’ s tweet and preventing users from liking or retweeting it .
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Friday that the social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by President Donald Trump on the Minneapolis protests , despite his own personal feeling that it contained “ divisive and inflammatory rhetoric.
” Facebook ’ s decision follows a week in which Zuckerberg publicly criticized a separate decision by Twitter to label two Trump tweets about mail-in ballots as misleading .
Twitter ’ s decision sparked allegations of political bias against conservatives and led Trump to sign an executive order on Thursday that sought to undercut the legal protections given to internet companies for content posted on their platforms .
Facebook has since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eliminating the protections afforded to social media companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would chill online speech .
On Thursday , Trump wrote that “ THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd , ” referring to ongoing protests in Minneapolis following the death of a 46-year-old black man while being arrested by a white officer .
“ Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way , ” Trump wrote on Facebook and Twitter .
“ Any difficulty and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looting starts , the shooting starts .
Thank you !
” The phrase `` when the looting starts , the shooting starts '' dates to 1967 , when Miami Police Chief Walter Headley used it to describe his approach to protests in black neighborhoods .
Given the context , Twitter hid the tweet behind an interstitial , allowing users to read it if they clicked through a warning link .
Facebook , as Zuckerberg explained , has taken a different approach .
“ Unlike Twitter , we do not have a policy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence , it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy , even if it comes from a politician , ” he wrote .
“ We have been in touch with the White House today to explain these policies as well.
” Following his posts on Thursday night , Trump walked back his message 14 hours later on Friday by explaining on Facebook that his comment about shootings was “ spoken as a fact , not as a statement ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may occur during civil unrest .
Zuckerberg said that explanation was taken into account when deciding on what to do with the post .
“ Our policy around incitement of violence allows discussion around state use of force , although I think today 's situation raises important questions about what potential limits of that discussion should be , ” Zuckerberg wrote .

Facebook’s decision follows a week in which Zuckerberg publicly criticized a separate decision by Twitter to label two Trump tweets about mail-in ballots as misleading. Twitter’s decision sparked allegations of political bias against conservatives and led Trump to sign an executive order on Thursday that sought to undercut the legal protections given to internet companies for content posted on their platforms.
Facebook has since criticized that executive order, noting that eliminating the protections afforded to social media companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would chill online speech.
On Thursday, Trump wrote that “THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd,” referring to ongoing protests in Minneapolis following the death of a 46-year-old unarmed black man while being arrested by a white officer.
“Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way,” Trump wrote on Facebook and Twitter. “Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”
The phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" dates to 1967, when Miami Police Chief Walter Headley used it to describe his approach to protests in black neighborhoods. Given the context, Twitter hid the tweet behind an interstitial, allowing users to read it if they clicked through a warning link.
Facebook, as Zuckerberg explained, has taken a different approach.
“Unlike Twitter, we do not have a policy of putting a warning in front of posts that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence, it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy, even if it comes from a politician,” he wrote. “We have been in touch with the White House today to explain these policies as well.”
A Twitter spokesperson declined to comment on Facebook’s decision.
Following his posts on Thursday night, Trump walked back his message 14 hours later on Friday by explaining on Facebook that his comment about shootings was “spoken as a fact, not as a statement” and meant to reference general violence that may occur during civil unrest. Zuckerberg said that that explanation was taken into account when deciding what to do with the post.
“Our policy around incitement of violence allows discussion around state use of force, although I think today's situation raises important questions about what potential limits of that discussion should be,” Zuckerberg wrote.


buzzfeed--2020-05-29--The Protests Against George Floyd's Death Make Some People Uncomfortable. That's The Point.

Left : Protesters confront police at the Michigan House of Representatives chamber after protesting for the reopening of businesses in Lansing , Michigan , April 30 .
Right : A protester stands face-to-face with a Minnesota state trooper on May 29 after another night of demonstrations over the death of George Floyd , who died in police custody Monday in Minneapolis .
Consider the following questions a kind of Myers-Briggs personality test for how you feel about protests .
What bothers you more : images of armed white protesters storming the Michigan State Capitol and screaming at police in late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can exercise their rights to possibly contract the coronavirus , or images of demonstrators setting buildings on fire in Minneapolis while protesting the death of a black man named George Floyd , who died while in police custody ?
The Michigan protesters were armed with assault rifles and bulletproof vests ; no national guard was dispatched there .
Meanwhile , the Minneapolis protesters were demanding criminal charges for Derek Chauvin , the police officer who crushed Floyd ’ s neck with his knee for eight minutes as Floyd gasped for air , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against him throughout his career , all closed without disciplinary measures , except one .
( Chauvin was finally arrested and charged with murder this morning . )
This is a unique time for protest in America .
Black Americans are still demanding that their government and police forces do something about police brutality against black people and the general spate of violence against unarmed black people .
( Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed by a retired police officer and his son in Georgia in January , and the perpetrators have only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after video leaked . )
But black Americans are also grappling with a pandemic that ’ s disproportionately affecting them .
And yet , despite this outsize risk , many black people still took to the streets across the country to protest the killings of Floyd and Breonna Taylor , a black EMT worker who was shot by police in her own home in Kentucky .
The police killings and the coronavirus ’ s impact are galling enough , but it ’ s only made worse by the dialogue around the protests and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loot riot and destroy you lose all moral credibility , in my eyes , to protest injustice , ” tweeted conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Wednesday .
“ Our country allows for peaceful protests , but there is no reason for violence , ” first lady Melania Trump tweeted today .
On Twitter , Tracy Clayton offered up a long list of why white people riot , including their sports team winning , their sports team losing , wanting dolls , hating disco , and being mad that black people wanted to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early this morning that looters should be shot , invoking a phrase first used by Walter Headley , a Miami police chief from the late ’ 60s who used violent tactics against black protesters in Miami at the time .
( Trump has since tweeted some version of a correction . )
There ’ s a fallacy already being presented , as if people are looting instead of attempting peaceful protests .
But what ’ s happening in Minneapolis , Louisville , Los Angeles , Denver , New York , and other parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resort .
The priorities in American life are wildly disordered .
First comes white health and safety .
Then comes white property and goods .
Then white economy .
Then white comfort .
The safety of black and brown bodies , the right to not be killed by the police when you ’ re not a threat , the right to not be pepper-sprayed or teargassed while a respiratory disease is already ripping through your community at an alarming rate , is miles behind white comfort .
What did the president call the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people.
” What did he call the Minnesotan protesters , demanding justice for Floyd ?
“ THUGS.
” If you ’ re exhausted , it ’ s because you ’ re paying attention .
This isn ’ t the first or the last time we ’ ll debate what the right way for black and brown people to protest is .
It ’ s already been made clear that peaceful protests draw an incredible amount of ire too — in 2016 , 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick knelt during the national anthem to protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Indianapolis Colts game in 2017 , Vice President Mike Pence stormed out of the game soon after arriving because some of the players kneeled during the national anthem ; in this case , this peaceful protest was still too much for the government to tolerate .
Protesting peacefully — without disturbing property and buildings or hurting anyone — has still become a major touchstone of the American culture wars anyway .
Years later , Kaepernick is still effectively shut out from the NFL .

Consider the following questions a kind of Myers-Briggs personality test for how you feel about protests. What bothers you more: images of armed white protesters storming the Michigan State Capitol and screaming at police in late April, demanding the state reopen so they can exercise their rights to possibly contract the coronavirus, or images of demonstrators setting buildings on fire in Minneapolis while protesting the death of a black man named George Floyd, who died while in police custody?
The Michigan protesters were armed with assault rifles and bulletproof vests; no national guard was dispatched there. Meanwhile, the Minneapolis protesters were demanding criminal charges for Derek Chauvin, the police officer who crushed Floyd’s neck with his knee for eight minutes as Floyd gasped for air, the same officer who had 17 complaints against him throughout his career, all closed without disciplinary measures, except one. (Chauvin was finally arrested and charged with murder this morning.)
This is a unique time for protest in America. Black Americans are still demanding that their government and police forces do something about police brutality against black people and the general spate of violence against unarmed black people. (Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed by a retired police officer and his son in Georgia in January, and the perpetrators have only now been arrested and charged with murder after video leaked.) But black Americans are also grappling with a pandemic that’s disproportionately affecting them. And yet, despite this outsize risk, many black people still took to the streets across the country to protest the killings of Floyd and Breonna Taylor, a black EMT worker who was shot by police in her own home in Kentucky.
The police killings and the coronavirus’s impact are galling enough, but it’s only made worse by the dialogue around the protests and riots happening now. “If you loot riot and destroy you lose all moral credibility, in my eyes, to protest injustice,” tweeted conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Wednesday. “Our country allows for peaceful protests, but there is no reason for violence,” first lady Melania Trump tweeted today.
On Twitter, Tracy Clayton offered up a long list of why white people riot, including their sports team winning, their sports team losing, wanting dolls, hating disco, and being mad that black people wanted to go to school. Meanwhile the president tweeted early this morning that looters should be shot, invoking a phrase first used by Walter Headley, a Miami police chief from the late ’60s who used violent tactics against black protesters in Miami at the time. (Trump has since tweeted some version of a correction.) There’s a fallacy already being presented, as if people are looting instead of attempting peaceful protests. But what’s happening in Minneapolis, Louisville, Los Angeles, Denver, New York, and other parts of the country is actually a last resort.
The priorities in American life are wildly disordered. First comes white health and safety. Then comes white property and goods. Then white economy. Then white comfort. The safety of black and brown bodies, the right to not be killed by the police when you’re not a threat, the right to not be pepper-sprayed or teargassed while a respiratory disease is already ripping through your community at an alarming rate, is miles behind white comfort.
What did the president call the armed Michigan protesters? “Very good people.” What did he call the Minnesotan protesters, demanding justice for Floyd? “THUGS.”
If you’re exhausted, it’s because you’re paying attention. This isn’t the first or the last time we’ll debate what the right way for black and brown people to protest is. It’s already been made clear that peaceful protests draw an incredible amount of ire too — in 2016, 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick knelt during the national anthem to protest deaths like Floyd’s. At an Indianapolis Colts game in 2017, Vice President Mike Pence stormed out of the game soon after arriving because some of the players kneeled during the national anthem; in this case, this peaceful protest was still too much for the government to tolerate. Protesting peacefully — without disturbing property and buildings or hurting anyone — has still become a major touchstone of the American culture wars anyway. Years later, Kaepernick is still effectively shut out from the NFL.


buzzfeed--2020-05-30--Mueller Memos Part 7: These Documents Reveal What People Close To The President Told Mueller’s Team

Mueller Memos Part 7: These Documents Reveal What People Close To The President Told Mueller’s Team About Trump And Russia

BuzzFeed News sued the US government under the Freedom of Information Act for the right to see all the work that Robert Mueller ’ s team kept secret .
Today we are publishing the seventh installment of the FBI ’ s summaries of interviews with witnesses in the investigation .
The newest batch of documents shows that on Nov. 20 , 2017 , agents interviewed an individual whose name is redacted , but who is identified as a female Trump campaign staffer and transition official who went on to work for the National Security Council .
The person told investigators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump campaign after Walid Phares , who worked on Trump ’ s foreign policy team , connected her with the campaign .
The FBI had investigated whether Phares was secretly working for the Egyptian government to influence the campaign , the New York Times recently reported .
The interview with the unnamed woman shows investigators were interested in what she knew about the connections between Phares and Egypt .
The woman told the FBI that she “ received several emails from Phares ” while he was on a trip to Egypt in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to set up a meeting between then-candidate Trump and Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi .
The two men ended up meeting that month , and the woman believed “ the meeting was eventually coordinated through officials from the Egyptian Embassy and the Trump campaign.
” She also said that Phares , using the secure messaging app Viber , “ emphasized the importance of the email messages to the campaign ” and that she “ printed off copies of both emails and placed them on the chair of campaign chief executive STEVE BANNON @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She also said Phares “ may have traveled to the United Arab Emirates around the same time he went to Egypt.
” Investigators also asked the woman about her own contacts with Egyptians , whose names are all redacted .
Phares was never charged with a crime .
Records released to BuzzFeed News and CNN last year showed that Paul Manafort was still advising the Trump campaign three days before Election Day in 2016 — despite his having been fired as campaign manager nearly three months earlier .
That fact , wrote Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bannon , in an email , needed to be kept secret or “ they are going to try to say the Russians worked with wiki leaks to give this victory to us.
” Rick Gates , Manafort ’ s longtime business partner who served as deputy campaign chair to Trump , told investigators during an April 10 , 2018 , interview that after it was revealed that the Democratic National Committee ’ s computer server had been compromised , Manafort began pushing the idea that Ukraine had orchestrated the hack .
That unfounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the US intelligence community concluded Russia was in fact responsible .
Indeed , during the July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that eventually provoked Trump 's impeachment , he asked Zelensky to help investigate the Ukraine hack theory .
A day after Gates spoke to Mueller ’ s investigators , Trump ’ s son-in-law Jared Kushner was interviewed by the team .
He described a meeting he had prior to the election with Sergey Kislyak , the Russian ambassador at the time , who told him : `` we like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's refreshing . ''
“ They discussed Syria and having the Russian generals brief ” then–national security adviser Michael Flynn , Kushner told the investigators .
According to the 33-page interview summary , Kushner asked whether they could create a back-channel line of communication with the Kremlin via the Russian Embassy in Washington .
Kislyak waved off that proposal , the records show , and later told another Trump adviser that Kushner “ should meet with someone else who was a better channel through which to communicate to Putin.
” The 448-page Mueller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ document in a generation .
But it reflected only a tiny fraction of the primary-source documents that Mueller ’ s team had amassed over the course of its two-year probe .
In May 2019 , BuzzFeed News , and later CNN , filed FOIA lawsuits against the FBI and the Justice Department to gain access to the thousands of pages of interview summaries of the witnesses who spoke to FBI agents and prosecutors .
Following an October ruling by a federal judge ordering the release of the documents , the two agencies began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under the court order , they must disclose records every month , and thus far , the government has released summaries of more than 100 interviews — totaling nearly 2,000 pages — of some of the more than 500 witnesses who spoke to Mueller ’ s team during the course of the investigation .
The majority of documents released so far under the court order have been heavily redacted , leaving vast swaths of information about the case obscured from view .
BuzzFeed News has challenged some of those redactions , arguing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government has cited to justify the withholdings is legally unfounded , politically motivated , and was implemented solely to protect the president .
Although the Mueller investigation led to 37 indictments and seven convictions , Trump has aggressively sought to discredit it , repeatedly referring to it as a “ witch hunt.
” His efforts have been supported by Attorney General Bill Barr , who has been accused of intentionally misrepresenting Mueller ’ s findings and who has taken the highly unusual step of intervening in several cases related to the investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took the extraordinary step of asking a judge to dismiss charges against Flynn , Trump ’ s former national security adviser , despite the fact that he had voluntarily pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI .
Barr claimed in an interview with CBS Evening News early this month that the FBI had tried to lay a “ perjury trap ” for Flynn .
Last year , Barr also tapped a US attorney in Connecticut , John Durham , to investigate the origins of the Russia probe .
BuzzFeed News is still pursuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge volume of other records generated by the Mueller investigation , including search warrants , memoranda , talking points , financial records , and legal opinions , as well as any documents that address discussions between Barr and other high-ranking Justice Department officials about the decision not to charge Trump with obstruction .
Lawyers for the DOJ , which opposes the release of those documents , have claimed they could total some 18 billion pages and take centuries to redact and release .
This is a developing story .
Check back for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The ultimate sin
A heavily redacted December 7, 2017, interview investigators conducted with former communications director Hope Hicks contains additional details about the fallout of the 2016 Trump Tower meeting where Donald Trump, Jr. and other senior campaign officials were offered dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Trump and Trump, Jr. had publicly said the meeting was focused on Russian adoption, leaving out the offer of compromising information on Clinton. Hicks told investigators she told Trump that The New York Times obtained emails that contradicted the president’s account.
“Trump told Hicks not to respond to the story which Hicks thought was odd since Trump usually considered not responding to be the ultimate sin,” Hicks’s interview summary said. “Trump asked Hicks to confirm this meeting was about Russian adoption to which she confirmed that’s what she thought it was about,” the interview summary said. “Trump told her to just respond with the fact it was about Russian adoption.”
The interview summary goes on to say that Trump rejected a statement she had prepared about the meeting, arguing “they were saying too much.”
“Trump told Hicks not to explain so much but just say he took a brief meeting and it was about Russian adoption.”
A fuller picture
Previous installments of the Mueller memos have revealed important new information about the investigation and the events that preceded it. Records released to BuzzFeed News and CNN last year showed that Manafort was still advising the Trump campaign three days before Election Day in 2016 — despite his having been fired as campaign manager nearly three months earlier. That fact, wrote Trump’s next campaign manager, Steve Bannon, in an email, needed to be kept secret or “they are going to try to say the Russians worked with wiki leaks to give this victory to us.”
Rick Gates, Manafort’s longtime business partner who served as deputy campaign chair, told investigators during an April 10, 2018, interview that after it was revealed that the Democratic National Committee’s computer server had been compromised, Manafort began pushing the idea that Ukraine had orchestrated the hack. That unfounded conspiracy theory persisted in right-wing circles long after the US intelligence community concluded Russia was in fact responsible. Indeed, during the July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that eventually prompted Trump's impeachment, he asked Zelensky to help investigate the Ukraine hack theory.
A day after Gates spoke to Mueller’s investigators, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was interviewed by the team. He described a meeting he had prior to the election with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador at the time, who told him: "we like what your candidate is saying. It's refreshing."
“They discussed Syria and having the Russian generals brief” then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, Kushner told the investigators. According to the 33-page interview summary, Kushner asked whether they could create a back-channel line of communication with the Kremlin via the Russian Embassy in Washington. Kislyak waved off that proposal, the records show, and later told another Trump adviser that Kushner “should meet with someone else who was a better channel through which to communicate to Putin.”
A historic document, still emerging
The 448-page Mueller report was the most hotly anticipated prosecutorial document in a generation. But it reflected only a tiny fraction of the primary-source documents that Mueller’s team had amassed over the course of its two-year probe.
In May 2019, BuzzFeed News, and later CNN, filed FOIA lawsuits against the FBI and the Justice Department to gain access to the thousands of pages of interview summaries of the witnesses who spoke to FBI agents and prosecutors. Following an October ruling by a federal judge ordering the release of the documents, the two agencies began turning over the 302s last November. Under the court order, they must disclose records every month, and thus far, the government has released summaries of more than 100 interviews — totaling nearly 2,000 pages — of some of the more than 500 witnesses who spoke to Mueller’s team during the course of the investigation.
The majority of documents released so far under the court order have been heavily redacted, leaving vast swaths of information about the case obscured from view. BuzzFeed News has challenged some of those redactions, arguing in court that one category of exemption that the government has cited to justify the withholdings is legally unfounded, politically motivated, and was implemented solely to protect the president.
Although the Mueller investigation led to 37 indictments and seven convictions, Trump has aggressively sought to discredit it, repeatedly referring to it as a “witch hunt.” His efforts have been supported by Attorney General Bill Barr, who has been accused of intentionally misrepresenting Mueller’s findings and who has taken the highly unusual step of intervening in several cases related to the investigation. Most recently, the Justice Department took the extraordinary step of asking a judge to dismiss charges against Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, despite the fact that he had voluntarily pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Barr claimed in an interview with CBS Evening News earlier this month that the FBI had tried to lay a “perjury trap” for Flynn. Last year, Barr also tapped a US attorney in Connecticut, John Durham, to investigate the origins of the Russia probe.
BuzzFeed News is still pursuing five lawsuits demanding that the government release a huge volume of other records generated by the Mueller investigation, including search warrants, memoranda, talking points, financial records, and legal opinions, as well as any documents that address discussions between Barr and other high-ranking Justice Department officials about the decision not to charge Trump with obstruction.
Lawyers for the DOJ, which opposes the release of those documents, have claimed they could total some 18 billion pages and take centuries to redact and release.