motherjones--2020-05-29--Trump’s Social Media Order Can’t Even Solve the Made Up Problem It Was Designed to Stop

In 2016 , Gizmodo published a story with a bold title : “ Former Facebook Workers : We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News.
” The article itself was more measured than the headline , but the piece set off a firestorm on the right that has spun wildly out of control .
Ever since , Republican lawmakers have pointed to the story when probing and calling out technology companies for anti-conservative bias .
The article , based on the uncorroborated recollections of two anonymous employees , was never backed up subsequent reporting , and never suggested any institutional effort to kneecap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversy has culminated in Donald Trump ’ s new executive order , issued late Thursday .
The order is aimed at stopping supposed bias against conservatives on social media platforms , but it almost certainly can ’ t do what it sets out .
That ’ s because the order , intentionally or not , sits on top of layers of misunderstandings .
The primary misunderstanding stems from a misreading of what the 2016 Gizmodo post set into motion : that there is bias at all .
If conservatives are being censored on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really figured how to prove it .
No quantitative analysis has found evidence of bias against conservatives on platforms .
Facebook even hired a former Republican senator to lead an internal investigation on conservative bias and he couldn ’ t find anything .
Anecdotal evidence doesn ’ t suggest there ’ s conservative bias either .
Liberals , leftists , and activists who aren ’ t conservative have endured bans and censorship on the platforms , while Trump , Fox News and other right-wing sites have built massive , uninhibited followings .
YouTube @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-wingers with massive followings with no real counterweight on the left .
Assuming that there actually was verifiable anti-conservative bias for a moment , the order wouldn ’ t even fix it .
Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act , the provision Trump targets , gives technology platforms legal immunity from liability for harmful user-generated content on their platforms , and allows them to engage in “ good samaritan ” moderation of “ objectionable ” content without losing that immunity .
How much and what type of content ( including political content @ @ @ @ @ @ @ users—the ground on which most conservatives have claimed they are discriminated against—isn ’ t related to this .
Assuming that the order could actually stop bias ( again , also assuming that the nonexistent bias exists ) , many lawyers think its legally dubious .
Some have been spurred to call it political theater .
Certain parts are unequivocally theater .
Trump ’ s threat to shut Twitter down is so far beyond the scope of a president ’ s powers that it can ’ t be read any other way .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be taken to court , but justified it by saying “ What isn ’ t ?
” In the end , the only thing Trump ’ s order may actually do is create a legal headache for the technology companies—which could be the entire point .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In 2016, Gizmodo published a story with a bold title: “Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News.” The article itself was more measured than the headline, but the piece set off a firestorm on the right that has spun wildly out of control.
Ever since, Republican lawmakers have pointed to the story when probing and calling out technology companies for anti-conservative bias. The article, based on the uncorroborated recollections of two anonymous employees, was never backed up subsequent reporting, and never suggested any institutional effort to kneecap conservative speech. Ultimately, the ensuing controversy has culminated in Donald Trump’s new executive order, issued late Thursday.
The order is aimed at stopping supposed bias against conservatives on social media platforms, but it almost certainly can’t do what it sets out. That’s because the order, intentionally or not, sits on top of layers of misunderstandings.
The primary misunderstanding stems from a misreading of what the 2016 Gizmodo post set into motion: that there is bias at all.
If conservatives are being censored on social media, they haven’t really figured how to prove it. No quantitative analysis has found evidence of bias against conservatives on platforms.
apropos anti-conservative bias on Twitter. @wrahool, @feedkoko and i identified the top most followed accounts on Twitter, classified their ideologies (using @p_barbera's methods) and their occupations. long story short, there is no bias against conservatives on Twitter. pic.twitter.com/kKyG0VeE4G — Yphtach Lelkes (@ylelkes) May 28, 2020
Facebook even hired a former Republican senator to lead an internal investigation on conservative bias and he couldn’t find anything. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t suggest there’s conservative bias either. Liberals, leftists, and activists who aren’t conservative have endured bans and censorship on the platforms, while Trump, Fox News and other right-wing sites have built massive, uninhibited followings. YouTube’s political sphere is dominated by right-wingers with massive followings with no real counterweight on the left.
Assuming that there actually was verifiable anti-conservative bias for a moment, the order wouldn’t even fix it. Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, the provision Trump targets, gives technology platforms legal immunity from liability for harmful user-generated content on their platforms, and allows them to engage in “good samaritan” moderation of “objectionable” content without losing that immunity. How much and what type of content (including political content) their algorithms surface and show their users—the ground on which most conservatives have claimed they are discriminated against—isn’t related to this.
Assuming that the order could actually stop bias (again, also assuming that the nonexistent bias exists), many lawyers think its legally dubious. Some have been spurred to call it political theater.
Certain parts are unequivocally theater. Trump’s threat to shut Twitter down is so far beyond the scope of a president’s powers that it can’t be read any other way. Trump himself has even acknowledged that order would be taken to court, but justified it by saying “What isn’t?”
In the end, the only thing Trump’s order may actually do is create a legal headache for the technology companies—which could be the entire point.


motherjones--2020-05-29--Why Trump’s “Looting” Tweet Was Even Worse Than You Thought

For Donald Trump , Friday began as many days do : with an eruption of controversy on Twitter .
In a tweet , the president referred to Minneapolis protesters as “ THUGS ” and added , “ Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way .
Any difficulty and we will assume control but , when the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” Twitter promptly flagged Trump ’ s tweet with a disclaimer—for the second time this week—saying it violated the social media site ’ s rules about glorifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice , as activists pointed out , also have a racist history .
The phrase “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts ” originated from Miami police chief Walter Headley in the 1960s .
The Washington Post ‘ s Michael S. Rosenwald explains : In late 1967 , as armed robberies and unrest gripped black neighborhoods in Miami , the city ’ s white police chief — a tough-talking former U.S. Army Cavalry officer who parted his hair straight down the middle — held a news conference “ declaring war ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walter Headley warned , would use shotguns and dogs at his command .
And then he uttered the phrase that President Trump drew from Friday morning on Twitter to denounce the unrest in Minnesota and elsewhere fueled by deadly police brutality .
“ I ’ ve let the word filter down that when the looting starts , the shooting starts , ” Headley said .
Headley reportedly uttered the phrase again in 1968 , amid three days of violence in Miami during the Republican National Convention .
Headley was out of town when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York Times his officers “ know what to do ” : “ When the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” ( As Rosenwald writes , Headley referred to white officers under his command as “ policemen , ” while Black officers were to be called “ patrolmen.
” ) Hours after tweeting his initial remarks Friday , the president tried to walk them back , referring to his critics as “ haters ” and insisting that he simply meant that looting could escalate into violence—not that looters should be shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters , and those looking to cause trouble on social media , ” he tweeted .

“A VOICE OF REASON.” “A DAILY DOSE OF SANITY.”
“A daily dose of sanity.” “Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
“Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
Close Thank you for subscribing!
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from Mother Jones and our partners.


motherjones--2020-05-29--Trump Rails Against China at Press Conference, Ignores Death of George Floyd

After arriving 45 minutes late to a planned press conference on the White House lawn , President Donald Trump spoke for nine minutes about his antipathy toward China—without sparing a single word to address the killing of George Floyd or the ensuing chaos in Minneapolis , While reporters in Washington , DC , waited for the president to take the podium , he sat somewhere out of sight and tweeted feeble justifications for a prior tweet in which he had said that “ THUGS ” were “ dishonoring the memory of George Floyd ” and had added , “ Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him that the Military is with him all the way .
Any difficulty and we will assume control but , when the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” In his afternoon tweets , Trump insisted that he simply meant that “ looting leads to shooting , ” not that looters should be shot .
Trump ’ s Friday afternoon tweets may have given the impression that he would address Floyd ’ s death in his remarks ; instead , he railed against China ’ s actions in Hong Kong , promised to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status as a way to punish Beijing , and vowed that the US would immediately end its relationship with the World Health Organization .
“ China raided our factories , offshored our jobs , gutted our industries , stole our intellectual property , and violated their commitments under the World Trade Organization , ” he said .
Never passing up an opportunity for a dig at former President Barack Obama , he added , “ They were able to get away with a theft like no one was able to get away with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , frankly , past presidents.
” When Trump finished speaking , he turned on his heel and left as reporters yelled questions about Floyd and Minneapolis in his wake .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
After arriving 45 minutes late to a planned press conference on the White House lawn, President Donald Trump spoke for nine minutes about his antipathy toward China—without sparing a single word to address the killing of George Floyd or the ensuing chaos in Minneapolis.
While reporters in Washington, DC, waited for the president to take the podium, he sat somewhere out of sight and tweeted feeble justifications for a prior tweet in which he had said that “THUGS” were “dishonoring the memory of George Floyd” and had added, “Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
In his afternoon tweets, Trump insisted that he simply meant that “looting leads to shooting,” not that looters should be shot.
….It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement. It’s very simple, nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media. Honor the memory of George Floyd! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2020
Trump’s Friday afternoon tweets may have given the impression that he would address Floyd’s death in his remarks; instead, he railed against China’s actions in Hong Kong, promised to revoke Hong Kong’s special trade status as a way to punish Beijing, and vowed that the US would immediately end its relationship with the World Health Organization.
“China raided our factories, offshored our jobs, gutted our industries, stole our intellectual property, and violated their commitments under the World Trade Organization,” he said. Never passing up an opportunity for a dig at former President Barack Obama, he added, “They were able to get away with a theft like no one was able to get away with before, because of past politicians and, frankly, past presidents.”
When Trump finished speaking, he turned on his heel and left as reporters yelled questions about Floyd and Minneapolis in his wake.


motherjones--2020-05-29--Trump’s Campaign Was Always Going to Be About Racism. Minnesota Just Became the Epicenter.

When President Donald Trump first weighed in on Wednesday on the caught-on-camera killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police , he was uncharacteristically subdued .
Floyd ’ s death was “ sad and tragic , ” he tweeted .
“ Justice will be served !
” By the early morning hours on Friday , this moment of compassion was at an end .
Rioters in the city were “ THUGS , ” he wrote , and he proposed sending in the National Guard to “ get the job done right.
” In a tweet so depraved that Twitter appended a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Miami cop : “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” Trump ’ s comments weren ’ t just those of a head of state addressing unrest in a major city .
They were also the words of a candidate for reelection who believes that what happens in Minnesota could make or break his chances this fall .
The president has made repeated campaign stops in the state over the last four years ; in threatening violence against protesters , he was sticking to a longstanding strategy .
Trump believes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city and casting its residents as radical refugees and “ thugs ” —by driving a huge racist wedge between the Twin Cities and all the rest—he can flip the state he lost by the smallest of margins in 2016 .
This isn ’ t the first time Trump has weighed in on a law enforcement issue in Minneapolis .
He previously positioned himself as the defender of the city ’ s police against overly PC libs—wrapping himself in the flag of “ law and order ” politics .
Last fall , ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor Jacob Frey informed police officers they could not appear at the rally in uniform .
In response , the city ’ s police union began selling special red “ Cops for Trump ” t-shirts , with an American flag overlaid on the outline of the state .
Trump weighed in : At the rally , Trump was joined on stage by Lt. Bob Kroll , head of the Minneapolis police union , who used his time on stage to attack former President Barack Obama for his “ oppression ” of law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ” t-shirt .
Following Kroll , a procession of police officers , all wearing the “ Cops of Trump ” shirt , walked across the stage to shake the president ’ s hand .
Trump even saluted one of them .
While Trump heralded the police as the most hallowed of institutions , he whipped the crowd into a frenzy against what he considered their antithesis—the city ’ s “ America-hating ” Democratic congresswoman , Ilhan Omar .
Just a few months after telling Omar , a Somali refugee and one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the House , to go back to the country she came from , Trump devoted six minutes of his address to tearing into the congresswoman .
Images of the hijab-wearing Omar flashed across the jumbotron as he spoke , just in case the crowd didn ’ t know what she looked like .
She was an “ America-hating socialist , ” he said .
Trump segued from an attack on Omar into an attack on the community she comes from and represents—the tens of thousands of Somalis living in the Twin Cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the American way of life , he warned .
( His son , Donald Trump Jr. , has even claimed that Democrats want to “ repopulate ” Maine with Somali refugees . )
Trump has not just sought to rhetorically bludgeon people of color in Minnesota , though .
He ’ s governed that way too .
In the closing stretch of the 2016 campaign , he told Minnesota voters the state had “ suffered ” because of the “ large numbers of Somali refugees coming into your state.
” He promised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t quite do that , he did effectively ban Somali refugees from coming to the United States .
In targeting a specific minority community , Trump was tapping into a very real animosity among certain white voters in Minnesota .
In a memorable 2019 New York Times story , one conservative activist put it bluntly : “ These aren ’ t people coming from Norway.
” When activists in St .
Cloud tried to shut down the city ’ s resettlement program , they made red hats , modeled off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Make St .
Cloud Great Again.
” MSCGA .
Trump ’ s campaign in Minnesota , now as ever , is rooted in white grievance and fear and what he calls “ law and order , ” by which he means targeting immigrants and people of color for abuse—by pinning all that ’ s gone wrong on blue cities and the people who live there .
He wants to pit the people he thinks he can get votes from against the people he can ’ t , and now that he sits behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t really act as if he works for the latter group too .
They serve no purpose for him , except as punching bags .
So it ’ s all going to be like this , from now until November .
Trump is going with this again , because he thinks it works and also because he can ’ t help it .
He craves power but not the responsibility that comes with it .
It ’ s not clear , however , that it ’ s any sort of political masterstroke—that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plays into his hands ” correlates at all to what is actually good for him .
He would have lost the 2016 election but for an unprecedented series of events , and even as it was , his much-hyped attempts to reconstitute Richard Nixon ’ s winning coalition half a century later by relentlessly hammering immigrants and “ lawless ” cities netted him a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Mitt Romney .
The president is a bully , after all , but he is also an idiot .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
When President Donald Trump first weighed in on Wednesday on the caught-on-camera killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, he was uncharacteristically subdued. Floyd’s death was “sad and tragic,” he tweeted. “Justice will be served!” By the early morning hours on Friday, this moment of compassion was at an end. Rioters in the city were “THUGS,” he wrote, and he proposed sending in the National Guard to “get the job done right.” In a tweet so depraved that Twitter appended a disclaimer, he quoted an infamous 1960s Miami cop: “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
Trump’s comments weren’t just those of a head of state addressing unrest in a major city. They were also the words of a candidate for reelection who believes that what happens in Minnesota could make or break his chances this fall. The president has made repeated campaign stops in the state over the last four years; in threatening violence against protesters, he was sticking to a longstanding strategy. Trump believes that by attacking the state’s largest city and casting its residents as radical refugees and “thugs”—by driving a huge racist wedge between the Twin Cities and all the rest—he can flip the state he lost by the smallest of margins in 2016.
This isn’t the first time Trump has weighed in on a law enforcement issue in Minneapolis. He previously positioned himself as the defender of the city’s police against overly PC libs—wrapping himself in the flag of “law and order” politics. Last fall, ahead of a Trump campaign rally in Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey informed police officers they could not appear at the rally in uniform. In response, the city’s police union began selling special red “Cops for Trump” t-shirts, with an American flag overlaid on the outline of the state. Trump weighed in:
Someone please tell the Radical Left Mayor of Minneapolis that he can’t price out Free Speech. Probably illegal! I stand strongly & proudly with the great Police Officers and Law Enforcement of Minneapolis and the Great State of Minnesota! See you Thursday Night! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 8, 2019
Get your great T-Shirts, “Cops for Trump,” at https://t.co/pmhDDXsIlx REALLY NICE! Thank you to Minneapolis Police Officers & Union! @foxandfriends — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 8, 2019
At the rally, Trump was joined on stage by Lt. Bob Kroll, head of the Minneapolis police union, who used his time on stage to attack former President Barack Obama for his “oppression” of law enforcement. Kroll wore the “Cops for Trump” t-shirt. Following Kroll, a procession of police officers, all wearing the “Cops of Trump” shirt, walked across the stage to shake the president’s hand. Trump even saluted one of them.
While Trump heralded the police as the most hallowed of institutions, he whipped the crowd into a frenzy against what he considered their antithesis—the city’s “America-hating” Democratic congresswoman, Ilhan Omar.
In 2016 I almost won Minnesota. In 2020, because of America hating anti-Semite Rep. Omar, & the fact that Minnesota is having its best economic year ever, I will win the State! “We are going to be a nightmare to the President,” she say. No, AOC Plus 3 are a Nightmare for America! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 23, 2019
Just a few months after telling Omar, a Somali refugee and one of the first two Muslim women to serve in the House, to go back to the country she came from, Trump devoted six minutes of his address to tearing into the congresswoman. Images of the hijab-wearing Omar flashed across the jumbotron as he spoke, just in case the crowd didn’t know what she looked like. She was an “America-hating socialist,” he said.
Trump segued from an attack on Omar into an attack on the community she comes from and represents—the tens of thousands of Somalis living in the Twin Cities. Refugees from Somalia were a threat to the American way of life, he warned. (His son, Donald Trump Jr., has even claimed that Democrats want to “repopulate” Maine with Somali refugees.)
Trump has not just sought to rhetorically bludgeon people of color in Minnesota, though. He’s governed that way too. In the closing stretch of the 2016 campaign, he told Minnesota voters the state had “suffered” because of the “large numbers of Somali refugees coming into your state.” He promised to ban Muslims, and though he didn’t quite do that, he did effectively ban Somali refugees from coming to the United States.
In targeting a specific minority community, Trump was tapping into a very real animosity among certain white voters in Minnesota. In a memorable 2019 New York Times story, one conservative activist put it bluntly: “These aren’t people coming from Norway.” When activists in St. Cloud tried to shut down the city’s resettlement program, they made red hats, modeled off the president’s. They said “Make St. Cloud Great Again.” MSCGA.
Trump’s campaign in Minnesota, now as ever, is rooted in white grievance and fear and what he calls “law and order,” by which he means targeting immigrants and people of color for abuse—by pinning all that’s gone wrong on blue cities and the people who live there. He wants to pit the people he thinks he can get votes from against the people he can’t, and now that he sits behind the Resolute Desk, he doesn’t really act as if he works for the latter group too. They serve no purpose for him, except as punching bags.
So it’s all going to be like this, from now until November. Trump is going with this again, because he thinks it works and also because he can’t help it. He craves power but not the responsibility that comes with it. It’s not clear, however, that it’s any sort of political masterstroke—that “what Trump wants” or what “plays into his hands” correlates at all to what is actually good for him. He would have lost the 2016 election but for an unprecedented series of events, and even as it was, his much-hyped attempts to reconstitute Richard Nixon’s winning coalition half a century later by relentlessly hammering immigrants and “lawless” cities netted him a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Mitt Romney. The president is a bully, after all, but he is also an idiot.


motherjones--2020-05-29--Obama on the Killing of George Floyd: “This Shouldn’t Be ‘Normal’ in 2020 America.”

As the nation reels and rebels over the killing of George Floyd under the knee of a Minnesota cop , former President Barack Obama has released a statement that echoes the anguish we ’ re all feeling : This shouldn ’ t feel typical by any stretch of the word .
And yet , it keeps happening .
“ This shouldn ’ t be ‘ normal ’ in 2020 America , ” the former president writes .
“ It can ’ t be ‘ normal.
’ If we want our children to grow up in a nation that lives up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and must be better.
” Obama also shared snippets of recent conversations he ’ s had with several friends over Floyd ’ s killing , quoting a “ middle-aged African-American businessman ” who wrote to the former president that ‘ the knee on the neck ’ is a metaphor for how the system so cavalierly holds black folks down , ignoring the cries for help.
” And another friend Obama spoke with mentioned the sentiments in the song by 12-year-old Keedron Bryant that has since gone viral to express his frustration over situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Keedron may be different , but their anguish is the same .
It ’ s shared by me and millions of others , ” the president wrote .
Though the tone of Obama ’ s statement is one of anguish and frustration , he called on Minnesota officials to thoroughly investigate Floyd ’ s killing so that “ justice is ultimately done.
” Shortly after the president ’ s statement was released , Derek Chauvin , the police officer in the widely viewed video who had his knee on Floyd ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
As the nation reels and rebels over the killing of George Floyd under the knee of a Minnesota cop, former President Barack Obama has released a statement that echoes the anguish we’re all feeling: This shouldn’t feel typical by any stretch of the word. And yet, it keeps happening.
“This shouldn’t be ‘normal’ in 2020 America,” the former president writes. “It can’t be ‘normal.’ If we want our children to grow up in a nation that lives up to its highest ideals, we can and must be better.”
My statement on the death of George Floyd: pic.twitter.com/Hg1k9JHT6R — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 29, 2020
Obama also shared snippets of recent conversations he’s had with several friends over Floyd’s killing, quoting a “middle-aged African-American businessman” who wrote to the former president that ‘the knee on the neck’ is a metaphor for how the system so cavalierly holds black folks down, ignoring the cries for help.” And another friend Obama spoke with mentioned the sentiments in the song by 12-year-old Keedron Bryant that has since gone viral to express his frustration over situation. “The circumstances of my friend and Keedron may be different, but their anguish is the same. It’s shared by me and millions of others,” the president wrote.
Though the tone of Obama’s statement is one of anguish and frustration, he called on Minnesota officials to thoroughly investigate Floyd’s killing so that “justice is ultimately done.” Shortly after the president’s statement was released, Derek Chauvin, the police officer in the widely viewed video who had his knee on Floyd’s throat, was taken into custody.


motherjones--2020-05-29--Trump and Zuckerberg Both Want You to Believe Facebook, a Private Company, Is the Public Square

President Donald Trump tweeted false information about mail-in ballots this week , and Twitter , which for years has avoided fact-checking the president , finally did so .
Two of the president ’ s tweets that claimed postal balloting would unleash massive fraud were annotated with unobtrusive “ get the facts ” tags which provided links to contrary , correct articles about voting by mail .
It was a modest and long-delayed step , but on Thursday evening the president retaliated with an executive order targeting social media companies for “ selective censorship ” against him .
In 48 hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off a masterful demonstration of their tried-and-true political playbook for dealing with social media platforms : redirect attention from the president ’ s misbehavior while pressuring the companies to bend to their will .
As in the past , the order is legally unserious political theater .
( A week before the 2018 midterms , Trump promised to sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship , as if the president can unilaterally delete sections of the Constitution he does not like . )
After a draft leaked Thursday morning , most legal experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedent and separation of powers doctrines .
Former Justice Department official Marty Lederman responded to a question about what would happen if it were challenged in court by tweeting , philosophically , “ What would it mean to ‘ challenge ’ nothing ?
” In truth , the executive order was never meant to be a serviceable legal cudgel , but to serve as a general threat to the online platforms : thwart Trump ’ s ability to spread his message in any way and he will seek retribution .
In the order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ language about how social media platforms are a digital public square : “ In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression , we can not allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.
” Mark Zuckerberg has echoed the framework , hanging his decision not to fact-check posts and ads by politicians on the argument that Facebook is a public forum where free speech must flourish .
As Trump ’ s feud with Twitter birthed this new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News to reassure the president that , unlike Twitter , his company does not want to be an “ arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.
” He continued , “ Private companies probably shouldn ’ t be , especially these platform companies , shouldn ’ t be in the position of doing that.
” Underlying this strain of argument is a fundamental mischaracterization of what social media platforms are and how they work .
Whatever the merits of a digital public square , Facebook is not it .
But both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perpetuating the fallacy that it is .
Facebook is a private company that decides what content you see and what ads you see .
It shows you groups and recommends you join them .
You do not choose your own adventure on Facebook ; it ’ s carefully tuned algorithms take you by the hand and lead you where they want you to go : the most engaging content .
The more engaged you are , the more money Facebook makes on ads .
And the most engaging content is the most extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t fact-check politicians because their speech is newsworthy , he is reserving the right not just to let their falsehoods appear , but to amplify them across his platform while making money from their spread .
Zuckerberg ’ s arbiters of truth line “ suggests that there ’ s a neutral baseline that Facebook is hewing to—but there isn ’ t , ” says David Ardia , an expert on media law at the University of North Carolina School of Law .
“ Facebook already has its hand deeply in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Facebook has knowingly operated systems that funnel users toward dangerous content .
According to a Wall Street Journal report this week , a 2016 internal report found that “ 64 % of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools , ” driven by the company ’ s algorithms .
“ Our recommendation systems grow the problem.
” Two years later , the Journal reported , another internal report made the same warning : “ Our algorithms exploit the human brain ’ s attraction to divisiveness.
” Unless Facebook changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.
” But Facebook didn ’ t change , in part because displaying ads next to extremist content helps it earn billions , but also , the Journal explained , to appease Trump and conservatives .
Facebook ’ s decision to boost divisive content has been an immense boon to Trump .
“ He is a president more than any other who has benefited from the attention economy , ” says Ardia .
“ From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his embrace of social media and his highly effective use of it in the 2016 election , he has leveraged these platforms in a very successful way .
Throwing a monkey wrench into how they operate may not be in his longterm best interests.
” Indeed , Trump has no desire to actually change , as his campaign put it , how social media platforms “ manipulate the American people.
” His executive order is a reminder that there will be consequences and protests should they interfere with his efforts to do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want people to believe that Facebook is a public forum , when in reality it is run according to the interests and prerogatives of a private company , beholden to its shareholders .
Both benefit from this arrangement .
But as a private business , Facebook and the people who own it and work at it have not only the right but arguably the moral imperative to mitigate harm and extremism .
Long after this news cycle has passed , that truth about what these platforms really are will remain the same .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
President Donald Trump tweeted false information about mail-in ballots this week, and Twitter, which for years has avoided fact-checking the president, finally did so. Two of the president’s tweets that claimed postal balloting would unleash massive fraud were annotated with unobtrusive “get the facts” tags which provided links to contrary, correct articles about voting by mail. It was a modest and long-delayed step, but on Thursday evening the president retaliated with an executive order targeting social media companies for “selective censorship” against him. In 48 hours, Trump and his administration had pulled off a masterful demonstration of their tried-and-true political playbook for dealing with social media platforms: redirect attention from the president’s misbehavior while pressuring the companies to bend to their will.
The argument is a fundamental mischaracterization of what social media platforms are and how they work.
As in the past, the order is legally unserious political theater. (A week before the 2018 midterms, Trump promised to sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship, as if the president can unilaterally delete sections of the Constitution he does not like.) After a draft leaked Thursday morning, most legal experts declared it unenforceable. It ignored judicial precedent and separation of powers doctrines. Former Justice Department official Marty Lederman responded to a question about what would happen if it were challenged in court by tweeting, philosophically, “What would it mean to ‘challenge’ nothing?”
In truth, the executive order was never meant to be a serviceable legal cudgel, but to serve as a general threat to the online platforms: thwart Trump’s ability to spread his message in any way and he will seek retribution.
In the order, Trump’s relies on highfalutin language about how social media platforms are a digital public square: “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.” Mark Zuckerberg has echoed the framework, hanging his decision not to fact-check posts and ads by politicians on the argument that Facebook is a public forum where free speech must flourish. As Trump’s feud with Twitter birthed this new executive order, Zuckerberg called into Fox News to reassure the president that, unlike Twitter, his company does not want to be an “arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.” He continued, “Private companies probably shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.”
Underlying this strain of argument is a fundamental mischaracterization of what social media platforms are and how they work. Whatever the merits of a digital public square, Facebook is not it. But both Trump and Zuckerberg have an interest in perpetuating the fallacy that it is.
Facebook is a private company that decides what content you see and what ads you see. It shows you groups and recommends you join them. You do not choose your own adventure on Facebook; it’s carefully tuned algorithms take you by the hand and lead you where they want you to go: the most engaging content. The more engaged you are, the more money Facebook makes on ads. And the most engaging content is the most extreme content. When Zuckerberg says that he won’t fact-check politicians because their speech is newsworthy, he is reserving the right not just to let their falsehoods appear, but to amplify them across his platform while making money from their spread.
Zuckerberg’s arbiters of truth line “suggests that there’s a neutral baseline that Facebook is hewing to—but there isn’t,” says David Ardia, an expert on media law at the University of North Carolina School of Law. “Facebook already has its hand deeply in the content that we see on its platform.”
“Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness.”
Facebook has knowingly operated systems that funnel users toward dangerous content. According to a Wall Street Journal report this week, a 2016 internal report found that “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools,” driven by the company’s algorithms. “Our recommendation systems grow the problem.” Two years later, the Journal reported, another internal report made the same warning: “Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness.” Unless Facebook changed those algorithms, they would feed users “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.” But Facebook didn’t change, in part because displaying ads next to extremist content helps it earn billions, but also, the Journal explained, to appease Trump and conservatives.
Facebook’s decision to boost divisive content has been an immense boon to Trump. “He is a president more than any other who has benefited from the attention economy,” says Ardia. “From his early move to reality television to his embrace of social media and his highly effective use of it in the 2016 election, he has leveraged these platforms in a very successful way. Throwing a monkey wrench into how they operate may not be in his longterm best interests.” Indeed, Trump has no desire to actually change, as his campaign put it, how social media platforms “manipulate the American people.” His executive order is a reminder that there will be consequences and protests should they interfere with his efforts to do the same.
Together, Trump and Zuckerberg want people to believe that Facebook is a public forum, when in reality it is run according to the interests and prerogatives of a private company, beholden to its shareholders. Both benefit from this arrangement. But as a private business, Facebook and the people who own it and work at it have not only the right but arguably the moral imperative to mitigate harm and extremism. Long after this news cycle has passed, that truth about what these platforms really are will remain the same.


motherjones--2020-05-29--The DHS Inspector General Claimed to Have a Philosophy PhD. He Doesn’t.

The Department of Homeland Security ’ s inspector general wants you to know he has the credentials to hold accountable a 240,000-person department responsible for keeping the country safe .
Until Thursday , Joseph Cuffari ’ s official government bio stated , “ Dr .
Cuffari earned a Ph.D. in philosophy.
” Cuffari ’ s PhD from California Coast University is in management , and it was conferred by a school that was unaccredited at the time .
In 2004 , two years after Cuffari received the degree , the Government Accountability Office prominently featured California Coast University in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that required no classroom instruction and issued degrees for low flat fees .
Despite all this , Cuffari has regularly signed letters to Congress and the head of DHS as “ Joseph V. Cuffari , Ph.D. ” In recent weeks , President Donald Trump has fired independent inspectors general investigating wrongdoing by his administration and replaced them with political appointees beholden to him .
In the past two months , Trump has gotten rid of or pushed aside five inspectors general , complaining that they were treating him “ very unfairly.
” Cuffari @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the kind of laissez-faire watchdog Trump is looking for .
A senior staffer in Cuffari ’ s office told the Washington Post in March that the office was often empty , well before the pandemic hit .
House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney ( D-N.Y. ) noted in a March letter to Cuffari that his office had completed only 20 reports this fiscal year , compared to 58 during the same period in 2018 , before Cuffari ’ s tenure.
“ You have released reports at a slower pace than your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year your office began issuing reports , ” Maloney wrote .
DHS , which Cuffari is supposed to be holding accountable , has a nearly $ 70 billion budget .
It includes the Secret Service , the Transportation Security Administration , and the Federal Emergency Management Agency , as well as the three immigration agencies at the center of Trump ’ s most controversial policy moves .
Since the Senate confirmed Cuffari in July , his office has published only one critical report on the president ’ s anti-immigrant agenda , documenting DHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s family separation policy .
Cuffari reportedly tried to suppress it .
When it did come out , he distanced himself from the findings by stating that he hadn ’ t participated in the investigation .
( Last week , “ Joseph V. Cuffari , Ph.D. ” informed Congress in a letter that he will be investigating ICE ’ s reckless response to COVID-19 at its detention centers . )
House Homeland Security Committee Chair Bennie Thompson ( D-Miss . )
sent a letter to Cuffari in March to express his “ deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Cuffari ’ s office on the deaths of two children in Customs and Border Protection custody .
The reports were so flawed , Thompson said , that he was worried about Cuffari ’ s ability to investigate DHS ’ s response to COVID-19 .
In December , the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate homeland security committees stated in a letter that “ bureaucratic infighting and competing allegations of misconduct ” plagued the inspector general ’ s office under Cuffari .
Prior to becoming DHS inspector general , Cuffari @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Republican governor .
Earlier , he spent more than two decades working in the Justice Department .
His official bio mentions that he attended the University of Arizona as an undergrad but does not say where he got his PhD .
When I asked the inspector general ’ s press office to comment on Cuffari ’ s degree from an unaccredited school , a spokesperson replied that CCU was “ accredited during his matriculation ” from 1998 to 2002 .
But the school ’ s registrar told me that CCU gained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history in 2005 , and as a condition for becoming accredited , the Distance Education Accrediting Commission required it to stop offering doctoral programs .
After I mentioned those details to Cuffari ’ s spokesperson , the inspector general ’ s office contacted California Coast University and then clarified that the school was “ approved by the State of California to award degrees of higher education , including doctoral degrees ” when Cuffari was enrolled .
But that approval came from the now-defunct California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a course in “ Sexological Bodywork.
” Officials at the bureau readily acknowledged to reporters in 2005 that they applied minimal standards , far less rigorous than accreditation .
When Cuffari graduated , CCU ’ s degrees could not be legally used in neighboring Oregon , which was known for closely monitoring the quality of unaccredited schools .
California Coast University was founded by Thomas Neal in 1973 as California Western University , trading off the reputation of a school that had that same name until 1968 .
Neal said in 1990 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than a year .
A few years before Cuffari enrolled , a regional accreditation official said about the degrees there , “ Anybody can go out and buy anything they want to…Don ’ t represent it to the public.
” When Cuffari attended CCU , it was based out of a small office building in Orange County that ’ s currently home to a 7-Eleven and a Subway .
But like all students there , he took his classes remotely .
Doctoral students were required to show up on campus just once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a process the school ’ s catalogue called “ a time for exchanging ideas and concepts whereby both the candidate and faculty share a beneficial growth experience.
” Unlike full-on diploma mills , CCU appeared to require some coursework , and doctoral students had to write a dissertation .
Alumni have defended the school to say that they valued the education they received .
But it was still far from a traditional institution .
Its website at the time of Cuffari ’ s matriculation contained no information on the professors or the courses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information asked potential applicants how they ’ d heard about CCU .
There were two options : a drop-down menu titled “ Airline Magazine ” that allowed people to select the airline where they had encountered the school and an open-ended field for any other source .
A 24-page catalogue for the 2002-2003 academic year listed the price of the management PhD at $ 4,575 , a flat fee for up to five years of enrollment , rather than the per-semester tuition at most schools .
The catalogue lists three deans , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Coursework requirements could be satisfied through previous graduate credits , by reading “ Study Guides ” and taking final exams on them , and by completing vaguely defined “ Accelerated Learning Guides ” that factored in “ independent reading experience.
” In 2004 , the GAO came out with its “ diploma mills ” investigation .
The agency , which helps Congress conduct oversight of the executive branch , also submitted testimony to Congress bearing the subheading “ Diploma Mills Are Easily Created and Some Have Issued Bogus Degrees to Federal Employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diploma mills as “ nontraditional , unaccredited , postsecondary schools that offer degrees for a relatively low flat fee , promote the award of academic credits based on life experience , and do not require any classroom instruction.
” CCU met those criteria .
Susan Collins , the Republican senator from Maine , had requested the GAO report , and after it came out , she expressed “ great concern that federal officials who hold high-ranking positions , and security clearances in some instances , have degrees from diploma mills.
” She added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ qualifications and abilities to do their jobs.
” At Cuffari ’ s confirmation hearing , senators addressed him as “ Dr .
Cuffari.
” After being confirmed unanimously in July , he avoided testifying before Congress about the deaths of children in Customs and Border Protection custody .
“ Instead , you intend the OIG to be represented by a subordinate , ” Thompson wrote in his March letter .
“ This is unacceptable.
” Last month , Cuffari finally agreed to testify on a date to be determined .
On Thursday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuffari ’ s office changed his bio to say his PhD was in management .
The name of the school that “ Dr .
Cuffari ” attended is still absent .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general wants you to know he has the credentials to hold accountable a 240,000-person department responsible for keeping the country safe. Until Thursday, Joseph Cuffari’s official government bio stated, “Dr. Cuffari earned a Ph.D. in philosophy.”
That isn’t true.
Cuffari’s PhD from California Coast University is in management, and it was conferred by a school that was unaccredited at the time. In 2004, two years after Cuffari received the degree, the Government Accountability Office prominently featured California Coast University in a report on unaccredited “diploma mills” that required no classroom instruction and issued degrees for low flat fees.
Despite all this, Cuffari has regularly signed letters to Congress and the head of DHS as “Joseph V. Cuffari, Ph.D.”
In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has fired independent inspectors general investigating wrongdoing by his administration and replaced them with political appointees beholden to him. In the past two months, Trump has gotten rid of or pushed aside five inspectors general, complaining that they were treating him “very unfairly.”
Cuffari, whom Trump nominated in November 2018, is the kind of laissez-faire watchdog Trump is looking for. A senior staffer in Cuffari’s office told the Washington Post in March that the office was often empty, well before the pandemic hit. House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) noted in a March letter to Cuffari that his office had completed only 20 reports this fiscal year, compared to 58 during the same period in 2018, before Cuffari’s tenure.“You have released reports at a slower pace than your predecessors for every year since 2003—the first year your office began issuing reports,” Maloney wrote.
DHS, which Cuffari is supposed to be holding accountable, has a nearly $70 billion budget. It includes the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as well as the three immigration agencies at the center of Trump’s most controversial policy moves. Since the Senate confirmed Cuffari in July, his office has published only one critical report on the president’s anti-immigrant agenda, documenting DHS’s disastrous implementation of Trump’s family separation policy. Cuffari reportedly tried to suppress it. When it did come out, he distanced himself from the findings by stating that he hadn’t participated in the investigation. (Last week, “Joseph V. Cuffari, Ph.D.” informed Congress in a letter that he will be investigating ICE’s reckless response to COVID-19 at its detention centers.)
House Homeland Security Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) sent a letter to Cuffari in March to express his “deep concerns” about the quality of reports from Cuffari’s office on the deaths of two children in Customs and Border Protection custody. The reports were so flawed, Thompson said, that he was worried about Cuffari’s ability to investigate DHS’s response to COVID-19. In December, the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate homeland security committees stated in a letter that “bureaucratic infighting and competing allegations of misconduct” plagued the inspector general’s office under Cuffari.
Prior to becoming DHS inspector general, Cuffari worked as a policy adviser to Arizona’s Republican governor. Earlier, he spent more than two decades working in the Justice Department. His official bio mentions that he attended the University of Arizona as an undergrad but does not say where he got his PhD.
When I asked the inspector general’s press office to comment on Cuffari’s degree from an unaccredited school, a spokesperson replied that CCU was “accredited during his matriculation” from 1998 to 2002. But the school’s registrar told me that CCU gained accreditation for the first time in its history in 2005, and as a condition for becoming accredited, the Distance Education Accrediting Commission required it to stop offering doctoral programs.
After I mentioned those details to Cuffari’s spokesperson, the inspector general’s office contacted California Coast University and then clarified that the school was “approved by the State of California to award degrees of higher education, including doctoral degrees” when Cuffari was enrolled. But that approval came from the now-defunct California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, which okayed everything from barbering and bartending schools to a course in “Sexological Bodywork.” Officials at the bureau readily acknowledged to reporters in 2005 that they applied minimal standards, far less rigorous than accreditation. When Cuffari graduated, CCU’s degrees could not be legally used in neighboring Oregon, which was known for closely monitoring the quality of unaccredited schools.
California Coast University was founded by Thomas Neal in 1973 as California Western University, trading off the reputation of a school that had that same name until 1968. Neal said in 1990 that students could get his PhDs in less than a year. A few years before Cuffari enrolled, a regional accreditation official said about the degrees there, “Anybody can go out and buy anything they want to…Don’t represent it to the public.”
When Cuffari attended CCU, it was based out of a small office building in Orange County that’s currently home to a 7-Eleven and a Subway. But like all students there, he took his classes remotely. Doctoral students were required to show up on campus just once, to defend their dissertations, in a process the school’s catalogue called “a time for exchanging ideas and concepts whereby both the candidate and faculty share a beneficial growth experience.”
Unlike full-on diploma mills, CCU appeared to require some coursework, and doctoral students had to write a dissertation. Alumni have defended the school to say that they valued the education they received. But it was still far from a traditional institution. Its website at the time of Cuffari’s matriculation contained no information on the professors or the courses offered. A form for requesting additional information asked potential applicants how they’d heard about CCU. There were two options: a drop-down menu titled “Airline Magazine” that allowed people to select the airline where they had encountered the school and an open-ended field for any other source.
A 24-page catalogue for the 2002-2003 academic year listed the price of the management PhD at $4,575, a flat fee for up to five years of enrollment, rather than the per-semester tuition at most schools. The catalogue lists three deans, one of whom got her doctorate from CCU. Coursework requirements could be satisfied through previous graduate credits, by reading “Study Guides” and taking final exams on them, and by completing vaguely defined “Accelerated Learning Guides” that factored in “independent reading experience.”
In 2004, the GAO came out with its “diploma mills” investigation. The agency, which helps Congress conduct oversight of the executive branch, also submitted testimony to Congress bearing the subheading “Diploma Mills Are Easily Created and Some Have Issued Bogus Degrees to Federal Employees at Government Expense.” The GAO defined diploma mills as “nontraditional, unaccredited, postsecondary schools that offer degrees for a relatively low flat fee, promote the award of academic credits based on life experience, and do not require any classroom instruction.” CCU met those criteria.
Susan Collins, the Republican senator from Maine, had requested the GAO report, and after it came out, she expressed “great concern that federal officials who hold high-ranking positions, and security clearances in some instances, have degrees from diploma mills.” She added, “It calls into question their qualifications and abilities to do their jobs.”
At Cuffari’s confirmation hearing, senators addressed him as “Dr. Cuffari.” After being confirmed unanimously in July, he avoided testifying before Congress about the deaths of children in Customs and Border Protection custody. “Instead, you intend the OIG to be represented by a subordinate,” Thompson wrote in his March letter. “This is unacceptable.” Last month, Cuffari finally agreed to testify on a date to be determined.
On Thursday, following questions about the philosophy degree, Cuffari’s office changed his bio to say his PhD was in management. The name of the school that “Dr. Cuffari” attended is still absent.


motherjones--2020-05-30--Newly Released Transcripts Show Michael Flynn Betrayed the United States

Michael Flynn did something far worse than lie to the FBI .
He betrayed the United States .
That ’ s the major revelation of the just-released transcripts of the conversations he had during the presidential transition with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak .
Up until now , the Flynn scandal has generally centered on his criminal case , in which Flynn , Donald Trump ’ s first national security adviser , was charged with—and pleaded guilty to—lying to FBI about his calls with Kislyak .
Flynn told bureau agents that he had not discussed the sanctions imposed on Russia by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin ’ s attack on the 2016 election .
Well , he had .
And Flynn had even encouraged the Russians to not retaliate severely , suggesting that when Trump took office things between Moscow and Washington could be smoothed over .
The FBI knew this because US intelligence had intercepted those calls , presumably part of routine surveillance of the Russian official .
Flynn took a deal , and he pleaded guilty to lying to avoid being charged for an unrelated crime ( failing to register as a foreign agent for Turkey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crew tried to undo reality and whip up a baseless conspiracy theory that Trump has dubbed the “ Obamagate ” scandal , with a supposedly victimized Flynn in a starring role .
They claimed Flynn was unfairly targeted by vengeful Deep Staters who “ unmasked ” him ( by requesting his name , which was redacted in intercepts of his conversations with Kislyak , be revealed to US officials with authority to obtain this information ) and who then somehow cooked up the charge that Flynn lied to the FBI .
Both halves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by facts .
Unmasking is a routine action that happens thousands of times a year within the US government .
There is no evidence that Obama administration officials were spying on Flynn .
( Unmasking is not spying ; when an official asks for an identity to be unmasked , he or she doesn ’ t know who that person is . )
But the bottom line , as already noted , is that Flynn had indeed lied .
But here is where the president and his minions screwed up .
To promote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to draw attention from Trump ’ s inept response to the coronavirus pandemic and from Russia ’ s attack on the 2016 election , which was mounted to help Trump—Trump and Co. called for the release of highly classified intelligence documents that would supposedly confirm Flynn was unmasked as part of an anti-Trump plot waged by outgoing Obama officials .
On cue , then-acting Director of National Intelligence and ardent Trump partisan Richard Grenell released documents related to the unmasking .
They showed no conspiracy against Flynn .
That release , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profound disclosure .
The next step was to make public the transcripts of Flynn ’ s conversations with Kislyak , which occurred in December 2016 and January 2017 .
Friday night , newly confirmed Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released these documents—and they certainly reaffirm that Flynn lied to the FBI .
In these calls , Flynn beseeched Russia not to over-react to Obama ’ s sanctions , noting that would make it tougher for the incoming Trump administration to work with Russia .
For instance , on one call , Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this at a level that uh is , even-keeled , okay ?
Is even-keeled .
And then what we can do is , when we come in , we can then have a better conversation about where , where were gon na go , uh , regarding our relationship.
” But what is most scandalous and damning in these transcripts is what Flynn did not say .
At no point does Flynn castigate Kislyak for Russia ’ s intervention in the 2016 election .
He does not confront the Russian ambassador for Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy .
He does not tell Kislyak that Moscow will have to pay a price for hacking the Democrats and using the stolen information to influence the election for Trump ’ s benefit .
Flynn , a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency , does not warn Kislyak against any further Russian information warfare targeting the United States .
As the Obama administration was trying to impose a punishment on Putin for that attack , Flynn , on behalf of the Trump gang , was sending an utterly different message : We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Think about this perverse set of interactions : the incoming national security adviser was essentially telling a foreign adversary that the new president wasn ’ t concerned about an attack on the United States and , moreover , indicating that Trump didn ’ t intend to do anything about it .
In fact , Flynn was signaling to Putin that once Trump took office , Trump wouldn ’ t be pursuing the matter and , instead , would be reaching out to Russia as a partner .
( A few months later , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would tell Kislyak that directly . )
There ’ s been a lot of screaming within TrumpWorld about Flynn being persecuted .
Attorney General Bill Barr recently had the Justice Department drop the Flynn case after Flynn pleaded guilty .
And Trump , who fired Flynn for having lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Kislyak , has tried to transform Flynn into an Obamagate martyr .
All this sound and fury is a deflection .
Flynn is guilty as charged .
But his true crime is against American democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Trump presidency .
The 2016 election was attacked by an overseas power .
And throughout the campaign , Trump and his top advisers aided and abetted that attack by echoing Putin ’ s false denials .
They said there was no attack under way and provided the Kremlin cover .
And as soon as the election was over , Trump continued to discount the Russian intervention or deny it ever happened .
Trump and his henchmen let Putin get away with it .
That ’ s what Flynn was doing during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealing with the Russians as if there had been no attack .
He was abandoning his obligation to defend the United States from foreign assault—as Trump has done .
No doubt , Trump and his amen chorus will continue to argue about the details of Flynn ’ s legal case and insist , without evidence , that he was framed by an evil Obama cabal .
But in a way , that ’ s a sideshow .
Flynn ’ s fundamental transgression is much larger and deeper than his lies to the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump ’ s bogus Obamagate chase , show a darker reality : Flynn double-crossed American democracy .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Michael Flynn did something far worse than lie to the FBI. He betrayed the United States. That’s the major revelation of the just-released transcripts of the conversations he had during the presidential transition with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Trump and his crew tried to undo reality and whip up a baseless conspiracy theory that Trump has dubbed the “Obamagate” scandal, with a supposedly victimized Flynn in a starring role.
Up until now, the Flynn scandal has generally centered on his criminal case, in which Flynn, Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, was charged with—and pleaded guilty to—lying to FBI about his calls with Kislyak. Flynn told bureau agents that he had not discussed the sanctions imposed on Russia by the Obama administration in response to Vladimir Putin’s attack on the 2016 election. Well, he had. And Flynn had even encouraged the Russians to not retaliate severely, suggesting that when Trump took office things between Moscow and Washington could be smoothed over. The FBI knew this because US intelligence had intercepted those calls, presumably part of routine surveillance of the Russian official. Flynn took a deal, and he pleaded guilty to lying to avoid being charged for an unrelated crime (failing to register as a foreign agent for Turkey).
Case closed.
But then Trump and his crew tried to undo reality and whip up a baseless conspiracy theory that Trump has dubbed the “Obamagate” scandal, with a supposedly victimized Flynn in a starring role. They claimed Flynn was unfairly targeted by vengeful Deep Staters who “unmasked” him (by requesting his name, which was redacted in intercepts of his conversations with Kislyak, be revealed to US officials with authority to obtain this information) and who then somehow cooked up the charge that Flynn lied to the FBI. Both halves of this bogus controversy are not supported by facts. Unmasking is a routine action that happens thousands of times a year within the US government. There is no evidence that Obama administration officials were spying on Flynn. (Unmasking is not spying; when an official asks for an identity to be unmasked, he or she doesn’t know who that person is.) But the bottom line, as already noted, is that Flynn had indeed lied.
But here is where the president and his minions screwed up. To promote the Obamagate double-distraction—this phony scandal is meant to draw attention from Trump’s inept response to the coronavirus pandemic and from Russia’s attack on the 2016 election, which was mounted to help Trump—Trump and Co. called for the release of highly classified intelligence documents that would supposedly confirm Flynn was unmasked as part of an anti-Trump plot waged by outgoing Obama officials. On cue, then-acting Director of National Intelligence and ardent Trump partisan Richard Grenell released documents related to the unmasking. They showed no conspiracy against Flynn. That release, though, opened the door to a much more profound disclosure.
“Let’s keep this at a level that uh is, even-keeled, okay? Is even-keeled. And then what we can do is, when we come in, we can then have a better conversation about where, where were gonna go, uh, regarding our relationship.”
The next step was to make public the transcripts of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, which occurred in December 2016 and January 2017. Friday night, newly confirmed Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released these documents—and they certainly reaffirm that Flynn lied to the FBI. In these calls, Flynn beseeched Russia not to over-react to Obama’s sanctions, noting that would make it tougher for the incoming Trump administration to work with Russia. For instance, on one call, Flynn says, “Let’s keep this at a level that uh is, even-keeled, okay? Is even-keeled. And then what we can do is, when we come in, we can then have a better conversation about where, where were gonna go, uh, regarding our relationship.”
But what is most scandalous and damning in these transcripts is what Flynn did not say.
At no point does Flynn castigate Kislyak for Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election. He does not confront the Russian ambassador for Putin’s covert operation to subvert American democracy. He does not tell Kislyak that Moscow will have to pay a price for hacking the Democrats and using the stolen information to influence the election for Trump’s benefit. Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, does not warn Kislyak against any further Russian information warfare targeting the United States. As the Obama administration was trying to impose a punishment on Putin for that attack, Flynn, on behalf of the Trump gang, was sending an utterly different message: We don’t care about that.
Think about this perverse set of interactions: the incoming national security adviser was essentially telling a foreign adversary that the new president wasn’t concerned about an attack on the United States and, moreover, indicating that Trump didn’t intend to do anything about it. In fact, Flynn was signaling to Putin that once Trump took office, Trump wouldn’t be pursuing the matter and, instead, would be reaching out to Russia as a partner. (A few months later, Trump, in the Oval Office, would tell Kislyak that directly.)
There’s been a lot of screaming within TrumpWorld about Flynn being persecuted. Attorney General Bill Barr recently had the Justice Department drop the Flynn case after Flynn pleaded guilty. And Trump, who fired Flynn for having lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Kislyak, has tried to transform Flynn into an Obamagate martyr. All this sound and fury is a deflection. Flynn is guilty as charged. But his true crime is against American democracy, and it reflects the original sin of the Trump presidency. The 2016 election was attacked by an overseas power. And throughout the campaign, Trump and his top advisers aided and abetted that attack by echoing Putin’s false denials. They said there was no attack under way and provided the Kremlin cover. And as soon as the election was over, Trump continued to discount the Russian intervention or deny it ever happened.
All this sound and fury is a deflection. Flynn is guilty as charged. But his true crime is against American democracy.
Trump and his henchmen let Putin get away with it. That’s what Flynn was doing during his conversations with Kislyak. He was dealing with the Russians as if there had been no attack. He was abandoning his obligation to defend the United States from foreign assault—as Trump has done. No doubt, Trump and his amen chorus will continue to argue about the details of Flynn’s legal case and insist, without evidence, that he was framed by an evil Obama cabal. But in a way, that’s a sideshow. Flynn’s fundamental transgression is much larger and deeper than his lies to the FBI gumshoes. The transcripts, released due to Trump’s bogus Obamagate chase, show a darker reality: Flynn double-crossed American democracy.


motherjones--2020-05-30--Minnesota Gov: Protesters Likely Included People From Other States and White Supremacists

Some of the people protesting in Minnesota last night came from other states , and they likely included members of white supremacist groups , Gov .
Tim Walz said in a press conference Saturday morning , after a long night of protests in dozens of cities over the police killing of George Floyd .
Walz said he had received intelligence from law enforcement agencies that led him to believe the outside protesters included white supremacists , but added that he could not confirm this .
He said police officers deployed to the protests faced improvised explosive devices and a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks bent on adapting their tactics to make it as difficult as possible to maintain that order.
” “ We also from some national sources got reports on drug cartels that were directing their resources to restore their drug markets in some of the areas that had been looted and some of the businesses that had been operating by them , ” Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington said at the briefing .
St. Paul and Minneapolis mayors Melvin Carter and Jacob Frey echoed Walz .
In St. Paul , Carter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last night came from another state .
He said his friends who are local activists in the movement for racial equality are concerned about who has been behind the arson and vandalism during protests .
“ I hear them say , ‘ We don ’ t know these folks…who are agitating , we don ’ t know these folks who are inciting violence , ” he said .
“ And those folks who are agitating and inciting are taking advantage of the pain , of the hurt , of the frustration , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and legitimate sadness that so many of our community members feel.
” “ I want to be very , very clear : The people that are doing this are not Minneapolis residents , ” Frey added .
“ They are coming in largely from outside of the city , from outside of the region , to prey on everything we have built over the last several decades.
” Take some of these reports with a grain of salt .
It ’ s not uncommon after protests for city leaders to initially blame rioting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow at George Washington University ’ s Program on Extremism , reported today that upon combing through the names of people who were arrested in St. Paul , she quickly identified at least one man who was from another state but already living in Minnesota when Floyd died .
Walz has called for the full mobilization of the Minnesota National Guard , the largest deployment of the force in the state ’ s history .
While the National Guard is often called up to respond to civil unrest like protests , “ these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we deploy overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and some of those types of operations , ” he said .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Some of the people protesting in Minnesota last night came from other states, and they likely included members of white supremacist groups, Gov. Tim Walz said in a press conference Saturday morning, after a long night of protests in dozens of cities over the police killing of George Floyd.
Walz said he had received intelligence from law enforcement agencies that led him to believe the protesters included white supremacists, but added that he could not confirm this. He said police officers deployed to the protests faced improvised explosive devices and a “highly evolved and tightly controlled group of folks bent on adapting their tactics to make it as difficult as possible to maintain that order.”
“We also from some national sources got reports on drug cartels that were directing their resources to restore their drug markets in some of the areas that had been looted and some of the businesses that had been operating by them,” Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington said at the briefing.
St. Paul and Minneapolis mayors Melvin Carter and Jacob Frey echoed Walz. At the briefing, Carter said he had been informed that everyone arrested during the St. Paul protests the night before had come from another state. “I want to be very, very clear: The people that are doing this are not Minneapolis residents,” Frey added. “They are coming in largely from outside of the city, from outside of the region, to prey on everything we have built over the last several decades.”
But later on Saturday, Carter walked his comments back, saying he had based them on inaccurate information from the police. He said further investigation revealed that more than half of those arrested during the St. Paul protests on Friday night lived in Minnesota. And a local news outlet, Kare11, also examined arrest records in Minneapolis from Friday to midday Saturday and found that nearly everyone arrested lived in the city or the surrounding metro area; only five of the people arrested were from outside Minnesota.
Still, Carter said his friends who are local activists in the movement for racial equality are concerned about who is behind the arson and vandalism during protests. “I hear them say, ‘We don’t know these folks…who are agitating, we don’t know these folks who are inciting violence,” he said at the briefing. “And those folks who are agitating and inciting are taking advantage of the pain, of the hurt, of the frustration, of the anger, of the very real and legitimate sadness that so many of our community members feel.”
Walz has called for the full mobilization of the Minnesota National Guard, the largest deployment of the force in the state’s history. While the National Guard is often called up to respond to civil unrest like protests, “these deployment levels are reaching deployment levels when we deploy overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and some of those types of operations,” he said.
This post has been updated to reflect the clarification from St. Paul Mayor Carter that more than half of those arrested in the city’s protests Friday night live in Minnesota, and to reflect additional reporting from Kare11 that an overwhelming majority of people arrested in Minneapolis on Friday night and early Saturday live in or near the city.


motherjones--2020-05-30--Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Speaks to Supporters About the Minneapolis Protests

Following a fourth night of protests in Minneapolis , as thousands took to the streets demanding an end to police violence against Black people , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez urged her supporters to take a broad view of the demonstrations , and spoke critically about those who are calling for a stop to the unrest , which has included the looting and burning of buildings .
“ If you are calling for an end to this unrest , and if you are a calling for an end to all of this , but you are not calling for the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you are a hypocrite , ” she said in a video on Instagram Saturday morning , posted above .
“ So if you ’ re out here calling for the end of unrest , then you better be calling for health care as a human right , you better be calling for accountability in our policing , you better be supporting community review boards , you better be supporting the end of housing discrimination…Because if you don ’ t call for those things and you ’ re asking for the end of unrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the continuation of quiet oppression.
” Dozens of cities saw protests on Friday night over the death of a Black man named George Floyd at the hands of a white police officer in Minneapolis on Monday .
The officer , Derek Chauvin , pinned Floyd to the ground by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes , even after Floyd repeatedly said he couldn ’ t breathe and appeared to go unconscious on the concrete .
While many protesters in Minneapolis and other cities have remained peaceful , some have turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire ; a man in Minneapolis was fatally shot during protests on Wednesday .
“ This is not to condone violence , this is not to condone any of that , ” Ocasio-Cortez said .
“ But…we have to really ask ourselves the question as to why so many people were okay ignoring these problems until a window got broken .
Why does it take that for people to pay attention ?
”

Following a fourth night of protests in Minneapolis, as thousands took to the streets demanding an end to police violence against Black people, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez urged her supporters to take a broad view of the demonstrations, and spoke critically about those who are calling for a stop to the unrest, which has included the looting and burning of buildings.
“If you are calling for an end to this unrest, and if you are a calling for an end to all of this, but you are not calling for the end of the conditions that created the unrest, you are a hypocrite,” she said in a video on Instagram Saturday morning, posted above. “So if you’re out here calling for the end of unrest, then you better be calling for health care as a human right, you better be calling for accountability in our policing, you better be supporting community review boards, you better be supporting the end of housing discrimination…Because if you don’t call for those things and you’re asking for the end of unrest, all you’re asking for is the continuation of quiet oppression.”
Dozens of cities saw protests on Friday night over the death of a Black man named George Floyd at the hands of a white police officer in Minneapolis on Monday. The officer, Derek Chauvin, pinned Floyd to the ground by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes, even after Floyd repeatedly said he couldn’t breathe and appeared to go unconscious on the concrete. While many protesters in Minneapolis and other cities have remained peaceful, some have turned violent, stealing and setting buildings on fire; a man in Minneapolis was fatally shot during protests on Wednesday.
“This is not to condone violence, this is not to condone any of that,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “But…we have to really ask ourselves the question as to why so many people were okay ignoring these problems until a window got broken. Why does it take that for people to pay attention?”