vox--2020-01-22--Senate Republicans have officially passed rules for the impeachment trial. Here’s what comes next.

As far as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is concerned , this impeachment trial is going to go as favorably for President Trump as possible .
That ’ s the major takeaway from a series of votes dictating how the Senate will conduct its trial of the sitting president , who ’ s accused of holding up military aid to Ukraine in exchange for domestic political favors .
One major question going into the impeachment trial was whether Senate Republicans will stay united throughout it .
Thus far , they have .
On Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning , Senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down several Democratic amendments and advance a set of rules proposed by McConnell that govern the timing and procedure of the trial .
Of 11 amendments introduced by Democrats , just one garnered some Republican backing : Sen. Susan Collins was the sole lawmaker to break with her party on a measure that governed the amount of time each side would have to file motions .
The final GOP rules resolution laid out exactly how much time the prosecution and defense will have to levy their arguments , and when lawmakers will consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most significantly , it punted the question about whether to call witnesses until later in the trial , a delay Democrats have long opposed because they ’ re worried it could mean that witnesses won ’ t be considered at all .
A crucial bloc of moderate Republicans backed the majority leader ’ s position on the matter , however , leaving Democrats four votes short of the number they needed to overturn McConnell ’ s approach .
The final resolution — which passed following hours of debate between lawmakers — lays out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment managers and the president ’ s defense counsel will have a total of 24 hours each to make their opening arguments .
This time could be used across a maximum of three days each .
• After the opening arguments conclude , likely later this week or early next week , senators will have 16 hours to ask written questions of both the impeachment managers and the president ’ s counsel .
• Once this question and answer period is over , senators will hold a vote to consider more evidence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ll hold another vote specifically about subpoenaing witnesses .
Any witnesses that are called by the Senate will have to participate in a deposition first , before a decision is made about their testimony in front of members of the chamber .
The outcome of this vote marks a major difference from former President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial in 1999 , when the initial rules proposal was passed unanimously by the Senate , while a later vote on witnesses was only approved along party lines .
Now that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate trial is poised to begin in earnest , with opening arguments from the House impeachment managers starting at 1 pm on Wednesday .
The rules resolution was the first test of Republican unity The fight over the rules ultimately illustrated an important dynamic : the influence that defecting Republicans could have on the impeachment process .
Although many of the Democrats ’ critiques were not incorporated in the final version of the rules resolution , there were changes McConnell made to an initial draft in response to Republican concerns .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required the prosecution and defense to deliver their opening arguments across two days — a time constraint that was widely criticized by Democrats , as well as some Republicans .
In the final version , both sides were granted an extra day to deliver these arguments — a sign that the pressure from his own conference spurred the leader to consider some tweaks .
As Politico ’ s Burgess Everett and Marianne LeVine reported , these edits were in response to pushback from multiple GOP lawmakers including Sens .
Susan Collins ( R-ME @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This tension among Senate Republicans will be one of the most interesting to watch as the trial continues to unfold : Because of the 51-vote threshold that both parties need to hit to advance anything , moderate Senators including Collins ( R-ME ) , Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) , and Mitt Romney are poised to play a critical role in shaping the terms of the proceedings .
Since lawmakers have approved the rules for the trial , opening arguments will kick off on Wednesday .
In the coming week , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s defense counsel will make their cases , an effort that ’ s expected to take the Senate through at least this Sunday .
They may not wind up using the entirety of the allocated time , though : Fox News ’ Chad Pergram has noted that Trump ’ s counsel may only take one day to complete its arguments .
A rough outline of the schedule is below : • Wednesday : House impeachment managers have roughly eight hours for opening arguments .
• Thursday : House impeachment managers have roughly eight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : House impeachment managers have roughly eight hours for opening arguments .
• Saturday : Trump ’ s defense counsel has roughly eight hours for opening arguments .
• Next week : Defense counsel could continue to build their case on Monday and Tuesday .
Senators will also have up to 16 hours to ask questions of both the impeachment managers and Trump ’ s counsel .
A vote on hearing more evidence isn ’ t expected until some time next week , and that ’ s when the pressure will be on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet again .
That vote will ultimately decide if any additional witnesses will even be considered or if Republicans will be content wrapping up the trial without this testimony at all .

As far as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is concerned, this impeachment trial is going to go as favorably for President Trump as possible. That’s the major takeaway from a series of votes dictating how the Senate will conduct its trial of the sitting president, who’s accused of holding up military aid to Ukraine in exchange for political favors.
One major question going into the impeachment trial was whether Senate Republicans will stay united throughout it. Thus far, they have.
On Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, senators voted 53-47 along party lines to shoot down several Democratic amendments and advance a set of rules proposed by McConnell that govern the timing and procedure of the trial. Of 11 amendments introduced by Democrats, just one garnered some Republican backing: Sen. Susan Collins was the sole lawmaker to break with her party on a measure that governed the time each side would have to file motions.
The final GOP rules resolution laid out exactly how much time the prosecution and defense will have to levy their arguments, and when lawmakers will consider votes on additional evidence and witnesses. Most significantly, it punted the question about whether to call witnesses until later in the trial, a delay Democrats have long opposed because they’re worried it could mean that witnesses won’t be considered at all.
A crucial bloc of moderate Republicans backed the majority leader’s position on the matter, however, leaving Democrats four votes short of the number they needed to overturn McConnell’s approach. The final resolution — which passed following hours of debate between lawmakers — lays out specifics:
House impeachment managers and the president’s defense counsel will have a total of 24 hours each to make their opening arguments. This time can be used across a maximum of three days each.
After the opening arguments conclude, likely later this week or early next week, senators will have 16 hours to ask written questions of both the impeachment managers and the president’s counsel.
Once this question and answer period is over, senators will hold a vote to consider more evidence. If they vote to do so, they’ll hold another vote specifically about subpoenaing witnesses. Any witnesses that are called by the Senate will have to participate in a deposition first, before a decision is made about their testimony in front of members of the chamber.
The outcome of this vote is a major difference from President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999; in that trial, the initial rules proposal was passed unanimously by the Senate, while a later vote on witnesses was only approved along party lines.
Now that the rules have been set, the Senate trial is poised to begin in earnest, with opening arguments from the House impeachment managers starting at 1 pm on Wednesday.
The rules resolution was the first test of Republican unity
The fight over the rules ultimately illustrated an important dynamic: the influence that defecting Republicans could have on the impeachment process.
Although many of the Democrats’ critiques were not incorporated in the final version of the rules resolution, there were changes McConnell made to an initial draft in response to Republican concerns.
In the original measure, for example, he required the prosecution and defense to deliver their opening arguments across two days, a time constraint that was widely criticized by Democrats, as well as some Republicans. In the final version, both sides were granted an extra day to deliver these arguments — a sign that the pressure from his conference spurred the leader to consider some tweaks.
As Politico’s Burgess Everett and Marianne LeVine reported, these edits were in response to pushback from GOP lawmakers including Sens. Collins (ME) and Rob Portman (OH).
This tension among Senate Republicans will be one of the most interesting to watch as the trial unfolds: Because of the 51-vote threshold that both parties need to hit to advance anything, moderate senators including Collins, Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Mitt Romney (UT) are poised to play a critical role in shaping the terms of the proceedings.
What’s next
Since lawmakers have approved the rules for the trial, opening arguments will kick off on Wednesday.
In the coming week, the House impeachment managers and the president’s defense counsel will make their cases, an effort that’s expected to take the Senate through at least this Sunday. They may not wind up using the entirety of the allocated time, though: Fox News’s Chad Pergram has noted that Trump’s counsel may only take one day to complete its arguments.
A rough outline of the schedule is below:
Wednesday: House impeachment managers have roughly eight hours for opening arguments.
House impeachment managers have roughly eight hours for opening arguments. Thursday: House impeachment managers have roughly eight hours for opening arguments.
House impeachment managers have roughly eight hours for opening arguments. Friday: House impeachment managers have roughly eight hours for opening arguments.
House impeachment managers have roughly eight hours for opening arguments. Saturday: Trump’s defense counsel has roughly eight hours for opening arguments.
Trump’s defense counsel has roughly eight hours for opening arguments. Next week: Defense counsel could continue to build their case on Monday and Tuesday. Senators will also have up to 16 hours to ask questions of both the impeachment managers and Trump’s counsel.
A vote on hearing more evidence isn’t expected until sometime next week, and then the pressure will be on a subset of moderate Republicans and Democrats yet again. That vote will ultimately determine if any additional witnesses will even be considered or if Republicans will be content wrapping up the trial without this testimony.


vox--2020-01-21--San Francisco Pride members voted to ban Google and YouTube from its parade

Google and YouTube may no longer be welcome at one of the world ’ s largest LGBTQ Pride Parades .
Last week , members of the organization San Francisco Pride ( SF Pride ) voted to ban Google from participating in future celebrations , saying that the company doesn ’ t do enough to protect LGBTQ persons on its platforms , particularly those who are the target of harassment and hate speech on YouTube .
The move is a significant shift in attitude towards a company that historically has been regarded as a corporate leader in its support of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutiny for its perceived lack of commitment to those efforts .
For many years , tech companies like Google , Facebook , and Apple have spent significant amounts of money sponsoring parades such as SF Pride , inviting their employees to march alongside company-branded floats in support of LGBTQ rights .
But in recent months , some people , including those within Google ’ s own workforce , have criticized the search giant ’ s participation in the event , saying that the company allows harmful speech hurting LGBTQ and other vulnerable groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that new policy changes the company has taken to crack down on harassment don ’ t go far enough .
“ Companies are no longer scared to be seen as pro-LGBTQ ; in fact , their participation is a great opportunity for them .
We believe companies should earn that opportunity by proving that they really do stand with our community , ” reads a statement shared with Recode and other outlets by the members seeking to ban Google from the parade .
Seven members at a meeting last Wednesday voted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to the organization ’ s interim executive director , Fred Lopez .
SF Pride has over 300 members in total , but only around a dozen were present at the time of the vote , according to Lopez .
At the meeting , some members of the board disputed whether the vote was legally binding without the board ’ s approval .
In a statement to Recode , Lopez wrote : “ One small group raised concerns about Google as a corporate sponsor .
Our legal team is reviewing the implications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven of Pride ’ s 326 members .
Our Board of Directors will meet February 5th to determine our next step .
As we get ready to celebrate our 50th parade , our goal remains the same as it was for our first — to be inclusive and reflect the diversity of our communities.
” The efforts to ban Google from pride are being led in part by a former Google employee , Laurence Berland .
Berland is one of several former Google employees who has alleged that the company recently fired them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim that Google has denied , saying Berland and others violated corporate policies around data security .
Berland has been pushing to ban Google from SF Pride since June when he was still working for the company .
A spokesperson for Google issued a statement to Recode in response to the vote , saying , “ Google has been a proud supporter of San Francisco Pride for over a decade .
We ’ re saddened that seven members , including a recently fired employee , decided to recommend banning Google , YouTube , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community organization .
SF Pride has over 300 members and a separate Board that makes the ultimate decision on participation ; we ’ ll continue to work with the San Francisco Pride Board and its broader membership on next steps.
” The spokesperson also pointed to Google ’ s opposition to laws that target the LGBTQ community , as well as its support for employees who are LGBTQ by providing same-sex health benefits , including coverage of gender reassignment surgery .
Some Google employees and others have been pushing for SF Pride to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The issue first came up after Vox Media journalist Carlos Maza called public attention to the repeated harassment he was receiving from conservative YouTube commentator Steven Crowder on the platform .
Over the course of two years , Crowder routinely used homophobic and racial slurs to refer to Maza , including calling Maza a “ lispy queer ” and “ anchor baby.
” After YouTube initially said that Crowder ’ s videos didn ’ t violate the company ’ s community guidelines , it ended up penalizing Crowder by suspending his ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopped short of removing any of his videos from the platform .
YouTube ’ s CEO Susan Wojcicki apologized for the the situation and acknowledged that the it was “ hurtful ” to people in the LGBTQ community , but ultimately defended the decision to keep Crowder ’ s videos up .
Soon after , over 140 Google employees signed an open letter asking the organization to drop Google from the Pride Parade , and dozens marched in protest against their company ’ s policies — despite warnings that doing so would violate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally , punishment for violating the company ’ s code of conduct can include termination ) .
Protesters said Maza ’ s case was just one many examples of members of the LGBTQ community who have been targeted by incendiary speech , and left to fend for themselves without support from YouTube .
Six months after the Crowder-Maza controversy in June , YouTube announced changes to its anti-harassment policies and said that it would no longer allow content that maliciously insults someone based on intrinsic attributes such as race , gender expression , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that hateful content creators such as Crowder continue to remain popular on the platform .
At the same time , YouTube continues to face pressure from Republican leaders such as President Donald Trump over claims that the video platform censors conservatives .
Despite the spotlight on Google , organizers say that they hope their efforts will spark a broader conversation about which companies and institutions should be considered worthy allies to the LGBTQ community .
“ Rather than single out Google , we wanted — and still want — to have a deeper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who participate in Pride , ” reads the organizers ’ statement .
“ We believe SF Pride , as an activist organization born of a protest march , should use that power to , as its mission says , ‘ liberate our people ’ ”

Google and YouTube may no longer be welcome at one of the world’s largest LGBTQ Pride parades.
Last week, members of the organization San Francisco Pride (SF Pride) voted to ban Google from participating in future celebrations, saying the company doesn’t do enough to protect LGBTQ people on its platforms, particularly those who are the target of harassment and hate speech on YouTube. The move is a significant shift in attitude toward a company that historically has been regarded as a corporate leader in its support of the LGBTQ community, and is now under scrutiny for its perceived lack of commitment to those efforts.
For many years, tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple have spent significant sums sponsoring parades such as SF Pride, inviting their employees to march alongside company-branded floats in support of LGBTQ rights.
But in recent months, some people, including those within Google’s workforce, have criticized the search giant’s participation in the event, saying the company allows harmful speech hurting LGBTQ and other vulnerable groups to run rampant on the platform, and that new policy changes the company has made to crack down on harassment don’t go far enough.
“Companies are no longer scared to be seen as pro-LGBTQ; in fact, their participation is a great opportunity for them. We believe companies should earn that opportunity by proving that they really do stand with our community,” reads a statement shared with Recode and other outlets by the members seeking to ban Google from the parade.
Seven members at a meeting last Wednesday voted in favor of the recommendation to ban Google, according to the organization’s interim executive director, Fred Lopez. SF Pride has more than 300 members total, but only around a dozen were present at the time of the vote, according to Lopez.
At the meeting, some members of the board disputed whether the vote was legally binding without the board’s approval. In a statement to Recode, Lopez wrote:
One small group raised concerns about Google as a corporate sponsor. Our legal team is reviewing the implications of last week’s vote by seven of Pride’s 326 members. Our Board of Directors will meet February 5th to determine our next step. As we get ready to celebrate our 50th parade, our goal remains the same as it was for our first — to be inclusive and reflect the diversity of our communities.
The efforts to ban Google from Pride are being led in part by former Google employee Laurence Berland. Berland is one of several former Google employees who has alleged that the company recently fired them for engaging in workplace organizing — a claim that Google has denied, saying Berland and others violated corporate policies around data security. Berland has been pushing to ban Google from SF Pride since June when he was still working for the company.
A spokesperson for Google issued a statement to Recode in response to the vote, saying:
Google has been a proud supporter of San Francisco Pride for over a decade. We’re saddened that seven members, including a recently fired employee, decided to recommend banning Google, YouTube, and our employees from supporting this important community organization. SF Pride has over 300 members and a separate Board that makes the ultimate decision on participation; we’ll continue to work with the San Francisco Pride Board and its broader membership on next steps.
The spokesperson also pointed to Google’s opposition to laws that target the LGBTQ community, as well as its support for employees who are LGBTQ by providing same-sex health benefits, including coverage of gender reassignment surgery.
Some Google employees and others have been pushing for SF Pride to drop Google for more than six months. The issue first came up after Vox Media journalist Carlos Maza called public attention to the repeated harassment he was receiving from conservative YouTube commentator Steven Crowder on the platform. Over the course of two years, Crowder routinely used homophobic and racial slurs to refer to Maza.
After YouTube initially said that Crowder’s videos didn’t violate the company’s community guidelines, it ended up penalizing Crowder by suspending his ability to earn ad revenue. Still, YouTube stopped short of removing any of his videos from the platform. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki apologized for the the situation and acknowledged that it was “hurtful” to people in the LGBTQ community, but ultimately defended the decision to keep Crowder’s videos up.
Soon after, more than 140 Google employees signed an open letter asking the organization to drop Google from the Pride parade, and dozens marched in protest of their company’s policies — despite warnings that doing so would violate Google’s code of conduct (generally, punishment for violating the company’s code of conduct can include termination). Protesters said Maza’s case was just one of many examples of members of the LGBTQ community who have been targeted by incendiary speech and left to fend for themselves without support from YouTube.
Six months after the Crowder-Maza controversy in June, YouTube announced changes to its anti-harassment policies and said it would no longer allow content that maliciously insults someone based on intrinsic attributes such as race, gender expression, or sexual orientation. But organizers say that hateful content creators such as Crowder still remain popular on the platform. At the same time, YouTube continues to face pressure from Republican leaders such as President Donald Trump over claims that the video platform censors conservatives.
Despite the spotlight on Google, organizers say they hope their efforts will spark a broader conversation about which companies and institutions should be considered worthy allies to the LGBTQ community.
“Rather than single out Google, we wanted — and still want — to have a deeper conversation about what we expect from companies who participate in Pride,” reads the organizers’ statement. “We believe SF Pride, as an activist organization born of a protest march, should use that power to, as its mission says, ‘liberate our people.’”


vox--2020-01-21--The Saudi crown prince reportedly hacked Jeff Bezos

It ’ s been a while , but remember that allegation that the Saudi government may have hacked Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos ?
A report in the Guardian claims it wasn ’ t just any Saudi government hacker — it might have been Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ( MBS ) himself .
Sources claim MBS may have personally sent Bezos a video file on May 1 , 2018 , via a WhatsApp chat .
It ’ s not clear what the video contained , the Guardian says .
“ But a forensic technical analysis of the file has found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it contained malware that penetrated Bezos ’ s mobile phone and exfiltrated a large amount of data within hours.
” It ’ s also unclear what information was taken from Bezos ’ s phone during the hack , and how it may have been used .
But last February , Bezos accused American Media Inc. , then the parent company of the National Enquirer , of trying to extort Bezos after the publication approached him saying it had text messages and photos that revealed Bezos was having an affair .
AMI repeatedly said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brother of the woman Bezos was allegedly having an affair with .
( AMI ’ s CEO , David Pecker , is close to President Trump , and AMI was involved in the saga of hush money payments to two women who said they had affairs with Trump . )
Bezos ’ s security chief , Gavin de Becker , first said in March 2019 that he had evidence the Saudis had gained access to Bezos ’ s phone and private information .
As de Becker wrote in the Daily Beast : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very serious allegation that a foreign government hacked a private citizen ( Bezos ) who also happens to own the Washington Post , the publication that employed columnist Jamal Khashoggi , who was murdered in Turkey in 2018 , a hit the CIA believes MBS himself ordered .
It also raises even more questions about MBS ’ s personal relationships , including with Trump adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner .
Kushner reportedly communicates with foreign leaders through WhatsApp , including with MBS — something that cybersecurity experts say also makes him vulnerable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced that he and his wife were seeking a divorce .
Just a few hours later , the National Enquirer claimed it had completed a four-month investigation into an extramarital affair between Bezos and Laura Sanchez , a former anchor for a Fox affiliate in Los Angeles .
As Vox ’ s Anna North reported at the time , soon after the initial story of the affair , “ the National Enquirer released what it said were ‘ sleazy text messages ’ sent by Bezos to Sanchez , and claimed to have seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent by the Amazon CEO as well.
” Bezos has become a regular punching bag for President Donald Trump , who dislikes the Washington Post — and by extension , its owner — for what he sees as coverage critical of his presidency .
Pecker , the CEO of AMI ( and until recently the owner of the National Enquirer ) , is a longtime friend of Trump ’ s .
In August 2016 , the tabloid arranged what ’ s called a “ catch and kill ” deal with former Playboy model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an affair with Trump in 2006 and 2007 .
Federal prosecutors also revealed in charging documents that AMI was involved in the illegal hush money payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels .
Both of these payments were designed to protect Trump and influence the 2016 election .
In December 2018 , AMI agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in that federal investigation to avoid prosecution .
Now back to Bezos : In February 2019 , Bezos wrote a lengthy post on Medium accusing AMI of trying to extort him .
Bezos said he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to look into how his private messages had been obtained .
In his post , he claimed that once AMI learned of Bezos ’ s investigation , it contacted him claiming it had even more text messages and photographs of Bezos and threatening to publish them unless Bezos halted the investigation .
Bezos published the exchanges , which included some interesting demands from AMI , including that Bezos publicly acknowledge that he had “ no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI ’ s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will cease referring to such a possibility.
” AMI also said in its correspondence with Bezos that it “ affirms that it undertook no electronic eavesdropping in connection with its reporting and has no knowledge of such conduct.
” Bezos dismissed what he called “ blackmail.
” Meanwhile , de Becker continued with his investigation .
In March 2019 , he made the explosive claim that the Saudi government had gained access to Bezos ’ s phone .
AMI denied that it had received any information from the Saudis , calling the allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ materials were acquired from a single source , Michael Sanchez .
“ There was no involvement by a third party whatsoever , ” the AMI statement read .
But AMI has a connection with the Saudi government .
As North explained last year : Pecker ’ s relationship with Trump continued after the latter took office , according to [ the New Yorker ’ s Ronan ] Farrow .
AMI employees told the reporter that Trump associates had introduced Pecker to potential funding sources for the company .
In 2017 , Pecker had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a French businessman known for brokering deals with Saudi Arabia , ” Farrow writes .
Two months later , the businessman and Pecker met with the Saudi crown prince , Mohammed bin Salman , also known as MBS .
In 2018 , AMI published a nearly 100-page , ad-free magazine full of articles , many of them unbylined , praising MBS , as Spencer Ackerman reported at the Daily Beast .
The magazine called MBS “ our closest Middle East ally destroying terrorism ” and included coverage of “ New Rights for Saudi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside help publishing the magazine and compared it to special issues on “ The Royals , Elvis , The Kennedys , The Olympics , etc.
” ( all subjects better known to Americans than MBS , Ackerman notes ) .
AMI published the favorable coverage of MBS , in the spring of 2018 , when the crown prince was embarking on a goodwill press tour across the US , an attempt to recast him as a modernist reformer .
Bezos met with MBS during his US visit .
Another major event also happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the brutal killing of Saudi dissident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi .
Khashoggi , who worked for the Post , vanished in October , but soon a gruesome assassination plot was revealed .
Intelligence agencies , including with the CIA , linked Khashoggi ’ s death to MBS .
The Post led coverage on the murder of its columnist , which was invariably bad coverage for MBS .
There are still many unanswered questions .
But the report in the Guardian that a message from MBS himself might have led to a hack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader targeting a private US citizen , if true , would be explosive .
The Trump administration has developed a close relationship with the Saudi government , and has largely avoided holding Riyadh accountable for its misdeeds , including the killing of Khashoggi .
What ’ s more , MBS and Jared Kushner — the president ’ s son-in-law and top adviser — also reportedly communicate through encrypted messaging apps , including WhatsApp .
House Democrats have tried to get access to these texts , saying Kushner conducted official government business through these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , whether MBS shared any videos .

It’s been a while, but remember that allegation that the Saudi government may have hacked Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos?
A report Tuesday in the Guardian claims it wasn’t just any Saudi government hacker — it might have been Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) himself.
And on Wednesday, United Nations investigators who had been examining the death of Jamal Khashoggi backed up that allegation.
“The information we have received suggests the possible involvement of the Crown Prince in surveillance of Mr. Bezos, in an effort to influence, if not silence, The Washington Post’s reporting on Saudi Arabia,” UN investigators Agnes Callamard and David Kaye said in a statement.
The investigators said they were made aware of the forensic analysis of Bezos’s phone in the course of their investigation into the Saudi government. Motherboard obtained a copy of the analysis, completed by FTI Consulting in November 2019.
“The allegations reinforce other reporting pointing to a pattern of targeted surveillance of perceived opponents and those of broader strategic importance to the Saudi authorities, including nationals and non-nationals,” the statement continued.
The UN investigators released a timeline that alleges MBS personally sent Bezos an encrypted video file on May 1, 2018, via a WhatsApp message. “It is later established, with reasonable certainty, that the video’s downloader infects Mr. Bezos’ phone with malicious code,” according to the United Nations.
The Guardian also reported that a technical analysis found it was “highly probable” that the file contained malware that penetrated Bezos’s mobile phone and “exfiltrated a large amount of data within hours.”
According to the FTI Consulting report obtained by Motherboard, analysts were unable to find malware, but found the encrypted video “suspicious” because within hours of it being received, “a massive and unauthorized exfiltration of data from Bezos’ phone began, continuing and escalating for months thereafter.”
This is a thumbnail of the video that Saudi Arabia's Mohammad Bin Salman's WhatsApp account sent to Jeff Bezos, which investigators believe is connected to a hack of his phone https://t.co/8E0fAk7BmV pic.twitter.com/KjagFhV3fs — Joseph Cox (@josephfcox) January 22, 2020
It’s still not totally clear what information was taken from Bezos’s phone during the hack, or how it may have been used.
But last February, Bezos accused American Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer, of trying to extort Bezos after the publication approached him saying it had text messages and photos that revealed Bezos was having an affair.
AMI repeatedly said its tipster was Michael Sanchez, the brother of the woman Bezos was allegedly having an affair with. (AMI’s CEO, David Pecker, is close to President Trump, and AMI was involved in the saga of hush money payments to two women who said they had affairs with Trump.)
Bezos’s security chief, Gavin de Becker, first said in March 2019 that he had evidence the Saudis had gained access to Bezos’s phone and private information. As de Becker wrote in the Daily Beast:
Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos’ phone, and gained private information. As of today, it is unclear to what degree, if any, AMI was aware of the details.
De Becker hired FTI to complete the analysis, according to the report. This report, along with the UN’s announcement, offers compelling evidence that a foreign government hacked a US citizen, Bezos.
And not just any citizen, but the owner of the Washington Post, the publication that employed columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Khashoggi was murdered in Turkey in 2018, a hit the CIA believes MBS himself ordered.
The United Nations also painted the alleged hacking of Bezos as part of a broader campaign by Saudi Arabia to target opponents or critics of the regime, both by targeting personal data and through disinformation warfare on social media.
The UN called for further investigation, saying that the “hacking and surveillance of Bezos strengthen the support” for inquiry by the US and others.
“At a time when Saudi Arabia was supposedly investigating the killing of Mr. Khashoggi, and prosecuting those it deemed responsible, it was clandestinely waging a massive online campaign against Mr. Bezos and Amazon targeting him principally as the owner of The Washington Post,” the UN investigators wrote.
The Saudi government has denied the allegations, calling them “absurd” and demanding further investigation.
Recent media reports that suggest the Kingdom is behind a hacking of Mr. Jeff Bezos' phone are absurd. We call for an investigation on these claims so that we can have all the facts out. — Saudi Embassy (@SaudiEmbassyUSA) January 22, 2020
It’s probably not the investigation the United Nations had in mind. Callamard, a UN special rapporteur, had already completed a six-month investigation that found “credible evidence” that high-level Saudi officials — including MBS — oversaw and carried out Khashoggi’s murder.
The UN’s statement on Bezos is trying to show that the Saudi government also waged an effort to silence or smear those who kept calling out the Kingdom’s misdeeds, including the Amazon CEO for this ownership of the Post.
The hack also raises even more questions about MBS’s personal relationships, including with Trump adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Kushner reportedly communicates with foreign leaders through WhatsApp, including with MBS — something that cybersecurity experts say also makes him vulnerable to hacking.
Why would MBS hack Bezos?
In January 2019, Bezos announced that he and his wife were seeking a divorce. Just a few hours later, the National Enquirer claimed it had completed a four-month investigation into an extramarital affair between Bezos and Laura Sanchez, a former anchor for a Fox affiliate in Los Angeles.
As Vox’s Anna North reported at the time, soon after the initial story of the affair, “the National Enquirer released what it said were ‘sleazy text messages’ sent by Bezos to Sanchez, and claimed to have seen ‘a cache of lewd selfies’ sent by the Amazon CEO as well.”
Bezos has become a regular punching bag for President Donald Trump, who dislikes the Washington Post — and, by extension, its owner — for what he sees as coverage critical of his presidency.
Pecker, the CEO of AMI, is a longtime friend of Trump’s. In August 2016, the National Enquirer arranged what’s called a “catch and kill” deal with former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who alleges she had an affair with Trump in 2006 and 2007.
Federal prosecutors also revealed in charging documents that AMI was involved in the illegal hush money payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels. Both of these payments were designed to protect Trump and influence the 2016 election. In December 2018, AMI agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in that federal investigation to avoid prosecution.
Now back to Bezos: In February 2019, Bezos wrote a lengthy post on Medium accusing AMI of trying to extort him. Bezos said he’d hired investigators (including de Becker) to look into how his private messages had been obtained. In his post, he claimed that once AMI learned of Bezos’s investigation, it contacted him claiming it had even more text messages and photographs of Bezos and threatening to publish them unless Bezos halted the investigation.
Bezos published the exchanges, which included some interesting demands from AMI, including that Bezos publicly acknowledge that he had “no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces, and an agreement that they will cease referring to such a possibility.”
AMI also said in its correspondence with Bezos that it “affirms that it undertook no electronic eavesdropping in connection with its reporting and has no knowledge of such conduct.”
Bezos dismissed what he called “blackmail.” Meanwhile, de Becker continued with his investigation. In March 2019, he made the explosive claim that the Saudi government had gained access to Bezos’s phone.
AMI denied that it had received any information from the Saudis, calling the allegations “unsubstantiated,” and said the materials were acquired from a single source, Michael Sanchez. “There was no involvement by a third party whatsoever,” the AMI statement read.
But AMI has a connection with the Saudi government. As North explained last year:
Pecker’s relationship with Trump continued after the latter took office, according to [the New Yorker’s Ronan] Farrow. AMI employees told the reporter that Trump associates had introduced Pecker to potential funding sources for the company. In 2017, Pecker had dinner at the White House with “a French businessman known for brokering deals with Saudi Arabia,” Farrow writes. Two months later, the businessman and Pecker met with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, also known as MBS. In 2018, AMI published a nearly 100-page, ad-free magazine full of articles, many of them unbylined, praising MBS, as Spencer Ackerman reported at the Daily Beast. The magazine called MBS “our closest Middle East ally destroying terrorism” and included coverage of “New Rights for Saudi Women.” AMI said it had no outside help publishing the magazine and compared it to special issues on “The Royals, Elvis, The Kennedys, The Olympics, etc.” (all subjects better known to Americans than MBS, Ackerman notes).
AMI published the favorable coverage of MBS in the spring of 2018 when the crown prince was embarking on a goodwill press tour across the US, an attempt to recast him as a modernist reformer. Bezos met with MBS during his US visit.
According to the UN’s timeline, Bezos attended “a small dinner” with the crown prince in Los Angeles in March 2018, and again in April 2018. At the April dinner, the UN says, the two exchanged numbers “that correspond to their WhatsApp accounts.”
And, so they did:
MBS allegedly sent the file, which contained malware, to Bezos on May 1, 2018. During this time, the UN says the Saudi government also targeted Saudi critics and dissidents with spyware, including some in contact with Saudi dissident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
All of this led up to another major event in the fall of 2018: the brutal killing of Khashoggi. Khashoggi, who worked for the Post as a columnist, vanished in October, but soon a gruesome assassination plot was revealed. Intelligence agencies, including the CIA, linked Khashoggi’s death to MBS. The Post led coverage on the murder of its columnist, which was invariably bad coverage for MBS.
The UN’s timeline includes a rather startling detail: MBS personally texted Bezos another WhatsApp message in November 2018, about a month after Khashoggi’s killing. The message appeared to be a reference to Bezos’s alleged affair, months before it was made public in January 2019. Here’s the UN investigators:
A single photograph is texted to Mr. Bezos from the Crown Prince’s WhatsApp account, along with a sardonic caption. It is an image of a woman resembling the woman with whom Bezos is having an affair, months before the Bezos affair was known publicly
That certainly hints that the Saudi government may have some private information about Bezos, months before the affair was made public.
MBS texted Bezos photos looking like his girlfriend Lauren Sanchez, and made a remark about arguing with spouses. As report notes, this was after someone with access to the phone could have figured out the affair, but ~before~ it was public knowledge https://t.co/8E0fAk7BmV pic.twitter.com/K8shZSE8T2 — Joseph Cox (@josephfcox) January 22, 2020
There are still many unanswered questions. But the allegation that a message from MBS himself might have led to a hack is troubling. A foreign leader targeting a private US citizen, if true, would be explosive. And as the UN report tries to lay out, this appears to fit with “a continuous, multi-year, direct and personal involvement of the Crown Prince in efforts to target perceived opponents.”
The Trump administration has developed a close relationship with the Saudi government, and has largely avoided holding Riyadh accountable for its misdeeds, including the killing of Khashoggi.
What’s more, MBS and Jared Kushner — the president’s son-in-law and top adviser — also reportedly communicate through encrypted messaging apps, including WhatsApp. House Democrats have tried to get access to these texts, saying Kushner conducted official government business through these tools, which could threaten national security. The question might be, however, whether MBS shared any videos.


vox--2020-01-23--The lessons from historic preservation councils blocking solar panels

To achieve their ambitious climate goals , countries of the world will need to change almost everything : how people get around , where and how they work , how they heat their homes and charge their phones , what they buy , and where they live .
That will be challenging for any number of reasons , ranging from the opposition of wealthy incumbents to the limits of current infrastructure .
But one of the main reasons it will be challenging is that many people just don ’ t like change .
Human beings place a high value — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an irrationally high value — on maintaining the familiar things around them .
I was thinking about this as I read a recent Washington Post story about historic preservation districts stifling the growth of rooftop solar , particularly in Washington , DC .
Some applications to install solar panels are being denied or reduced in size over aesthetic concerns .
Basically , historic preservation councils don ’ t want historically preserved districts to visibly change .
That ’ s the whole point .
Thus , panel installations that would be visible from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , homeowners are forced to lay panels flat ; in some cases , they are forced to wrap panels in special camouflaging sheets .
In either case , the efficiency of the panels is substantially reduced .
The story produced considerable angst and outrage among climate hawks , myself included .
There is something undeniably ridiculous about seeing people prioritize their views over stemming the rise in greenhouse gases .
As though anything will have the luxury of staying the same in the face of severe climate change !
Even though it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — this isn ’ t a lot of solar energy — there are lessons within it worth dwelling on and taking seriously , especially for those involved in conceiving , writing , and implementing climate policy .
It shows why change will always involve a healthy amount of on-the-ground organizing and grinding .
It ’ s just hard .
Here is a revealing quote from Sara Green , a resident of the Takoma historic district in DC , on the subject of allowing visible solar panels : “ The impact on the polar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minor .
However , the impact of putting solar panels on front-facing elevations in the Takoma historic district is enormous.
” It ’ s easy to make fun of this sentiment if you take Green to be comparing the importance of visible solar panels to the importance of climate change itself .
That ’ s obviously absurd .
Comparatively , climate change is everything ; the nostalgia of a few affluent area homeowners is nothing .
But that ’ s not what she said .
She compared the impact on climate change to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And on that comparison , she ’ s more or less correct .
Relative to the size and speed of what ’ s needed , the contribution of a single rooftop solar system is a droplet in the ocean .
Every home in Takoma could go solar and it wouldn ’ t register .
Every home in DC .
Every home in the US would barely matter on a global level .
Climate change is an unfathomably large problem .
On the other hand , her aesthetic experience of her neighborhood is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really would be changed by the addition of lots of visible solar panels .
It ’ s a motivational mismatch that pops up again and again in climate policy : She ’ s being asked to change something that ’ s a source of immediate , familiar comfort to her in the name of marginal benefits to the climate .
Of course , there are also increasing financial benefits to going solar — homeowners see their power bills drop — and it may be that those benefits will eventually overwhelm the resistance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But invoking climate change , as compelling as it may seem from the outside , probably won ’ t work , at least not on its own .
Reformers , by definition , believe that things need to change .
And they find that , in the abstract , on polls and surveys , the public often agrees .
But when it comes to actual changes , even people who would benefit resist or , more often , just do nothing .
Confronted with a decision , a rational actor ( as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own interests .
If the change is better than the status quo , or has reasonable chances of being better , they choose the change .
Humans , it turns out , don ’ t really reason that way .
Two of the strongest cognitive biases in the human mind are status quo bias ( a tendency to choose to keep things the same , either through inaction or repeating previous decisions ) and loss aversion ( the pain of losses is roughly twice the pleasure of equivalent gains ) .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At a deep level , people want order and predictability and some control over the minutiae of their lives .
It makes them feel safe .
That can often manifest in ways that look somewhat ludicrous from the outside , as urbanist reformers have discovered again and again : People prize their on-street parking , the width of particular roads , the exact amount of natural light their house receives , the particular plants and trees in their yard and neighborhood .
They prize these things more than the abstract benefits of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they certainly prize them more than the distant benefits of carbon reduction .
I frequently think of the homeowner in Berkeley Hills who , when faced with the loss of an on-street parking spot to make way for emergency vehicles responding to fires , threatened to lie down in the street in protest .
It can seem selfish or shortsighted from a distance , throwing a fit over aesthetics or minor inconveniences in the face of giant collective problems .
But we all have our daily routines , comforts , and spaces , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine how upsetting it might be to have them disrupted .
People have very different “ damage functions , ” as economists put it ; a small harm to one is a grievous blow to another .
The reforms necessary to reduce emissions are going to face a certain amount of resistance not because of any cost-benefit analysis or policy design dispute , but simply because they require a lot of change , and people , especially in relatively stable countries and communities , don ’ t like change .
Even if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re possible politically , even if the world is on fire ... people like their stuff the way it is .
The world is full of pockets of change-resistant power Even if the high muckety-mucks of the world are extremely concerned with climate change and the fate of humanity , the leaders of the Takoma homeowners association are concerned with keeping Takoma the way they like it .
They derive part of their identity and status from being Takoma homeowners and will fight tooth and nail to defend it .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grand schemes meant to change everything at once ( see : carbon tax ) , the truth is that American politics is a thicket of local civic and political groups — homeowners associations , trade groups , town and county boards and governments — with overlapping fiefdoms , each capable of serving as sand in the gears .
And as analysts like Jonathan Chait are fond of reminding us , local governments are responsible for some of America ’ s most reactionary and change-averse policy .
Big national problems loom large for analysts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ground , in the cities , suburbs , and rural areas of the US , people like their corner store , their parking spot , the church potluck on Sunday afternoons , and the way the light looks in the evening .
Particularly in our current era of angst and uncertainty , they enjoy the predictable comforts around them .
Those who ask them to change those things , even in service of something better , face a high burden of proof .
I wrote a fairly pessimistic post earlier this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting ambitious climate targets , partly with this in mind .
While many things seem possible when considered in the abstract , purely through the lens of technology and economics , they seem a lot more difficult when considered from the local view — convincing thousands and thousands of Sara Greens across the country to put up with solar panels , EV chargers , home batteries , wind turbines , bike shares , transit stops , and dense residential construction .
The “ political will ” climate hawks are forever seeking will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with a binding national resolution and a wartime pivot .
It is an aggregate , made up of hundreds and thousands of local decisions , each responding to local circumstances and pressures .
If climate reformers hope to find success in the long run , they must be everywhere on the ground , part of those local pressures .

To achieve their ambitious climate goals, countries of the world will need to change almost everything: how people get around, where and how they work, how they heat their homes and charge their phones, what they buy, and where they live. That will be challenging for any number of reasons, ranging from the opposition of wealthy incumbents to the limits of current infrastructure.
But one of the main reasons it will be challenging is that many people just don’t like change. Human beings place a high value — from economists’ point of view, an irrationally high value — on maintaining the familiar things around them.
I was thinking about this as I read a recent Washington Post story about historic preservation districts stifling the growth of rooftop solar, particularly in Washington, DC. Some applications to install solar panels are being denied or reduced in size over aesthetic concerns.
Basically, historic preservation councils don’t want historically preserved districts to visibly change. That’s the whole point. Thus, panel installations that would be visible from the street are being denied. In some cases, homeowners are forced to lay panels flat; in some cases, they are forced to wrap panels in special camouflaging sheets. In either case, the efficiency of the panels is substantially reduced.
The story produced considerable angst and outrage among climate hawks, myself included. There is something undeniably ridiculous about seeing people prioritize their views over stemming the rise in greenhouse gases. As though anything will have the luxury of staying the same in the face of severe climate change!
Even though it’s a bit of a sideshow — this isn’t a lot of solar energy — there are lessons within it worth dwelling on and taking seriously, especially for those involved in conceiving, writing, and implementing climate policy. It shows why change will always involve a healthy amount of on-the-ground organizing and grinding. It’s just hard.
The climate motivational mismatch
Here is a revealing quote from Sara Green, a resident of the Takoma historic district in DC, on the subject of allowing visible solar panels: “The impact on the polar bears or on climate change is extremely minor. However, the impact of putting solar panels on front-facing elevations in the Takoma historic district is enormous.”
It’s easy to make fun of this sentiment if you take Green to be comparing the importance of visible solar panels to the importance of climate change itself. That’s obviously absurd. Comparatively, climate change is everything; the nostalgia of a few affluent area homeowners is nothing.
But that’s not what she said. She compared the impact on climate change to the impact on her aesthetic experience. And on that comparison, she’s more or less correct.
Relative to the size and speed of what’s needed, the contribution of a single rooftop solar system is a droplet in the ocean. Every home in Takoma could go solar and it wouldn’t register. Every home in DC. Every home in the US would barely matter on a global level. Climate change is an unfathomably large problem.
On the other hand, her aesthetic experience of her neighborhood is an important daily presence in her life and really would be changed by the addition of lots of visible solar panels.
It’s a motivational mismatch that pops up again and again in climate policy: She’s being asked to change something that’s a source of immediate, familiar comfort to her in the name of marginal benefits to the climate.
Of course, there are also increasing financial benefits to going solar — homeowners see their power bills drop — and it may be that those benefits will eventually overwhelm the resistance of the many Sara Greens in American cities. But invoking climate change, as compelling as it may seem from the outside, probably won’t work, at least not on its own.
People don’t like change
Reformers, by definition, believe that things need to change. And they find that, in the abstract, on polls and surveys, the public often agrees. But when it comes to actual changes, even people who would benefit resist or, more often, just do nothing.
Confronted with a decision, a rational actor (as defined by economists) seeks to maximize their own interests. If the change is better than the status quo, or has reasonable chances of being better, they choose the change.
Humans, it turns out, don’t really reason that way. Two of the strongest cognitive biases in the human mind are status quo bias (a tendency to choose to keep things the same, either through inaction or repeating previous decisions) and loss aversion (the pain of losses is roughly twice the pleasure of equivalent gains). Both bias people toward not rocking the boat.
At a deep level, people want order and predictability and some control over the minutiae of their lives. It makes them feel safe. That can often manifest in ways that look somewhat ludicrous from the outside, as urbanist reformers have discovered again and again: People prize their on-street parking, the width of particular roads, the exact amount of natural light their house receives, the particular plants and trees in their yard and neighborhood. They prize these things more than the abstract benefits of denser, more walkable development, and they certainly prize them more than the distant benefits of carbon reduction.
I frequently think of the homeowner in Berkeley Hills who, when faced with the loss of an on-street parking spot to make way for emergency vehicles responding to fires, threatened to lie down in the street in protest.
It can seem selfish or shortsighted from a distance, throwing a fit over aesthetics or minor inconveniences in the face of giant collective problems. But we all have our daily routines, comforts, and spaces, and it’s not difficult to imagine how upsetting it might be to have them disrupted. People have very different “damage functions,” as economists put it; a small harm to one is a grievous blow to another.
The reforms necessary to reduce emissions are going to face a certain amount of resistance not because of any cost-benefit analysis or policy design dispute, but simply because they require a lot of change, and people, especially in relatively stable countries and communities, don’t like change. Even if the changes make sense economically, even if they’re possible politically, even if the world is on fire ... people like their stuff the way it is.
The world is full of pockets of change-resistant power
Even if the high muckety-mucks of the world are extremely concerned with climate change and the fate of humanity, the leaders of the Takoma homeowners association are concerned with keeping Takoma the way they like it. They derive part of their identity and status from being Takoma homeowners and will fight tooth and nail to defend it.
While climate wonks are forever coming up with grand schemes meant to change everything at once (see: carbon tax), the truth is that American politics is a thicket of local civic and political groups — homeowners associations, trade groups, town and county boards and governments — with overlapping fiefdoms, each capable of serving as sand in the gears. And as analysts like Jonathan Chait are fond of reminding us, local governments are responsible for some of America’s most reactionary and change-averse policy.
Big national problems loom large for analysts of big national problems. But on the ground, in the cities, suburbs, and rural areas of the US, people like their corner store, their parking spot, the church potluck on Sunday afternoons, and the way the light looks in the evening. Particularly in our current era of angst and uncertainty, they enjoy the predictable comforts around them. Those who ask them to change those things, even in service of something better, face a high burden of proof.
I wrote a fairly pessimistic post earlier this month about the world’s chances of meeting ambitious climate targets, partly with this in mind. While many things seem possible when considered in the abstract, purely through the lens of technology and economics, they seem a lot more difficult when considered from the local view — convincing thousands and thousands of Sara Greens across the country to put up with solar panels, EV chargers, home batteries, wind turbines, bike shares, transit stops, and dense residential construction.
The “political will” climate hawks are forever seeking will not arrive in some grand moment of revelation, with a binding national resolution and a wartime pivot. It is an aggregate, made up of hundreds and thousands of local decisions, each responding to local circumstances and pressures.
If climate reformers hope to find success in the long run, they must be everywhere on the ground, part of those local pressures.


vox--2020-01-23--Harvey Weinstein’s trial matters. Here are 4 resources to help make sense of it.

Harvey Weinstein ’ s criminal trial has just begun , more than two years after sexual assault allegations against the movie mogul erupted into public consciousness .
Though Weinstein was hardly the first powerful man to be accused of assaulting and raping women , the allegations lit a flame beneath the # MeToo movement .
Within months , the list of Weinstein ’ s accusers contained at least 100 women , though in court he faces criminal charges in connection with only two of them .
Because it ’ s been so long since the news of Weinstein ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cascade of similar stories followed , it ’ s easy to lose track of what exactly happened and why it was so significant .
But the Weinstein story provides a window into many of the most important forces animating the # MeToo movement , from the reasons that women don ’ t always report sexual assault to the ways that powerful people are protected by the systems around them .
Books , films , and podcasts about Weinstein can help provide clarity , particularly if you haven ’ t been glued to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s been lots written and said , but below are four of the most useful resources for understanding why Harvey Weinstein matters .
She Said , by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey ( Penguin , September 2019 ) New York Times reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey won the Pulitzer Prize for public service ( together with the New Yorker ’ s Ronan Farrow ) in 2018 for breaking the Weinstein story .
She Said is their account of how they reported the story , including new on-the-record testimony from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The book is a gripping read , playing out like the best journalistic thrillers .
It ’ s not a fictional tale , or even a movie about a real-life , open-and-shut case with an inspirational happy ending .
It ’ s an ongoing story with real-life consequences , ones that are far from resolved .
She Said underscores how difficult it is to investigate stories of sexual misconduct and assault , and the huge repercussions faced both by those who make their allegations public and by the people who write about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as is the desire to protect men and demonize women who report .
She Said is an essential chronicle of an unprecedented historical moment , and a case for careful journalism , too .
The Assistant , directed by Kitty Green ( in theaters January 31 ) It took two years for a truly great movie about the Harvey Weinstein case to come out , and The Assistant is it .
( The lag time is no big surprise , since Weinstein ’ s close association with most of Hollywood left much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual complicity in giving the predator cover for decades . )
Instead of addressing the allegations head-on , documentarian Kitty Green turned to fiction to explore what made Weinstein such a powerful , feared figure .
The Americans ’ Julia Garner plays Jane , a new assistant in the Tribeca offices of a high-powered movie studio executive .
The Assistant follows her through one long day , which begins before dawn and ends late at night .
Jane makes coffee and copies , takes calls and light ribbing from her colleagues , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what she thinks might be her powerful boss ’ s inappropriate behavior toward a young woman who shows up unexpectedly , saying she ’ s been promised a job in the office .
The genius of The Assistant ( which seems clearly modeled on Chantal Akerman ’ s 1975 feminist masterpiece Jeanne Dielman , 23 Commerce Quay , 1080 Brussels ) is that we don ’ t see the “ Weinstein ” character directly .
Instead , we hear his voice and see his back from a distance ; we also see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He isn ’ t the point of the story , though .
The point , as The Assistant makes blindingly clear , is that he gets away with his behavior because of the complicity of the people around him , who enable and joke about and roll their eyes at him rather than speaking up or stepping in .
It ’ s a riveting , vital film .
The Catch and Kill podcast , produced by Ronan Farrow ( Pineapple Street Studios ) Ronan Farrow , who won the 2018 Pulitzer jointly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a book about his experiences reporting the Weinstein story , entitled Catch and Kill .
To accompany the book , he ’ s produced a ( currently ongoing ) podcast that carefully and winsomely details how elements of his story were reported — and , in some cases , how they almost weren ’ t reported .
Farrow covers one aspect of his reporting in each episode of the podcast , and listening to it is a pretty wild experience , because throughout he talks to people who were very close to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Spy , ” he talks to Igor Ostrovsky , the private investigator who was hired to follow Farrow himself by a surveillance agency working on Weinstein ’ s behalf .
In the second episode , Farrow covers how NBC allegedly killed the story , discussing the matter with his former producer in NBC ’ s investigative unit , Rich McHugh .
Farrow acts as our guide , reminding us that this story was ( and continues to be ) more than just a local tale of a man who got away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a story with far-reaching implications .
The podcast is a fascinating , illuminating way to understand the various systems that allowed Weinstein to evade accountability .
Ursula Macfarlane ’ s documentary Untouchable doesn ’ t aim to provide shocking revelations or new insights .
For the most part , it ’ s a beat-for-beat recounting of the Weinstein story , from Weinstein ’ s early career as a music promoter through his rise as a hotshot movie executive and his eventual downfall .
Weinstein ’ s behavior was one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the subject of many whisper networks .
Untouchable reminds us of this by including a few pop culture references — like a 2012 scene from 30 Rock — that not-so-obliquely alluded to Weinstein ’ s predation on young women hoping to make it big in Hollywood .
But what makes Untouchable worthwhile is how and where it chooses to tell that tale .
With a figure like Weinstein , it ’ s hard not to let him suck all the air out of the room , even in disgrace .
So Untouchable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the background of his own story by letting women tell the stories of their encounters with him firsthand .
The accounts span decades , and the film doesn ’ t let the audience look away .
We sit with the women as they struggle to explain what happened , and to weigh the effects that Weinstein had on their lives .
We hear how similar the details of their alleged assaults are , and witness a pattern emerging .
It ’ s not easy to push a figure like Harvey Weinstein to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Untouchable , which audiences can now watch while Weinstein ’ s legal team is still trying to assert his control over the narrative surrounding him , vitally focuses on the voices of those whom he most profoundly affected .

After nearly a month-long trial, Harvey Weinstein has been convicted on two criminal counts, more than two years after sexual assault allegations against the movie mogul erupted into the public consciousness. On February 24, a jury found Weinstein guilty of a criminal sexual act in the first degree and rape in the third degree.
Though Weinstein was hardly the first powerful man to be accused of assaulting and raping women, the allegations lit a flame beneath the #MeToo movement. Within months, the list of his accusers contained at least 100 women.
Because it’s been so long since the news of Weinstein’s alleged sexual harassment broke, and because a cascade of similar stories followed, it’s easy to lose track of what exactly happened and why it was so significant. But the Weinstein story provides a window into many of the most important forces animating the #MeToo movement, from the reasons women don’t always report sexual assault to the ways that powerful people are protected by the systems around them.
Related The abuse problem within the film community extends beyond big names like Harvey Weinstein
Books, films, and podcasts about Weinstein can help provide clarity, particularly if you haven’t been glued to every development over the past two years. These resources don’t address the trial itself or the specific charges Weinstein has been convicted of, but they’re four of the most useful resources for understanding why Harvey Weinstein matters.
She Said, by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey (Penguin, September 2019)
New York Times reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey won the Pulitzer Prize for public service (together with the New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow) in 2018 for breaking the Weinstein story. She Said is their account of how they reported the story, including new on-the-record testimony from sources who were previously off the record.
The book is a gripping read, playing out like the best journalistic thrillers. It’s not a fictional tale, or even a movie about a real-life, open-and-shut case with an inspirational happy ending. It’s an ongoing story with real-life consequences, ones that are far from resolved.
She Said underscores how difficult it is to investigate stories of sexual misconduct and assault, and the huge repercussions faced both by those who make their allegations public and by the people who write about them. The backlash is fierce, as is the desire to protect men and demonize women who report. She Said is an essential chronicle of an unprecedented historical moment, and a case for careful journalism, too.
(It’s also worth listening to the February 7 episode of the New York Times podcast The Daily, in which Weinstein’s lawyer Donna Rotunno explains the legal strategy behind the case — and, when asked if she’s ever been sexually assaulted herself, gives a revealing answer: “I have not because I would never put myself in that position.”)
The Assistant, directed by Kitty Green (in theaters January 31)
It took two years for a truly great movie about the Harvey Weinstein case to come out, and The Assistant (currently in theaters nationwide) is it. (The lag time is no big surprise, since Weinstein’s close association with most of Hollywood left much of the movie industry reeling and uncertain about individual complicity in giving the alleged predator cover for decades.) Instead of addressing the allegations head-on, documentarian Kitty Green turned to fiction to explore what made Weinstein such a powerful, feared figure.
The Americans’ Julia Garner plays Jane, a new assistant in the Tribeca offices of a high-powered movie studio executive. The Assistant follows her through one long day, which begins before dawn and ends late at night. Jane makes coffee and copies, takes calls and light ribbing from her colleagues, and witnesses, to her slowly growing horror, what she thinks might be her powerful boss’s inappropriate behavior toward a young woman who shows up unexpectedly, saying she’s been promised a job in the office.
The genius of The Assistant (which seems clearly modeled on Chantal Akerman’s 1975 feminist masterpiece Jeanne Dielman, 23 Commerce Quay, 1080 Brussels) is that we don’t see the “Weinstein” character directly. Instead, we hear his voice and see his back from a distance; we also see the fear he provokes in his subordinates. He isn’t the point of the story, though. The point, as The Assistant makes blindingly clear, is that he gets away with his behavior because of the complicity of the people around him, who enable and joke about and roll their eyes at him rather than speaking up or stepping in. It’s a riveting, vital film.
The Catch and Kill podcast, produced by Ronan Farrow (Pineapple Street Studios)
Ronan Farrow, who won the 2018 Pulitzer jointly with Kantor and Twohey, also wrote a book about his experiences reporting the Weinstein story, entitled Catch and Kill. To accompany the book, he’s produced a (currently running) podcast that carefully and winsomely details how elements of his story were reported — and, in some cases, how they almost weren’t reported.
Farrow covers one aspect of his reporting in each episode of the podcast, and listening to it is a pretty wild experience, because throughout he talks to people who were very close to the story. In the first episode, “The Spy,” he talks to Igor Ostrovsky, the private investigator who was hired to follow Farrow himself by a surveillance agency working on Weinstein’s behalf. In the second episode, Farrow covers how NBC allegedly killed the story, discussing the matter with his former producer in NBC’s investigative unit, Rich McHugh.
Farrow acts as our guide, reminding us that this story was (and continues to be) more than just a local tale of a man who got away with terrible behavior for decades; it’s a story with far-reaching implications. The podcast is a fascinating, illuminating way to understand the various systems that allowed Weinstein to evade accountability.
Untouchable, directed by Ursula Macfarlane (streaming on Hulu)
Ursula Macfarlane’s documentary Untouchable doesn’t aim to provide shocking revelations or new insights. For the most part, it’s a beat-for-beat recounting of the Weinstein story, from Weinstein’s early career as a music promoter through his rise as a hotshot movie executive and his eventual downfall. Weinstein’s behavior was one of the industry’s open secrets for decades and the subject of many whisper networks. Untouchable reminds us of this by including a few pop culture references — like a 2012 scene from 30 Rock — that not-so-obliquely alluded to Weinstein’s predation on young women hoping to make it big in Hollywood.
But what makes Untouchable worthwhile is how and where it chooses to tell that tale. With a figure like Weinstein, it’s hard not to let him suck all the air out of the room, even in disgrace. So Untouchable makes the smart choice to push him into the background of his own story by letting women tell the stories of their encounters with him firsthand. The accounts span decades, and the film doesn’t let the audience look away. We sit with the women as they struggle to explain what happened, and to weigh the effects Weinstein had on their lives. We hear how similar the details of their alleged assaults are, and witness a pattern emerging.
It’s not easy to push a figure like Harvey Weinstein to the margins. But a film like Untouchable, which audiences can now watch while Weinstein’s legal team is still trying to assert his control over the narrative surrounding him, vitally focuses on the voices of those whom he most profoundly affected.


vox--2020-01-23--Brexit is finally happening. On January 31. For real this time.

Brexit is finally , officially happening — for real this time .
The United Kingdom has passed the legislation to make the current Brexit deal with the European Union official UK law , paving the way for the country ’ s exit from the EU on January 31 .
The House of Commons — the lower , elected chamber once the source of endless Brexit drama — quietly and quickly approved the bill on January 9 .
The House of Lords , the unelected upper chamber , approved the legislation this week with amendments .
But the House of Commons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House of Lords relented and agreed to accept the legislation without tweaks .
With Parliament agreed , the legislation received royal assent on Thursday , allowing the Queen to give formal approval to a British exit ( after approving one of a different sort this month ) .
Prime Minister Boris Johnson ’ s election victory in December , which delivered him an 80-seat majority in the House of Commons , turned the historic Brexit moment into something more humdrum , as the opposition lawmakers could make little resistance to the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House of Lords , where Johnson doesn ’ t have a lot of support , peers were restrained from staging too much of a challenge , as it would be seen as stymieing the will of the electorate .
But the moment is still monumental , as the UK prepares to end its EU membership and chart a new version of its relationship with the bloc .
The European Parliament has to approve the Brexit deal on January 29 , but this is largely a formality .
Which means the UK and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of this month .
What to expect after January 31 The EU-UK relationship won ’ t seem that different , at least at first .
The UK and the EU are about to enter an 11-month transition period , during which the UK will continue to follow most EU rules but will not have any decision-making power in the body .
During this period , the UK and the EU will figure out what the future will look like : how they ’ ll trade with each other , how they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ll work together on security — and quite a bit more .
The starting point for these negotiations will be something called the political declaration , which sets out broad principles ( “ establishes the parameters of an ambitious , broad , deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation with a comprehensive and balanced Free Trade Agreement at its core ” — you get the idea ) but lacks details on how , exactly , these goals will be achieved .
Negotiations will begin in earnest in late February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to complete them — again , less than 11 months — is narrow and ambitious .
Many EU officials have been pretty blunt and said that they do not believe this is enough time to settle all the details of this future EU-UK cooperation .
After all , it took about three years just to get to this point .
This next phase is likely to be even tougher .
But this is the way Johnson wants it .
The Brexit deal allows the possibility of an extension to this period until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , campaigned on the promise that he would not extend the transition period , and he eliminated that possibility from the Brexit legislation that just became law .
Laws can be amended , but as of now , the UK and EU must begin landmark talks on a supercharged schedule .
Hardcore Brexiteers believe the tight time window will focus minds — in the UK , but just as importantly , in Brussels , where some see the EU eager to drag this out or keep trying to entrap the UK for fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU is plenty weary of Brexit ; this is something the UK did to the EU , not the other way around .
But leaders in the EU are likely to be firm on one key issue : making sure that if the UK wants to retain access to the EU ’ s market , it can not diverge too much from the EU ’ s regulations .
If “ Irish backstop ” was the defining phrase of the first part of Brexit negotiations , get ready for “ level playing field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second part .
The EU wants to guarantee a “ level playing field ” with the UK in any free-trade agreement , basically to prevent the UK from so drastically changing their economic regulations ( such as giving huge tax breaks or subsidies to companies ) or environmental or labor standards that it could undercut the EU .
Some Brexiteers once declared that after Brexit , the UK would become “ Singapore on Thames ” — a shorthand for a low-tax , low-regulation economy .
That ’ s exactly what the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ level playing field ” is not a new , Brexit-specific thing .
This is usually part of any free-trade agreement negotiation .
The US frequently insists on a level playing field in its deals because it wants to avoid undercutting US workers or businesses .
( This is , at least partly , the Trump administration ’ s motivation for renegotiating NAFTA . )
If it turns out the UK doesn ’ t want to differ very much from EU rules , this could all go rather smoothly .
That could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make its own regulations than it may have originally envisioned when it left the EU .
But remember all those onerous regulations the pro-Leave crowd promised would disappear once Brexit happened ?
So far , Johnson ’ s government looks as if it does want to diverge from EU rules .
If Johnson follows through on that promise , things could get messy — and the tradeoff could be the degree of access the UK has to EU market .
Currently , the EU is the UK ’ s largest trading partner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to the EU .
And more than 50 percent of the UK ’ s imports are from the EU .
Though Johnson has promised ambitious trade deals with the rest of the world — including the United States — reorienting trade takes time , as does negotiating complex agreements .
As of right now , if the UK and EU don ’ t reach some agreement by the end of 2020 , it could threaten serious serious economic disruption on the continent .
Either way , though , the UK is breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if Big Ben doesn ’ t chime to mark the occasion .
And then the UK , the EU , and the rest of the world will start discovering what “ Brexit ” actually means .

Brexit is finally, officially happening — for real this time.
The United Kingdom has passed the legislation to make the current Brexit deal with the European Union official UK law, paving the way for the country’s exit from the EU on January 31.
The House of Commons — the lower, elected chamber once the source of endless Brexit drama — quietly and quickly approved the bill on January 9. The House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber, approved the legislation this week with amendments. But the House of Commons overturned the changes on Wednesday, and the House of Lords relented and agreed to accept the legislation without tweaks.
With Parliament agreed, the legislation received royal assent on Thursday, allowing the Queen to give formal approval to a British exit (after approving one of a different sort this month).
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s election victory in December, which delivered him an 80-seat majority in the House of Commons, turned the historic Brexit moment into something more humdrum, as the opposition lawmakers could make little resistance to the government’s plans. Even in the House of Lords, where Johnson doesn’t have a lot of support, peers were restrained from staging too much of a challenge, as it would be seen as stymieing the will of the electorate.
But the moment is still monumental, as the UK prepares to end its EU membership and chart a new version of its relationship with the bloc. The European Parliament has to approve the Brexit deal on January 29, but this is largely a formality.
Which means the UK and the EU will end their 40-year marriage by the end of this month.
What to expect after January 31
The EU-UK relationship won’t seem that different, at least at first. The UK and the EU are about to enter an 11-month transition period, during which the UK will continue to follow most EU rules but will not have any decision-making power in the body.
During this period, the UK and the EU will figure out what the future will look like: how they’ll trade with each other, how they’ll regulate financial services, how they’ll work together on security — and quite a bit more.
The starting point for these negotiations will be something called the political declaration, which sets out broad principles (“establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation with a comprehensive and balanced Free Trade Agreement at its core” — you get the idea ) but lacks details on how, exactly, these goals will be achieved.
Negotiations will begin in earnest in late February or early March, and the window to complete them — again, less than 11 months — is narrow and ambitious. Many EU officials have been pretty blunt and said that they do not believe this is enough time to settle all the details of this future EU-UK cooperation. After all, it took about three years just to get to this point. This next phase is likely to be even tougher.
But this is the way Johnson wants it.
The Brexit deal allows the possibility of an extension to this period until the end of 2022. Johnson, however, campaigned on the promise that he would not extend the transition period, and he eliminated that possibility from the Brexit legislation that just became law. Laws can be amended, but as of now, the UK and EU must begin landmark talks on a supercharged schedule.
Hardcore Brexiteers believe the tight time window will focus minds — in the UK, but just as importantly, in Brussels, where some see the EU eager to drag this out or keep trying to entrap the UK for fear of its leaving. In reality, the EU is plenty weary of Brexit; this is something the UK did to the EU, not the other way around.
But leaders in the EU are likely to be firm on one key issue: making sure that if the UK wants to retain access to the EU’s market, it cannot diverge too much from the EU’s regulations.
If “Irish backstop” was the defining phrase of the first part of Brexit negotiations, get ready for “level playing field” to be the defining phrase of the second part. The EU wants to guarantee a “level playing field” with the UK in any free-trade agreement, basically to prevent the UK from so drastically changing their economic regulations (such as giving huge tax breaks or subsidies to companies) or environmental or labor standards that it could undercut the EU.
Some Brexiteers once declared that after Brexit, the UK would become “Singapore on Thames” — a shorthand for a low-tax, low-regulation economy. That’s exactly what the EU wants to avoid.
Of course, a “level playing field” is not a new, Brexit-specific thing. This is usually part of any free-trade agreement negotiation. The US frequently insists on a level playing field in its deals because it wants to avoid undercutting US workers or businesses. (This is, at least partly, the Trump administration’s motivation for renegotiating NAFTA.)
If it turns out the UK doesn’t want to differ very much from EU rules, this could all go rather smoothly. That could also potentially give the UK less freedom to make its own regulations than it may have originally envisioned when it left the EU.
But remember all those onerous regulations the pro-Leave crowd promised would disappear once Brexit happened? So far, Johnson’s government looks as if it does want to diverge from EU rules. If Johnson follows through on that promise, things could get messy — and the tradeoff could be the degree of access the UK has to EU market. Currently, the EU is the UK’s largest trading partner: 45 percent of all UK exports go to the EU. And more than 50 percent of the UK’s imports are from the EU.
Though Johnson has promised ambitious trade deals with the rest of the world — including the United States — reorienting trade takes time, as does negotiating complex agreements. As of right now, if the UK and EU don’t reach some agreement by the end of 2020, it could threaten serious serious economic disruption on the continent.
Either way, though, the UK is breaking up with the EU on January 31, even if Big Ben doesn’t chime to mark the occasion.
And then the UK, the EU, and the rest of the world will start discovering what “Brexit” actually means.


vox--2020-01-23--Fox News devised a way to cover the impeachment trial without covering it at all

As the impeachment trial got underway in the Senate on Wednesday , Fox News covered it in a way that gave the appearance of journalism but was actually propaganda .
In fairness , the network did cover the entirety of Rep. Adam Schiff ’ s two-hour opening statement .
But after that , while CNN and MSNBC continued to broadcast the trial , Fox News turned to spin .
Back in November , Fox News spun the House impeachment hearings by featuring short , out-of-context clips of Republicans defending President Trump that portrayed things in the best possible light for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t available on Wednesday , as the entirety of the day was allotted to Democratic impeachment managers .
Starting with The Five , the network ’ s early evening roundtable commentary show , and continuing throughout the evening , Fox News broadcast portions of screen-in-screen video of the trial .
But instead of playing the audio , network hosts provided the normal Trumpian spin .
So while someone who just looked at the screen may have concluded Fox News was covering the trial , in fact it wasn ’ t covering it at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as to broadcast screen-in-screen video of the trial during commercial breaks — but , again , without the sound that was necessary to make any sense of what was being discussed .
Fox News primetime hosts did everything they could to diminish the significance of the impeachment trial .
Tucker Carlson began his show by comparing it to “ a movie written and directed by children whose ending you already know , and by the way , it ’ s 20 hours long , in Hungarian , with misspelled subtitles.
” He even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he did show brief clips from the trial .
During the 9 pm hour — just before Schiff closed the day ’ s proceedings by emotionally imploring Republican senators to have the same courage that witnesses like Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman did in coming forward to testify , even at risk of their careers — Sean Hannity began his show by immediately cutting away from the trial , telling his viewers “ none of this will matter , ” and describing Schiff as a “ lunatic ” ( a characterization at odds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial for being boring ) .
Hannity later played a supercut of snippets of Schiff ’ s testimony that framed things in the most demeaning possible light .
Say what you will about Adam Schiff , but nobody who actually watched his presentation on Wednesday was likely to come away with the impression that he ’ s insane or , as Carlson suggested , so unlikable he ’ s incapable of making friends .
But those are the takeaways Fox News viewers were force-fed .
Things didn ’ t get much better on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage of the trial had a circular quality , criticizing Democrats for not presenting new evidence while ignoring the fact that they ’ re unable to do so because of GOP stonewalling .
Why does this matter ?
Fox News ’ s coverage of the impeachment trial ’ s day-long rules debate on Tuesday was easily the highest-rated on broadcast and cable .
The network drew record ratings in 2019 , and its viewers constitute a large portion of Trump ’ s base .
Trump rewards the network for its loyalty by relentlessly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ granting it exclusive interviews , including as recently as Wednesday morning .
The 2.7 million people who have been watching Fox News ’ s impeachment trial coverage at any given time are being told a story about it that ’ s completely untethered from reality — one that reinforces America ’ s deep polarization between the roughly 50 percent of voters who want Trump removed from office and the 40 to 45 percent who continue to support him through scandal after scandal .
There ’ s nothing Schiff could have said on Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primetime hosts wouldn ’ t have spun as evidence of his mental instability , his obsession with taking down Trump .
And while viewers were being spun on Wednesday , they were shown soundless video of the trial , the misleading implication being that they don ’ t have to bother watching it since Fox News is on top of it for them .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

As the impeachment trial got underway in the Senate on Wednesday, Fox News covered it in a way that gave the appearance of journalism but was actually propaganda.
In fairness, the network did cover the entirety of Rep. Adam Schiff’s two-hour opening statement. But after that, while CNN and MSNBC continued to broadcast the trial, Fox News turned to spin.
Back in November, Fox News spun the House impeachment hearings by featuring short, out-of-context clips of Republicans defending President Trump that portrayed things in the best possible light for them. But that option wasn’t available on Wednesday, as the entirety of the day was allotted to Democratic impeachment managers.
Starting with The Five, the network’s early evening roundtable commentary show, and continuing throughout the evening, Fox News broadcast portions of screen-in-screen video of the trial. But instead of playing the audio, network hosts provided the normal Trumpian spin. So while someone who just looked at the screen may have concluded Fox News was covering the trial, in fact it wasn’t covering it at all.
Fox News has the optics of covering the #ImpeachmentTrial without actually covering it. They've been showing screen-in-screen video of the proceedings without audio. Instead, hosts are providing Trumpian spin. It's propaganda giving the illusion of journalism. Remarkable. pic.twitter.com/NKbN2Sic1o — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 23, 2020
The network went as far as to broadcast screen-in-screen video of the trial during commercial breaks — but, again, without the sound that was necessary to make any sense of what was being discussed.
Fox News primetime hosts did everything they could to diminish the significance of the impeachment trial. Tucker Carlson began his show by comparing it to “a movie written and directed by children whose ending you already know, and by the way, it’s 20 hours long, in Hungarian, with misspelled subtitles.” He even offered a tongue-in-cheek apology to viewers when he did show brief clips from the trial.
Tucker Carlson began his show dismissing the #ImpeachmentTrial by comparing it to "a movie written & directed by children whose ending you already know, & by the way, it's 20 hours long, in Hungarian, with misspelled subtitles." That's how his viewers will process things. pic.twitter.com/0PXgxFuXNA — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 23, 2020
During the 9 pm hour — just before Schiff closed the day’s proceedings by emotionally imploring Republican senators to have the same courage that witnesses like Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman did in coming forward to testify, even at risk of their careers — Sean Hannity began his show by immediately cutting away from the trial, telling his viewers “none of this will matter,” and describing Schiff as a “lunatic” (a characterization at odds with other primetime segments that criticized the trial for being boring).
Hannity later played a supercut of snippets of Schiff’s testimony that framed things in the most demeaning possible light.
Fox News added scary music and, in one section, a red overtone to an Adam Schiff supercut from today pic.twitter.com/yV2wRdOG7d — Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) January 23, 2020
Say what you will about Adam Schiff, but nobody who actually watched his presentation on Wednesday was likely to come away with the impression that he’s insane or, as Carlson suggested, so unlikable he’s incapable of making friends. But those are the takeaways Fox News viewers were force-fed.
Things didn’t get much better on Thursday morning. Fox News’s coverage of the trial had a circular quality, criticizing Democrats for not presenting new evidence while ignoring the fact that they’re unable to do so because of GOP stonewalling.
Step 1: Dems try repeatedly to get new evidence into the trial
Step 2: Republicans repeatedly vote it down
Step 3: Fox criticizes Dems for having no new evidence.
Rinse and repeat.
Fox's Jason Chaffetz: "It had nothing to do with proving the facts, there was no new evidence" pic.twitter.com/LSdPEKkzGE — Lis Power (@LisPower1) January 23, 2020
Why does this matter? Fox News’s coverage of the impeachment trial’s day-long rules debate on Tuesday was easily the highest-rated on broadcast and cable. The network drew record ratings in 2019, and its viewers constitute a large portion of Trump’s base. Trump rewards the network for its loyalty by relentlessly promoting its programming on social media and granting it exclusive interviews, including as recently as Wednesday morning.
The 2.7 million people who have been watching Fox News’s impeachment trial coverage at any given time are being told a story about it that’s completely untethered from reality — one that reinforces America’s deep polarization between the roughly 50 percent of voters who want Trump removed from office and the 40 to 45 percent who continue to support him through scandal after scandal.
There’s nothing Schiff could have said on Wednesday that Fox News’s evening and primetime hosts wouldn’t have spun as evidence of his mental instability, his obsession with taking down Trump. And while viewers were being spun on Wednesday, they were shown soundless video of the trial, the misleading implication being that they don’t have to bother watching it since Fox News is on top of it for them.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.