theintercept--2020-09-22--Amid Internal Power Struggle, Firefighters Union Clears President of Wrongdoing

of Fire Fighters has absolved its president , Harold Schaitberger , of any wrongdoing related to his receipt of pension payments , according to an internal review obtained by The Intercept .
The union ’ s No .
2 , General Secretary-Treasurer Ed Kelly , had charged back in March that Schaitberger was receiving the payments too soon , prompting the investigation .
Another internal review , which was distributed within the union last week , found that Kelly had improperly hired outside legal counsel to investigate Schaitberger and the IAFF .
Kelly alleged in the spring that Schaitberger , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s president in 2000 , after 24 years of serving as an IAFF staffer , has been drawing from his staff pension benefits too soon , receiving more than $ 1 million earlier than allowed by federal law and union rules .
The allegations sparked the internal probes , which were led by board-level committees .
The jockeying at the top of the IAFF , which represents 320,000 firefighters and paramedics across the U.S and Canada , comes at a crucial political juncture , ahead of the presidential election in November and union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key ally of former Vice President Joe Biden , and under his leadership , the IAFF endorsed Biden in April 2019 , long before any other labor union , drawing the ire of President Donald Trump .
Schaitberger is up for reelection in January and is currently running unopposed — though , as The Intercept reported last week , Kelly has expressed interest in the role , according to an IAFF leader from the Midwest and other union members .
Kelly ’ s chief of operations , Matt Golsteyn , was pardoned for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and campaigned with him at a Republican Party fundraiser a month later .
Following Kelly ’ s accusations , the union executive board suspended Schaitberger ’ s monthly pension payments and suggested that the union may need to “ recover the impermissible benefit payments ” Schaitberger had received , potentially by offsetting them against future payments .
The board then launched its internal review ; neither Schaitberger nor Kelly were involved in appointing members to the committee tasked with reviewing the pension claims , according to the 29-page report .
The report was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday , and in it the union reversed its suspension of Schaitberger ’ s pension payments .
The report also noted that the union ’ s executive board unanimously approved an amendment in 2002 affirming Schaitberger ’ s right to collect his staff pension while serving as president .
It does not say definitively whether he improperly received payments , but concludes that any overpayment he may have received “ can not be recovered from him ” because it would be “ improper ” under the principles of the Employee Retirement Income Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for that .
( The federal retirement law places the responsibility of record retention on the employer , not the employee , and the union noted many key witnesses involved in managing the pension fund are now dead . )
“ Our determination is due in no small part to the amount of time that has passed since the events at issue and the significant prejudice to Mr. Schaitberger resulting from the passage of time and the wasting of evidence , ” the report concluded .
Earlier this month , federal authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the union ’ s new report , the authors acknowledged that the federal government may still find wrongdoing , but emphasized that if a pension “ correction ” is needed with the IRS , Schaitberger should not be personally on the hook for it .
On Monday , Schaitberger sent a lengthy email to IAFF leaders sharing the pension report , which he claimed “ vindicated me , ” laying out the major findings of the internal review .
He also warned that some may try “ to mischaracterize this Decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambition and purposes .
When they do , they will continue to expose their own agenda and further harm this IAFF.
” A second executive board committee report , which was distributed internally to IAFF leaders last week , blasted Kelly for secretly hiring the “ antiunion , anti-employee ” law firm Nelson Mullins in January to investigate the union ’ s finances .
Kelly used his personal email account to hire the law firm , without knowledge or approval from others on the union executive board .
When reprimanded in March by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defended his decision , saying that his constitutional authorities as general secretary-treasurer “ provide [ s ] for the ability to retain outside counsel to assist me with my fiduciary responsibilities as the association ’ s treasurer.
” ( The IAFF ’ s general counsel disagreed with this assessment , according to an email he sent Kelly on March 12 . )
In the report pertaining to Nelson Mullins , the IAFF said that when it had first asked the firm for documents and emails relevant to its representation of the union , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and allegedly withheld documents from the executive board .
This prompted the board to vote in July to instruct Nelson Mullins to immediately cease all IAFF work and provide the union with all documents , correspondence , and work product by August 7 .
But the law firm , according to the IAFF , did not stop working and proceeded to submit a so-called preliminary report on the union that had not been requested .
The IAFF blasted Nelson Mullins for producing an unauthorized work product that “ is filled with unsubstantiated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ appears to be nothing more than a hit piece on the IAFF Executive Board and General President.
” Asked about the internal reports , a spokesperson for the IAFF told The Intercept that they “ speak for themselves .
”

The International Association of Fire Fighters has absolved its president, Harold Schaitberger, of any wrongdoing related to his receipt of pension payments, according to an internal review obtained by The Intercept. The union’s No. 2, General Secretary-Treasurer Ed Kelly, had charged back in March that Schaitberger was receiving the payments too soon, prompting the investigation. Another internal review, which was distributed within the union last week, found that Kelly had improperly hired outside legal counsel to investigate Schaitberger and the IAFF.
Kelly alleged in the spring that Schaitberger, who was elected as the IAFF’s president in 2000, after 24 years of serving as an IAFF staffer, has been drawing from his staff pension benefits too soon, receiving more than $1 million earlier than allowed by federal law and union rules. The allegations sparked the internal probes, which were led by board-level committees.
The jockeying at the top of the IAFF, which represents 320,000 firefighters and paramedics across the U.S and Canada, comes at a crucial political juncture, ahead of the presidential election in November and union elections in January. Schaitberger is a key ally of former Vice President Joe Biden, and under his leadership, the IAFF endorsed Biden in April 2019, long before any other labor union, drawing the ire of President Donald Trump. Schaitberger is up for reelection in January and is currently running unopposed — though, as The Intercept reported last week, Kelly has expressed interest in the role, according to an IAFF leader from the Midwest and other union members. Kelly’s chief of operations, Matt Golsteyn, was pardoned for war crimes by Trump in November 2019 and campaigned with him at a Republican Party fundraiser a month later.
Following Kelly’s accusations, the union executive board suspended Schaitberger’s monthly pension payments and suggested that the union may need to “recover the impermissible benefit payments” Schaitberger had received, potentially by offsetting them against future payments. The board then launched its internal review; neither Schaitberger nor Kelly were involved in appointing members to the committee tasked with reviewing the pension claims, according to the 29-page report.
The report was distributed to thousands of IAFF leaders on Monday, and in it the union reversed its suspension of Schaitberger’s pension payments. The report also noted that the union’s executive board unanimously approved an amendment in 2002 affirming Schaitberger’s right to collect his staff pension while serving as president. It does not say definitively whether he improperly received payments, but concludes that any overpayment he may have received “cannot be recovered from him” because it would be “improper” under the principles of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to hold him financially responsible for that. (The federal retirement law places the responsibility of record retention on the employer, not the employee, and the union noted many key witnesses involved in managing the pension fund are now dead.) “Our determination is due in no small part to the amount of time that has passed since the events at issue and the significant prejudice to Mr. Schaitberger resulting from the passage of time and the wasting of evidence,” the report concluded.
Earlier this month, federal authorities launched a criminal probe into the allegations. In the union’s new report, the authors acknowledged that the federal government may still find wrongdoing, but emphasized that if a pension “correction” is needed with the IRS, Schaitberger should not be personally on the hook for it.
On Monday, Schaitberger sent a lengthy email to IAFF leaders sharing the pension report, which he claimed “vindicated me,” laying out the major findings of the internal review. He also warned that some may try “to mischaracterize this Decision, to once again serve their own ambition and purposes. When they do, they will continue to expose their own agenda and further harm this IAFF.”
A second executive board committee report, which was distributed internally to IAFF leaders last week, blasted Kelly for secretly hiring the “antiunion, anti-employee” law firm Nelson Mullins in January to investigate the union’s finances. Kelly used his personal email account to hire the law firm, without knowledge or approval from others on the union executive board. When reprimanded in March by Schaitberger for the unauthorized hire, Kelly defended his decision, saying that his constitutional authorities as general secretary-treasurer “provide[s] for the ability to retain outside counsel to assist me with my fiduciary responsibilities as the association’s treasurer.” (The IAFF’s general counsel disagreed with this assessment, according to an email he sent Kelly on March 12.)
In the report pertaining to Nelson Mullins, the IAFF said that when it had first asked the firm for documents and emails relevant to its representation of the union, it “provided an incredibly incomplete response” and allegedly withheld documents from the executive board. This prompted the board to vote in July to instruct Nelson Mullins to immediately cease all IAFF work and provide the union with all documents, correspondence, and work product by August 7. But the law firm, according to the IAFF, did not stop working and proceeded to submit a so-called preliminary report on the union that had not been requested. The IAFF blasted Nelson Mullins for producing an unauthorized work product that “is filled with unsubstantiated allegations, innuendo, and factual misstatements” and “appears to be nothing more than a hit piece on the IAFF Executive Board and General President.”
Asked about the internal reports, a spokesperson for the IAFF told The Intercept that they “speak for themselves.”


theintercept--2020-09-22--Films Financed by Steven Mnuchin Were Tailored to Appeal to China

love to call out liberal Hollywood ’ s fraught relationship to China .
In July , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo railed against censorship driven by China in a dark speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda , California .
“ Hollywood , not too far from here — the epicenter of American creative freedom , and self-appointed arbiters of social justice — self-censors even the most mildly unfavorable reference to China , ” Pompeo said .
That same month , Attorney General Bill Barr lanced Hollywood for “ kowtowing ” to the Chinese Communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutiny ; the company is now in the hot seat for shooting parts of the live-action remake “ Mulan ” in northwest China , where over 1 million members of the Uyghur minority group have been detained in camps .
Even Donald Trump Jr. has weighed in on the topic , tweeting last year about the removal of the Taiwanese flag from a leather jacket worn by Tom Cruise in the trailer for “ Top Gun : Maverick.
” On September 9 , as the controversy over “ Mulan ” intensified , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Missouri , sent a letter to Disney CEO Bob Chapek lambasting him for “ Disney ’ s whitewashing of the ongoing Uighur genocide ” and asking him to pull “ Mulan ” from the streaming service Disney+ .
For executives in Hollywood , as in the NBA , the allure of the Chinese market outweighs ideals of free speech and artistic freedom .
Over the past few decades , standards of living have increased dramatically for the country ’ s 1.4 billion potential ticket-buyers , leaving many with disposable income to spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ construction boom that yielded cineplexes throughout China , Chinese box offices grossed $ 9.3 billion in 2019 , close to the $ 11.3 billion pulled in by U.S. box offices , according to the Asia-focused film consultancy Artisan Gateway .
The sheer size of the Chinese market leads studios to directly consult Chinese government propagandists , cut unpalatable scenes , and even structure entire productions around unwritten censorship restrictions .
“ It ’ s pretty accepted practice that people are having conversations in the halls of power in Los Angeles about what can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film , based on its potential release in China , ” said Jonathan Landreth , a former Beijing-based correspondent for the Hollywood Reporter .
Take “ Gravity , ” the 2013 blockbuster financed in part by Dune Entertainment , the production company that Mnuchin founded in 2005 .
( The year of the film ’ s release , Dune merged with RatPac Entertainment to form RatPac-Dune .
Mnuchin divested from the company in 2017 . )
Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone , a stranded astronaut whose fellow crew members have all died .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — until , from a failing spacecraft , she spots the Chinese space station that marks her salvation .
“ You ’ re losing altitude , Tiangong , ” Stone says in the film ’ s climax .
“ You keep dropping , and you ’ re going to kiss the atmosphere .
But not without me — because you ’ re my last ride.
” The astronaut ejects herself and improbably uses a fire extinguisher to propel toward the Chinese space station .
Once on board , she enters the Shenzhou spacecraft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the station enters the Earth ’ s upper atmosphere .
The Shenzhou lands in a lake .
Saved by Chinese technology , Stone swims to safety .
Director Alfonso Cuarón told China Daily that the plotline was driven not by marketing concerns but by the small number of countries that had active space programs .
“ We had to base it upon elements in space at the time , ” he said .
“ That may very well be true , ” said Aynne Kokas , an associate professor of media studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author of “ Hollywood Made in China.
” But she notes that the notion of China as a benevolent space power is a narrative that resonates with the Chinese Communist Party .
While China did have a space module called the Tiangong-1 in orbit when “ Gravity ” was made , it was fairly basic , unlike the sophisticated space station shown in the film .
A 2015 report by the U.S. Congress ’ s U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission singled out the production for incorporating Chinese soft power narratives .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in China , about 10 percent of what it took in worldwide .
“ Portraying China as a leader in scientific endeavors is obviously something that is consistent with the CCP ’ s vision of itself as becoming ever more influential and powerful as a global leader , ” said James Tager , deputy director of free expression research and policy for PEN America and the author of a recent report on Hollywood and censorship .
The report cites “ Gravity ” as one of several recent films to “ predicate their happy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rescue.
” Ascendant Chinese technology also figures in the 2010 Mnuchin-funded drama “ Wall Street : Money Never Sleeps , ” also known as “ Wall Street 2.
” The film features a cameo by Chinese mogul Zhang Xin , co-founder and CEO of the SOHO China property empire .
Zhang plays one of several wealthy Chinese investors who are pitched by a Wall Street firm on an investment in a thin-film solar panel company .
Zhang ’ s character watches as her colleague dismisses the idea , explaining how the Chinese solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are ahead of their U.S. competitors .
( In reality , while China ’ s renewables industry boasts some homegrown achievements , it has also advanced through industrial espionage and strategic acquisitions of U.S .
companies . )
Such cameos can help Hollywood studios appeal to broader global audiences — a worthy goal in an industry known for whitewashing — but they can also curry favor with Chinese regulators .
At the time of the release of “ Wall Street 2 , ” the Chinese government imposed a quota on the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in China .
Typically only Hollywood blockbusters were allowed in , but “ Wall Street 2 ” was given a slot , despite being a slow-paced drama .
One 2012 film co-financed by Dune openly censored content .
“ The Life of Pi ” tweaked a line about religion to appease Chinese censors , as director Ang Lee told the New York Times .
But editing out offensive dialogue after the fact is clunky and expensive .
Increasingly , as the Chinese market is flooded with sophisticated domestic films , Hollywood studios enter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ censorship is streamlined throughout the process .
“ In co-productions , there is oversight from development all the way through release , so Chinese regulators get final cut approval , ” said Kokas .
One such film is “ Wonder Woman , ” a RatPac-Dune production on which Mnuchin is listed as executive producer .
On the Chinese side , “ Wonder Woman ” counted among its financiers the tech giant Tencent ( now the target of a recent Trump executive order , which would ban the super app WeChat ) .
Within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as soft on China and a counterweight to hawks like trade adviser Peter Navarro .
But as the administration has struck an adversarial tone , Mnuchin has followed suit .
He was one of the lead negotiators in Trump ’ s trade war , and he warned in June that the U.S. and Chinese economies are on the brink of decoupling .
Under his leadership , the Treasury Department recently sanctioned Hong Kong officials close to Beijing , as well as two Xinjiang government officials complicit in the oppression of Uyghurs .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and China .
To be sure , his fellow Cabinet members are disingenuous on the subject .
Barr ’ s solution to China-inspired censorship is apparently to turn Hollywood into a U.S. government mouthpiece , as the Trump administration has done with journalism outfits funded by government money .
In his speech on censorship , Barr spoke longingly of Disney ’ s role making pro-U.S. government work during World War II , which included churning out propaganda films as well as designing insignia for American military equipment “ to boost the morale of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s speech painted China as a cartoonish villain , and he seemed to imply that Hollywood should do the same , much in the way that Trump has encouraged anti-Asian sentiment .
Fighting censorship with more censorship is hardly the answer .
“ At the end of the day , this should be an issue that is viewed not through the U.S.-China rivalry , but through the lens of defending artistic freedom from government pressure anywhere , ” said Tager .
But for officials like Mnuchin with strong ties to the film industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goal .
As the protagonist in “ Wall Street 2 ” puts it , “ Idealism kills every deal .
”

Trump administration officials love to call out liberal Hollywood’s fraught relationship to China. In July, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo railed against censorship driven by China in a dark speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California. “Hollywood, not too far from here — the epicenter of American creative freedom, and self-appointed arbiters of social justice — self-censors even the most mildly unfavorable reference to China,” Pompeo said. That same month, Attorney General Bill Barr lanced Hollywood for “kowtowing” to the Chinese Communist Party. Barr singled out Disney for scrutiny; the company is now in the hot seat for shooting parts of the live-action remake “Mulan” in northwest China, where over 1 million members of the Uyghur minority group have been detained in camps. Even Donald Trump Jr. has weighed in on the topic, tweeting last year about the removal of the Taiwanese flag from a leather jacket worn by Tom Cruise in the trailer for “Top Gun: Maverick.”
On September 9, as the controversy over “Mulan” intensified, Trump cheerleader Josh Hawley, the junior senator from Missouri, sent a letter to Disney CEO Bob Chapek lambasting him for “Disney’s whitewashing of the ongoing Uighur genocide” and asking him to pull “Mulan” from the streaming service Disney+.
A man walks past a poster of the Disney movie “Mulan” at a bus stop in Beijing, China, on Sept. 10, 2020. Photo: Greg Baker/AFP/Getty Images
But one prominent Trump administration official has stayed silent: Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. That may be because in his previous role as an investment banker and Hollywood producer, Mnuchin financed several films that altered content or pandered to Chinese government narratives with the apparent aim of breaking into the Chinese market. Mnuchin was also involved in a number of Hollywood-Chinese co-productions, which involve Chinese government regulators from start to finish.
Mnuchin financed several films that altered content or pandered to Chinese government narratives.
For executives in Hollywood, as in the NBA, the allure of the Chinese market outweighs ideals of free speech and artistic freedom. Over the past few decades, standards of living have increased dramatically for the country’s 1.4 billion potential ticket-buyers, leaving many with disposable income to spend at the box office. Following a construction boom that yielded cineplexes throughout China, Chinese box offices grossed $9.3 billion in 2019, close to the $11.3 billion pulled in by U.S. box offices, according to the Asia-focused film consultancy Artisan Gateway.
The sheer size of the Chinese market leads studios to directly consult Chinese government propagandists, cut unpalatable scenes, and even structure entire productions around unwritten censorship restrictions. “It’s pretty accepted practice that people are having conversations in the halls of power in Los Angeles about what can and cannot be put into a film, based on its potential release in China,” said Jonathan Landreth, a former Beijing-based correspondent for the Hollywood Reporter.
Take “Gravity,” the 2013 blockbuster financed in part by Dune Entertainment, the production company that Mnuchin founded in 2005. (The year of the film’s release, Dune merged with RatPac Entertainment to form RatPac-Dune. Mnuchin divested from the company in 2017.) Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a stranded astronaut whose fellow crew members have all died. Stone’s own prospects look bleak — until, from a failing spacecraft, she spots the Chinese space station that marks her salvation.
“You’re losing altitude, Tiangong,” Stone says in the film’s climax. “You keep dropping, and you’re going to kiss the atmosphere. But not without me — because you’re my last ride.” The astronaut ejects herself and improbably uses a fire extinguisher to propel toward the Chinese space station. Once on board, she enters the Shenzhou spacecraft, undocking it from the Tiangong just before the station enters the Earth’s upper atmosphere. The Shenzhou lands in a lake. Saved by Chinese technology, Stone swims to safety.
Director Alfonso Cuarón told China Daily that the plotline was driven not by marketing concerns but by the small number of countries that had active space programs. “We had to base it upon elements in space at the time,” he said.
“That may very well be true,” said Aynne Kokas, an associate professor of media studies at the University of Virginia and the author of “Hollywood Made in China.” But she notes that the notion of China as a benevolent space power is a narrative that resonates with the Chinese Communist Party.
Left/Top: TV grab taken on Nov. 2, 2011, shows the docking of the Tiangong-1 space lab module in space. Right/Bottom: A still scene from the film “Gravity” depicting the Tiangong-1 space lab. Photo: Imaginechina/AP; Warner Bros/Everett Collection.
While China did have a space module called the Tiangong-1 in orbit when “Gravity” was made, it was fairly basic, unlike the sophisticated space station shown in the film. A 2015 report by the U.S. Congress’s U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission singled out the production for incorporating Chinese soft power narratives. “Gravity” grossed over $70 million in China, about 10 percent of what it took in worldwide.
“Portraying China as a leader in scientific endeavors is obviously something that is consistent with the CCP’s vision of itself as becoming ever more influential and powerful as a global leader,” said James Tager, deputy director of free expression research and policy for PEN America and the author of a recent report on Hollywood and censorship. The report cites “Gravity” as one of several recent films to “predicate their happy endings on Chinese forces coming to the rescue.”
Ascendant Chinese technology also figures in the 2010 Mnuchin-funded drama “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” also known as “Wall Street 2.” The film features a cameo by Chinese mogul Zhang Xin, co-founder and CEO of the SOHO China property empire. Zhang plays one of several wealthy Chinese investors who are pitched by a Wall Street firm on an investment in a thin-film solar panel company. Zhang’s character watches as her colleague dismisses the idea, explaining how the Chinese solar market has exploded and suggesting that companies there are ahead of their U.S. competitors. (In reality, while China’s renewables industry boasts some homegrown achievements, it has also advanced through industrial espionage and strategic acquisitions of U.S. companies.)
Such cameos can help Hollywood studios appeal to broader global audiences — a worthy goal in an industry known for whitewashing — but they can also curry favor with Chinese regulators. At the time of the release of “Wall Street 2,” the Chinese government imposed a quota on the number of foreign films that could be released in China. Typically only Hollywood blockbusters were allowed in, but “Wall Street 2” was given a slot, despite being a slow-paced drama.
One 2012 film co-financed by Dune openly censored content. “The Life of Pi” tweaked a line about religion to appease Chinese censors, as director Ang Lee told the New York Times. But editing out offensive dialogue after the fact is clunky and expensive. Increasingly, as the Chinese market is flooded with sophisticated domestic films, Hollywood studios enter into co-productions with Chinese companies in which censorship is streamlined throughout the process. “In co-productions, there is oversight from development all the way through release, so Chinese regulators get final cut approval,” said Kokas.
One such film is “Wonder Woman,” a RatPac-Dune production on which Mnuchin is listed as executive producer. On the Chinese side, “Wonder Woman” counted among its financiers the tech giant Tencent (now the target of a recent Trump executive order, which would ban the super app WeChat).
“This should be an issue that is viewed not through the U.S.-China rivalry, but through the lens of defending artistic freedom from government pressure anywhere.”
Within the Trump administration, Mnuchin is known as soft on China and a counterweight to hawks like trade adviser Peter Navarro. But as the administration has struck an adversarial tone, Mnuchin has followed suit. He was one of the lead negotiators in Trump’s trade war, and he warned in June that the U.S. and Chinese economies are on the brink of decoupling. Under his leadership, the Treasury Department recently sanctioned Hong Kong officials close to Beijing, as well as two Xinjiang government officials complicit in the oppression of Uyghurs.
But Mnuchin has not said anything about Hollywood and China.
To be sure, his fellow Cabinet members are disingenuous on the subject. Barr’s solution to China-inspired censorship is apparently to turn Hollywood into a U.S. government mouthpiece, as the Trump administration has done with journalism outfits funded by government money. In his speech on censorship, Barr spoke longingly of Disney’s role making pro-U.S. government work during World War II, which included churning out propaganda films as well as designing insignia for American military equipment “to boost the morale of America’s troops.” Barr’s speech painted China as a cartoonish villain, and he seemed to imply that Hollywood should do the same, much in the way that Trump has encouraged anti-Asian sentiment.
Fighting censorship with more censorship is hardly the answer. “At the end of the day, this should be an issue that is viewed not through the U.S.-China rivalry, but through the lens of defending artistic freedom from government pressure anywhere,” said Tager. But for officials like Mnuchin with strong ties to the film industry, artistic freedom is apparently not the goal. As the protagonist in “Wall Street 2” puts it, “Idealism kills every deal.”


theintercept--2020-09-22--Welcome to the "Anarchist Jurisdiction" of New York — Where Cops Crush Every Tiny Protest

night , the New York Police Department arrested nearly a third of a 300-person protest .
Demonstrators had gathered in Times Square to call for the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement , better known as ICE .
The protesters did no more than march and chant .
They stayed on the sidewalk .
Police outnumbered them 3 to 1 .
One demonstrator told CNN that officers “ descended from all sides ” and “ started ripping people off of the sidewalk.
” There were 86 arrests .
In the preceding days , small protest after small protest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police force and aggressive arrests .
Such is the state of unchecked liberation in this , the “ anarchist jurisdiction ” of New York City .
Alongside Seattle and Portland , New York City earned the official “ anarchist jurisdiction ” label from Attorney General Bill Barr on Monday .
Other cities under Democratic leadership are likely to be added to this farce of a naughty list , targeting areas where potent antiracist , antifascist protests have erupted this summer .
The designations are the latest act in President Donald Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the designation , the localities now stand to lose significant federal funding .
There ’ s no subtlety in Trump ’ s cynical base-pandering , aided once again by Barr ’ s Justice Department in service as the president ’ s private law firm .
New York , Seattle , and Portland responded with bemusement on social media when they learned that their cities — heavily policed , viciously unequal , racially segregated terminals and repositories of capital — are , in fact , anarchist jurisdictions .
“ New York City hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed , man , ” quipped comedian and writer Josh Gondelman on Twitter .
“ Reminder : In this anarchist jurisdiction , alternate-side parking rules are in effect , ” tweeted MSNBC ’ s David Gura .
There was some heady riffing on whether the horizontalist , anti-hierarchical nature of anarchist organizing makes “ anarchist jurisdiction ” an oxymoron .
“ The city is ours !
# AnarchistJurisdiction , ” Brooklyn-based anarchist community center , The Base , mockingly tweeted .
It is hard not to scoff .
There are over 38,000 officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the department ’ s budget — even after some toothless cuts in the new city budget — will continue to exceed $ 5 billion .
In June , during New York City ’ s historic six-night curfew , 1,349 people were detained by police and placed in holding cells , in the midst of a pandemic , for merely being out past 8 p.m. Not to mention that there are , even in New York ’ s left-wing milieux , very few self-identifying anarchist groups .
The city ’ s new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences for residents in the designated cities could be all too real .
White House Budget Director Russ Vought is set to issue guidance to federal agencies on withdrawing funds from the cities in less than two weeks .
The New York Post , which broke the story , noted that “ it is not yet clear what funds are likely to be cut , but the amount of money siphoned from New York City could be massive , given the Big Apple gets about $ 7 billion in annual federal aid.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , now face more brutal cuts .
In no uncertain terms , Trump is punishing cities that have , again and again , shown themselves to be hubs of antiracist , antifascist resistance .
in the targeting of funds to governments that have , for the most part , cracked down heavily on anti-racist protesting .
Democrats have been all too happy to see antiracist uprisings heavily policed and neutralized .
As such , Govs .
Andrew Cuomo of New York and Jay Inslee of Washington state , alongside other Democratic state and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
Some politicians highlighted the hypocrisy in Trump ’ s move , pointing out that the cuts could hurt their ability to crack down on protests .
New York Attorney General Letitia James correctly identified the central aim of the designations — “ a pathetic attempt to scare Americans into voting for a commander-in-chief who is actually incapable of commanding our nation ” — but added in her statement that Trump “ should be prepared to defend this illegal order in court , which hypocritically lays the groundwork to defund New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump pretends to care about.
” Such is the fulcrum of this bleak debate : Powerful Democrats respond to Trump ’ s attacks by pointing to the police state that they , too , seek to uphold .
The Democratic officials insisting that Trump ’ s order is illegal are almost as laughable , in this political moment , as the “ anarchist jurisdiction ” designation themselves .
Trump ’ s base-baiting speech acts have always served to create new and darker political realities beyond their technical legal scope .
The Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jaundiced , cynical move in court , but the work it ’ s meant to do has been done : the fortification of escalating efforts to repress dissent , building on Trump and his Justice Department ’ s ongoing campaign strategy of groundlessly demonizing “ antifa , ” while decimating Black lives .

Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
On Saturday night, the New York Police Department arrested nearly a third of a 300-person protest. Demonstrators had gathered in Times Square to call for the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE. The protesters did no more than march and chant. They stayed on the sidewalk. Police outnumbered them 3 to 1. One demonstrator told CNN that officers “descended from all sides” and “started ripping people off of the sidewalk.” There were 86 arrests.
In the preceding days, small protest after small protest in New York had been crushed by overwhelming police force and aggressive arrests.
Such is the state of unchecked liberation in this, the “anarchist jurisdiction” of New York City.
There’s no subtlety in Trump’s cynical base-pandering, aided once again by Barr’s Justice Department in service as the president’s private law firm.
Alongside Seattle and Portland, New York City earned the official “anarchist jurisdiction” label from Attorney General Bill Barr on Monday. Other cities under Democratic leadership are likely to be added to this farce of a naughty list, targeting areas where potent antiracist, antifascist protests have erupted this summer. The designations are the latest act in President Donald Trump’s theater of the absurd.
Because of the designation, the localities now stand to lose significant federal funding. There’s no subtlety in Trump’s cynical base-pandering, aided once again by Barr’s Justice Department in service as the president’s private law firm.
Residents of New York, Seattle, and Portland responded with bemusement on social media when they learned that their cities — heavily policed, viciously unequal, racially segregated terminals and repositories of capital — are, in fact, anarchist jurisdictions. “New York City hasn’t been an anarchist jurisdiction since CBGB closed, man,” quipped comedian and writer Josh Gondelman on Twitter. “Reminder: In this anarchist jurisdiction, alternate-side parking rules are in effect,” tweeted MSNBC’s David Gura. There was some heady riffing on whether the horizontalist, anti-hierarchical nature of anarchist organizing makes “anarchist jurisdiction” an oxymoron. “The city is ours! #AnarchistJurisdiction,” Brooklyn-based anarchist community center, The Base, mockingly tweeted.
It is hard not to scoff. There are over 38,000 officers in the NYPD’s standing army. And the department’s budget — even after some toothless cuts in the new city budget — will continue to exceed $5 billion. In June, during New York City’s historic six-night curfew, 1,349 people were detained by police and placed in holding cells, in the midst of a pandemic, for merely being out past 8 p.m. Not to mention that there are, even in New York’s left-wing milieux, very few self-identifying anarchist groups. The city’s new label is laughable.
Yet the material consequences for residents in the designated cities could be all too real. White House Budget Director Russ Vought is set to issue guidance to federal agencies on withdrawing funds from the cities in less than two weeks. The New York Post, which broke the story, noted that “it is not yet clear what funds are likely to be cut, but the amount of money siphoned from New York City could be massive, given the Big Apple gets about $7 billion in annual federal aid.” City coffers, devastated by the pandemic, now face more brutal cuts.
In no uncertain terms, Trump is punishing cities that have, again and again, shown themselves to be hubs of antiracist, antifascist resistance.
There’s an irony in the targeting of funds to governments that have, for the most part, cracked down heavily on anti-racist protesting. Democrats have been all too happy to see antiracist uprisings heavily policed and neutralized. As such, Govs. Andrew Cuomo of New York and Jay Inslee of Washington state, alongside other Democratic state and city leaders, are only superficial targets here.
Some politicians highlighted the hypocrisy in Trump’s move, pointing out that the cuts could hurt their ability to crack down on protests. New York Attorney General Letitia James correctly identified the central aim of the designations — “a pathetic attempt to scare Americans into voting for a commander-in-chief who is actually incapable of commanding our nation” — but added in her statement that Trump “should be prepared to defend this illegal order in court, which hypocritically lays the groundwork to defund New York and the very types of law enforcement President Trump pretends to care about.”
Such is the fulcrum of this bleak debate: Powerful Democrats respond to Trump’s attacks by pointing to the police state that they, too, seek to uphold.
The Democratic officials insisting that Trump’s order is illegal are almost as laughable, in this political moment, as the “anarchist jurisdiction” designation themselves. Trump’s base-baiting speech acts have always served to create new and darker political realities beyond their technical legal scope.
The Justice Department may well have to defend this jaundiced, cynical move in court, but the work it’s meant to do has been done: the fortification of escalating efforts to repress dissent, building on Trump and his Justice Department’s ongoing campaign strategy of groundlessly demonizing “antifa,” while decimating Black lives.


theintercept--2020-09-22--As Joe Rogan's Platform Grows, So Does the Media and Liberal Backlash. Why?

As one illustrative example of his reach , NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden appeared on Rogan ’ s program six days ago , and the episode has already been viewed more than 5 million times on YouTube alone .
The first time Snowden appeared on his program was last October , and that episode , just on YouTube , has more than 16 million views .
To put that in perspective : The top-rated cable news programs are the Fox News shows hosted by Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity , and they average between 4 to 5 million viewers , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s discussion with Snowden generated .
Joe Rogan has amassed one of the largest and most influential media platforms in U.S. politics , if not the single most influential .
The value of his program was quantified in May when the streaming service Spotify paid a reported $ 100 million for the exclusive rights to broadcast his podcast .
Rogan is rarely discussed in mainstream political and media circles , which raises its own questions .
Why does someone who packs such a big punch in terms of audience size and influence receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , cable news hosts with audience sizes far smaller than his ?
Presidential candidates certainly recognize Rogan ’ s importance : All of the major Democratic candidates , according to him , requested to appear on his show .
( The only ones he invited on were Bernie Sanders , Tulsi Gabbard , and Andrew Yang . )
What is it , by the standards of U.S. political and media orthodoxy , that makes Rogan so radioactive ?
In March , billionaire and former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg — who spoke at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Iraq War and war on terror to urge the reelection of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney , and who presided over and repeatedly defended the racially disparate “ stop and frisk ” police practice — endorsed Joe Biden for president , and Biden not only accepted but celebrated the endorsement , praising Bloomberg in the process : Prior to that , one of the few times Rogan was discussed in mainstream political circles was when outrage among establishment Democrats ensued after Sanders touted a quasi-endorsement from Rogan .
The argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so repellent , bigoted , and anathema to liberalism that no Democratic candidate should be associated with him ( this anger was shared by some of Sanders ’ own supporters including , reportedly , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ) .
Rogan was in the news this week after President Donald Trump favorably responded to a guest ’ s suggestion that Rogan host a four-hour , sit-down presidential debate between the two candidates .
The mere suggestion that someone like Rogan could host as prestigious and high-minded an event as a presidential debate prompted condescending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MikeBloomberg , I can ’ t thank you enough for your support—and for your tireless work on everything from gun safety reform to climate change .
This race is bigger than candidates and bigger than politics .
It ’ s about defeating Donald Trump , and with your help , we ’ re gon na do it .
That question is even more compelling when it comes to the Biden/Harris campaign ’ s touting of the endorsement of former Republican Gov .
Rick Snyder of Michigan , widely blamed for the criminally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plagued primarily African American residents of Flint , Michigan , for many years .
Not only did the Biden campaign accept Snyder ’ s endorsement , but they issued a press release trumpeting it : What are the standards that make Michael Bloomberg an acceptable endorsement to tout but not Joe Rogan , given that the billionaire three-term mayor and former Republican has taken far worse positions and done far more damage to far more people than the podcaster could ever dream of doing ?
It is one thing for @ JoeBiden 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Snyder 's endorsement .
It is an ENTIRELY different thing for them to actively be promoting and publicizing it .
Absolutely shameful .
# FlintWaterCrisis pic.twitter.com/NShC3ViqX7 What makes all of this more confounding is that Rogan is a fairly basic political liberal on almost every issue : He believes in the need for greater social spending for the nation ’ s poor and working class , opposes war and militarism , favors drug legalization , is adamantly pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights , and generally adheres to liberal orthodoxies on standard political debates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard , and why Andrew Yang — whose signature issue was the universal basic income — was one of the few candidates he deemed worth talking to .
The objections typically raised to Rogan concern his questioning of some of the very recent changes brought about by trans visibility and equality , particularly asking whether it is fair for trans women who have lived their entire lives and entered puberty as biological men to compete against cis women in professional sports ( a question also asked — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBT sports pioneer Martina Navratilova , among many others ) , and whether young children are emotionally and psychologically equipped to make permanent choices about gender reassignment therapies and gender dysphoria .
If embracing and never questioning the full panoply of trans advocacy is a prerequisite to being permitted in decent society , I seriously doubt many prominent Democratic politicians will pass that test ( even Kamala Harris , from San Francisco and the very blue state of California , has a very mixed record on trans rights ) .
Moreover , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is available show that there is still much work to do in this area : Only a small minority of Americans believe it is fair to allow trans women to participate in female professional sports .
If the standard is that anyone who even entertains debates over the maximalist and most controversial questions in this very new and evolving social movement is to be cast out as radioactive , liberalism and the Democratic Party will be a very small group .
It will also have to proceed without the vast majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even on this issue of trans rights , Rogan ’ s views are in accord with the standard Democratic Party view : He advocates full legal protection and dignity for the right of trans people to live with their gender respected .
The other critique centers on Rogan ’ s willingness to invite on his show various pundits with far-right views .
That ’ s a bizarre criticism of someone who purposely hosts a program designed to foster dialogue with people across the political spectrum .
After all , if one employs the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the views of all his guests , he would be simultaneously everything and nothing .
But again , this is a standard which few if any Democratic Party leaders could meet .
Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , and Bernie Sanders all went on Bill O ’ Reilly ’ s Fox News show , while Rep. Adam Schiff has appeared on Tucker Carlson ’ s program .
Speaking with people with differing views is called politics and journalism , and if one is decreed radioactive for interacting with people with bad views , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Liberals also point to the fact that Rogan said he could not vote for Biden over Trump , but that was not on ideological grounds but based on the same narrative that Democratic political and media elites spent all of last year disseminating : namely , that Biden ’ s cognitive decline makes him unfit for the job . )
While Rogan is politically liberal , he is — argues former Obama 2008 campaign strategist and Rogan listener Shant Mesrobian — culturally conservative , by which he does not mean that Rogan holds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he is pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights ) .
He means that Rogan exudes culturally conservative signals : He likes MMA fighting , makes crude jokes , hunts , and just generally fails to speak in the lingo of the professional managerial class and coastal elites .
And it is those cultural standards , rather than political ones , that make Rogan anathema to elite liberal culture because , Mesrobian argued in a viral Twitter thread , liberals care far more about proper culture signaling than they do about the much harder and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Rogan ’ s platform grows , it is worthwhile to understand his appeal , his audience , and what he is doing that is new and different to attract such a large following .
But it is also very worth examining the reaction to him by the political and media class because in that reaction , one finds many revealing attributes about how they think , what they value , and the priorities that they actually venerate .
Today ’ s SYSTEM UPDATE on The Intercept ’ s You Tube channel with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examining those questions , or it can be viewed on the player below :

Today’s SYSTEM UPDATE examining this topic — with guest Shant Mesrobian, former Obama 2008 strategist and author of a recent viral thread on the liberal contempt for Rogan — can be viewed on The Intercept’s YouTube channel.
Joe Rogan has amassed one of the largest and most influential media platforms in U.S. politics, if not the single most influential. The value of his program was quantified in May when the streaming service Spotify paid a reported $100 million for the exclusive rights to broadcast his podcast.
As one illustrative example of his reach, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden appeared on Rogan’s program six days ago, and the episode has already been viewed more than 5 million times on YouTube alone. The first time Snowden appeared on his program was last October, and that episode, just on YouTube, has more than 16 million views. To put that in perspective: The top-rated cable news programs are the Fox News shows hosted by Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, and they average between 4 to 5 million viewers, or one-fourth the number of views Rogan’s discussion with Snowden generated.
Rogan is rarely discussed in mainstream political and media circles, which raises its own questions. Why does someone who packs such a big punch in terms of audience size and influence receive so much less media attention than, say, cable news hosts with audience sizes far smaller than his? Presidential candidates certainly recognize Rogan’s importance: All of the major Democratic candidates, according to him, requested to appear on his show. (The only ones he invited on were Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Andrew Yang.)
Photo: YouTube
Rogan was in the news this week after President Donald Trump favorably responded to a guest’s suggestion that Rogan host a four-hour, sit-down presidential debate between the two candidates. The mere suggestion that someone like Rogan could host as prestigious and high-minded an event as a presidential debate prompted condescending scorn from establishment media precincts.
Prior to that, one of the few times Rogan was discussed in mainstream political circles was when outrage among establishment Democrats ensued after Sanders touted a quasi-endorsement from Rogan. The argument was that Rogan’s views are so repellent, bigoted, and anathema to liberalism that no Democratic candidate should be associated with him (this anger was shared by some of Sanders’ own supporters including, reportedly, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez).
What is it, by the standards of U.S. political and media orthodoxy, that makes Rogan so radioactive? In March, billionaire and former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg — who spoke at the 2004 GOP Convention in the middle of the Iraq War and war on terror to urge the reelection of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and who presided over and repeatedly defended the racially disparate “stop and frisk” police practice — endorsed Joe Biden for president, and Biden not only accepted but celebrated the endorsement, praising Bloomberg in the process:
.@MikeBloomberg, I can’t thank you enough for your support—and for your tireless work on everything from gun safety reform to climate change. This race is bigger than candidates and bigger than politics. It’s about defeating Donald Trump, and with your help, we’re gonna do it. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) March 4, 2020
What are the standards that make Michael Bloomberg an acceptable endorsement to tout but not Joe Rogan, given that the billionaire three-term mayor and former Republican has taken far worse positions and done far more damage to far more people than the podcaster could ever dream of doing?
That question is even more compelling when it comes to the Biden/Harris campaign’s touting of the endorsement of former Republican Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, widely blamed for the criminally negligent lack of clean drinking water which plagued primarily African American residents of Flint, Michigan, for many years. Not only did the Biden campaign accept Snyder’s endorsement, but they issued a press release trumpeting it:
It is one thing for @JoeBiden's campaign to not reject ex-MI Governor Rick Snyder's endorsement. It is an ENTIRELY different thing for them to actively be promoting and publicizing it. Absolutely shameful. #FlintWaterCrisis pic.twitter.com/NShC3ViqX7 — Jordan (@JordanChariton) September 3, 2020
What makes all of this more confounding is that Rogan is a fairly basic political liberal on almost every issue: He believes in the need for greater social spending for the nation’s poor and working class, opposes war and militarism, favors drug legalization, is adamantly pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights, and generally adheres to liberal orthodoxies on standard political debates. That is why he was so fond of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, and why Andrew Yang — whose signature issue was the universal basic income — was one of the few candidates he deemed worth talking to.
The objections typically raised to Rogan concern his questioning of some of the very recent changes brought about by trans visibility and equality, particularly asking whether it is fair for trans women who have lived their entire lives and entered puberty as biological men to compete against cis women in professional sports (a question also asked — and even answered in the negative — by LGBT sports pioneer Martina Navratilova, among many others), and whether young children are emotionally and psychologically equipped to make permanent choices about gender reassignment therapies and gender dysphoria.
If embracing and never questioning the full panoply of trans advocacy is a prerequisite to being permitted in decent society, I seriously doubt many prominent Democratic politicians will pass that test (even Kamala Harris, from San Francisco and the very blue state of California, has a very mixed record on trans rights). Moreover, though polling data is sparse, the data that is available show that there is still much work to do in this area: Only a small minority of Americans believe it is fair to allow trans women to participate in female professional sports.
If the standard is that anyone who even entertains debates over the maximalist and most controversial questions in this very new and evolving social movement is to be cast out as radioactive, liberalism and the Democratic Party will be a very small group. It will also have to proceed without the vast majority of political leaders whom they currently follow. Even on this issue of trans rights, Rogan’s views are in accord with the standard Democratic Party view: He advocates full legal protection and dignity for the right of trans people to live with their gender respected.
The other critique centers on Rogan’s willingness to invite on his show various pundits with far-right views. That’s a bizarre criticism of someone who purposely hosts a program designed to foster dialogue with people across the political spectrum. After all, if one employs the blatantly irrational tactic of attributing to Rogan the views of all his guests, he would be simultaneously everything and nothing.
But again, this is a standard which few if any Democratic Party leaders could meet. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders all went on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show, while Rep. Adam Schiff has appeared on Tucker Carlson’s program. Speaking with people with differing views is called politics and journalism, and if one is decreed radioactive for interacting with people with bad views, few will survive that standard. (Liberals also point to the fact that Rogan said he could not vote for Biden over Trump, but that was not on ideological grounds but based on the same narrative that Democratic political and media elites spent all of last year disseminating: namely, that Biden’s cognitive decline makes him unfit for the job.)
While Rogan is politically liberal, he is — argues former Obama 2008 campaign strategist and Rogan listener Shant Mesrobian — culturally conservative, by which he does not mean that Rogan holds conservative views on social issues (again, he is pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights). He means that Rogan exudes culturally conservative signals: He likes MMA fighting, makes crude jokes, hunts, and just generally fails to speak in the lingo of the professional managerial class and coastal elites. And it is those cultural standards, rather than political ones, that make Rogan anathema to elite liberal culture because, Mesrobian argued in a viral Twitter thread, liberals care far more about proper culture signaling than they do about the much harder and more consequential work of actual politics.
As Rogan’s platform grows, it is worthwhile to understand his appeal, his audience, and what he is doing that is new and different to attract such a large following. But it is also very worth examining the reaction to him by the political and media class because in that reaction, one finds many revealing attributes about how they think, what they value, and the priorities that they actually venerate. Today’s SYSTEM UPDATE on The Intercept’s You Tube channel with Mesrobian as my guest is devoted to examining those questions, or it can be viewed on the player below:


theintercept--2020-09-23--Facebook Sued Over Kenosha Killings

Facebook Sued Over Kenosha Killings

Kyle Rittenhouse killed two Black Lives Matter protesters ( and wounded a third ) in late August in Kenosha , Wisconsin , he instantly became a hero in white nationalist circles , in which the Second Amendment is sacrosanct .
On Wednesday , Rittenhouse and the members of the armed militias that supported him , including the Kenosha Guard and Boogaloo Bois , were named in a federal lawsuit brought under the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments that aimed to establish Black equality .
The suit also names what it alleges was the militia groups ’ s most prominent enabler : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the complaint contends , helped deprive Kenosha Black Lives Matter protesters of their First Amendment right to assemble , thus violating the BLM activists ’ s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection .
Attorneys Jason Flores-Williams and Jennifer Sirrine filed the case in the Eastern District Court of Wisconsin , which covers Kenosha .
Along with a handful of BLM protesters harassed by the militia groups , the plaintiffs include Hannah Giddings , the life partner of 26-year-old Anthony Huber , who was gunned down by Rittenhouse while trying to disarm the teenager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kenosha Guard , Boogaloo Bois and Facebook all partook in a conspiracy that resulted in Huber ’ s death ( thus causing harm to Giddings ) and deprived the other plaintiffs of their ability to peacefully protest .
Both the First and Thirteenth Amendment stipulations were key to Griffin v. Breckenridge ( 1971 ) , cited in the complaint .
That case concerned the right to travel , which is also an issue in the Kenosha protests .
Some of the plaintiffs had their tires slashed and were otherwise impeded .
The Fourteenth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statutes § 1985 and § 1986 , which prohibit interference by private groups with others ’ s exercise of their rights .
Established under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 , the statutes were recently applied in the aftermath of the Charlottesville white supremacist protest of 2017 .
In order to recruit foot soldiers for the August 25 protest , the Kenosha Guard created an event page on its Facebook account .
Titled “ Armed Citizens to Protect Our Lives and Property , ” the posting summoned “ patriots willing to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evil thugs.
” Over 450 Facebook users alerted the platform ’ s moderators that the Guard ’ s violent rhetoric violated the company ’ s policies .
According to Buzzfeed , four Facebook moderators deemed the Guard ’ s posts “ non-threatening.
” In Flores-Williams ’ view , Facebook ’ s actions subsequent to the event—shutting down the Guard ’ s account , and admitting to what CEO Mark Zuckerberg called an “ operational mistake ” in not heeding the 450 warnings—amount to a recognition is behaved with negligence .
“ Facebook ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” says attorney Flores-Williams .
He maintains that “ this is not a First Amendment issue .
It ’ s a matter of responsibility on the part of Facebook.
” “ I would love to see Facebook change their moderation policies and for them to take accountability .
One way to do that would be for them to make the moderators work directly for the company instead of outsourcing them , ” adds co-counsel Sirrine .
Citing the likelihood of voter intimidation by armed militias on Election Day , and the possibility that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump in the White House should he lose in November , Flores-Williams hopes that the action in federal court will send the company a message .
“ If Facebook won ’ t change their m.o.
, ” he says , “ then a judge needs to tell them to enforce their own standards and stop allowing violent groups to use their site as a recruiting station .
”

When 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse killed two Black Lives Matter protesters (and wounded a third) in late August in Kenosha, Wisconsin, he instantly became a hero among white nationalist circles, in which the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.
On Wednesday, Rittenhouse and the members of the armed militias that supported him, including the Kenosha Guard and Boogaloo Bois, were named in a federal lawsuit brought under the post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments that aimed to establish Black equality.
The suit also names what it alleges was the militia groups’s most prominent enabler: Facebook. All of the parties, the complaint contends, helped deprive Kenosha Black Lives Matter protesters of their First Amendment right to assemble, thus violating the Black Lives Matter activists’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection.
Attorneys Jason Flores-Williams and Jennifer Sirrine filed the case in the Eastern District Court of Wisconsin, which covers Kenosha. Along with a handful of protesters harassed by the militia groups, the plaintiffs include Hannah Giddings, the life partner of 26-year-old Anthony Huber, who was gunned down by Rittenhouse while trying to disarm the teenager.
According to the complaint, the Kenosha Guard, Boogaloo Bois, and Facebook all partook in a conspiracy that resulted in Huber’s death (thus causing harm to Giddings) and deprived the other plaintiffs of their ability to peacefully protest.
Both the First and 13th amendment stipulations were key to Griffin v. Breckenridge, a U.S. Supreme Court case that was decided in 1971 and is cited in the complaint. That case concerned the right to travel, which is also an issue in the Kenosha protests. Some of the plaintiffs had their tires slashed and were otherwise impeded.
The 14th Amendment provided the constitutional basis for federal statutes §1985 and §1986, which prohibit interference by private groups with other’s exercise of their rights. Established under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, the statutes were recently applied in the aftermath of the Charlottesville, Virginia, white supremacist protest in 2017.
Read Our Complete Coverage Protests for Black Lives
In order to recruit foot soldiers for the August 25 protest, the Kenosha Guard created an event page on its Facebook account. Titled “Armed Citizens to Protect Our Lives and Property,” the posting summoned “patriots willing to take up arms … and defend our City from the evil thugs.”
Over 450 Facebook users alerted the platform’s moderators that the Guard’s violent rhetoric violated the company’s policies. According to BuzzFeed News, four Facebook moderators deemed the Guard’s posts “non-threatening.”
In Flores-Williams’s view, Facebook’s actions subsequent to the event — shutting down the Guard’s account and admitting to what CEO Mark Zuckerberg called an “operational mistake” in not heeding the 450 warnings — amounted to a recognition it behaved with negligence.
“Facebook’s negligence enabled the conspiracy here,” said Flores-Williams. He maintains that “this is not a First Amendment issue. It’s a matter of responsibility on the part of Facebook.”
“I would love to see Facebook change their moderation policies and for them to take accountability. One way to do that would be for them to make the moderators work directly for the company instead of outsourcing them,” added Sirrine.
Citing the likelihood of voter intimidation by armed militias on Election Day, and the possibility that those same groups may try to keep Donald Trump in the White House should he lose in November, Flores-Williams hopes that the action in federal court will send the company a message.
“If Facebook won’t change their M.O.,” he said, “then a judge needs to tell them to enforce their own standards and stop allowing violent groups to use their site as a recruiting station.”
A Facebook spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.


theintercept--2020-09-23--Hunger in America, Especially for Children, Has “Skyrocketed” During Covid-19, Data Shows

hunger in U.S. households almost tripled between 2019 and August of this year , according to an analysis of new data from the Census Bureau and the Department of Agriculture .
Even more alarming , the proportion of American children who sometimes do not have enough to eat is now as much as 14 times higher than it was last year .
The Agriculture Department conducts yearly studies on food insecurity in the U.S. , with its report on 2019 released this month .
The Census Bureau began frequent household surveys in April in response to Covid-19 that include questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Washington , D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , found that 3.7 percent of U.S. households reported they sometimes or often had “ not enough to eat ” during 2019 .
Meanwhile , the most recent Census data from the end of August of this year showed that 10 percent of households said they sometimes or often did not have enough to eat within the past seven days .
Levels of food insecurity in Black and Latino households are significantly higher , at 19 percent and 17 percent , respectively , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even worse , while about 1 percent of adults with children said their children sometimes or often went hungry in 2019 , between 9 and 14 percent of such adults said the same about their kids in August 2020 .
CBPP estimates that this adds up to about 5 million school-aged children in such households .
“ What I see every day from the pandemic is amazingly-increased numbers of severely underweight children coming to our clinic , and parents really panicked about how they ’ re going to find enough food , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associate professor of pediatrics at Boston University School of Medicine .
According to CBPP , the USDA and Census numbers are not an exact apples-to-apples comparison due to some differences in how the surveys are conducted .
But it ’ s clear , states CBPP ’ s Brynne Keith-Jennings , that the number of Americans “ struggling to put food on the table has skyrocketed compared to before Covid-19.
” The increase in hunger among children is particularly disturbing , for several reasons .
Generally , explains Dottie Rosenbaum , another CBPP expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sandel says that “ parents are reporting to me sometimes at mealtime going back into the kitchen so the kids don ’ t notice that they are not eating themselves.
” So when children are going hungry , there is little food for anyone .
The numbers represent a failure of the federal government ’ s food programs .
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — i.e.
, food stamps — is available to Americans of all ages .
But the smaller Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women , Infants , and Children — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National School Lunch Program are largely aimed specifically at preventing child hunger .
Congress also created a temporary program called Pandemic-EBT in March to replace school lunches for children learning from home .
Unsurprisingly , going without regular food creates significant health problems for children .
Studies have found that children in food insecure households suffer increased rates of anemia , asthma , long-term neurological damage , and many other ailments .
“ When you think about what the first few years of life are like , ” Sandel points out , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing the brain you need for the rest of your life .
This pandemic is really going to affect a generation of kids.
” It is also a basic fact of school that hungry children can not concentrate , and inevitably will fall behind their classmates .
The new government data matches anecdotal evidence from across the U.S. “ Over my career I have met many desperately poor people , ” says Sherrie Tussler , who ’ s run Hunger Task Force , a Milwaukee-area food bank , for 23 years .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as bizarre and complicated as we ’ re seeing right now.
” From large cities to modest towns , private food banks report being overwhelmed .
Thousands line up in their cars in Texas to get food .
There has been a 600 percent increase in demand at a South Florida food bank .
In New York City , the number of people being served by one emergency food pantry went from 3,715 in February to over 18,000. in hunger has nothing to do with any actual shortage of food .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the Agriculture Department , in recent years 31 percent of the U.S. food supply at the retail and consumer level has been thrown away in one way or another .
This translates to 133 billion pounds of food with a value of $ 161 billion .
This is almost twice as much as the federal government spends on all its food programs combined .
Even the Covid-19 shutdowns have not created any meaningful shortages in U.S. food availability .
Food prices overall have increased 4.1 percent over the past year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first months of the pandemic .
Prices only went up by 0.1 percent in August , and actually fell in July .
Moreover , it ’ s a problem that does not have to be solved from scratch .
It simply requires Congress to greatly expand or simply maintain the programs that already exist .
SNAP , unlike many aspects of the U.S. government , has not been hollowed out and functions well .
Millions of people were added to the program after the pandemic began , with few hiccups : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got food stamps .
The issue with SNAP is simply that the benefits are too skimpy ; the average SNAP recipient gets about $ 125 worth of food stamps per month .
The HEROES Act , passed by the Democrats in the House of Representatives in May , raised the maximum benefit by 15 percent , as well as making other beneficial changes to the program ’ s rules .
But the GOP-controlled Senate and President Donald Trump have shown little interest in anything along these lines .
The Pandemic-EBT has also been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enable them to buy meals that children would otherwise have gotten at school .
However , it is set to expire at the end of this month .
As with a SNAP extension , there is not much appetite among Republicans to take action .
Finally , the government could restart the extra $ 600 per week in unemployment benefits that lasted until the end of July .
Trump ’ s end run around Congress to provide $ 300 extra in unemployment has been slow to ramp up , is not available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of money soon , in any case .
So as of now , hunger in America will continue to be a quiet but extremely dire emergency .
“ If Congress could see what I see every day , and talk to the families that I talk to , they would take immediate action , ” says Kessler from Milwaukee .
But they don ’ t , and they won ’ t .

The level of hunger in U.S. households almost tripled between 2019 and August of this year, according to an analysis of new data from the Census Bureau and the Department of Agriculture. Even more alarming, the proportion of American children who sometimes do not have enough to eat is now as much as 14 times higher than it was last year.
The Agriculture Department conducts yearly studies on food insecurity in the U.S., with its report on 2019 released this month. The Census Bureau began frequent household surveys in April in response to Covid-19 that include questions about hunger.
The analysis, by the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, found that 3.7 percent of U.S. households reported they sometimes or often had “not enough to eat” during 2019. Meanwhile, the most recent Census data from the end of August of this year showed that 10 percent of households said they sometimes or often did not have enough to eat within the past seven days. Levels of food insecurity in Black and Latino households are significantly higher, at 19 percent and 17 percent, respectively, compared to 7 percent in white households.
Even worse, while about 1 percent of adults with children said their children sometimes or often went hungry in 2019, between 9 and 14 percent of such adults said the same about their kids in August 2020. CBPP estimates that this adds up to about 5 million school-aged children in such households.
“What I see every day from the pandemic is amazingly-increased numbers of severely underweight children coming to our clinic, and parents really panicked about how they’re going to find enough food,” says Dr. Megan Sandel, an associate professor of pediatrics at Boston University School of Medicine.
According to CBPP, the USDA and Census numbers are not an exact apples-to-apples comparison due to some differences in how the surveys are conducted. But it’s clear, states CBPP’s Brynne Keith-Jennings, that the number of Americans “struggling to put food on the table has skyrocketed compared to before Covid-19.”
The increase in hunger among children is particularly disturbing, for several reasons. Generally, explains Dottie Rosenbaum, another CBPP expert, “parents shield their children.” Sandel says that “parents are reporting to me sometimes at mealtime going back into the kitchen so the kids don’t notice that they are not eating themselves.” So when children are going hungry, there is little food for anyone.
The numbers represent a failure of the federal government’s food programs. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — i.e., food stamps — is available to Americans of all ages. But the smaller Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children — better known as WIC — and the National School Lunch Program are largely aimed specifically at preventing child hunger. Congress also created a temporary program called Pandemic-EBT in March to replace school lunches for children learning from home.
Unsurprisingly, going without regular food creates significant health problems for children. Studies have found that children in food insecure households suffer increased rates of anemia, asthma, long-term neurological damage, and many other ailments. “When you think about what the first few years of life are like,” Sandel points out, “that’s when you’re growing the brain you need for the rest of your life. This pandemic is really going to affect a generation of kids.” It is also a basic fact of school that hungry children cannot concentrate, and inevitably will fall behind their classmates.
The new government data matches anecdotal evidence from across the U.S. “Over my career I have met many desperately poor people,” says Sherrie Tussler, who’s run Hunger Task Force, a Milwaukee-area food bank, for 23 years. “But I have never seen any circumstances as bizarre and complicated as we’re seeing right now.” From large cities to modest towns, private food banks report being overwhelmed. Thousands line up in their cars in Texas to get food. There has been a 600 percent increase in demand at a South Florida food bank. In New York City, the number of people being served by one emergency food pantry went from 3,715 in February to over 18,000.
Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Remarkably, this increase in hunger has nothing to do with any actual shortage of food. It is purely the result of political decisions.
According to the Agriculture Department, in recent years 31 percent of the U.S. food supply at the retail and consumer level has been thrown away in one way or another. This translates to 133 billion pounds of food with a value of $161 billion. This is almost twice as much as the federal government spends on all its food programs combined.
Even the Covid-19 shutdowns have not created any meaningful shortages in U.S. food availability. Food prices overall have increased 4.1 percent over the past year. But this modest uptick took place largely in the first months of the pandemic. Prices only went up by 0.1 percent in August, and actually fell in July.
Moreover, it’s a problem that does not have to be solved from scratch. It simply requires Congress to greatly expand or simply maintain the programs that already exist.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
SNAP, unlike many aspects of the U.S. government, has not been hollowed out and functions well. Millions of people were added to the program after the pandemic began, with few hiccups: The technology worked, and they quickly got food stamps. The issue with SNAP is simply that the benefits are too skimpy; the average SNAP recipient gets about $125 worth of food stamps per month. The HEROES Act, passed by the Democrats in the House of Representatives in May, raised the maximum benefit by 15 percent, as well as making other beneficial changes to the program’s rules. But the GOP-controlled Senate and President Donald Trump have shown little interest in anything along these lines.
The Pandemic-EBT has also been a success, getting money to families to enable them to buy meals that children would otherwise have gotten at school. However, it is set to expire at the end of this month. As with a SNAP extension, there is not much appetite among Republicans to take action.
Finally, the government could restart the extra $600 per week in unemployment benefits that lasted until the end of July. Trump’s end run around Congress to provide $300 extra in unemployment has been slow to ramp up, is not available in some states, and will run out of money soon, in any case.
So as of now, hunger in America will continue to be a quiet but extremely dire emergency. “If Congress could see what I see every day, and talk to the families that I talk to, they would take immediate action,” says Tussler from Milwaukee.
But they don’t, and they won’t.


theintercept--2020-09-23--Mysterious QAnon Conspiracy Theory Mailings Spook Minneapolis Suburbs

Monday , Minnesota resident Luke Healy found a surprise waiting in his mailbox .
Along with bills and junk mail was an envelope addressed to “ Resident Neighbor.
” Inside were 15 glossy prints depicting memes popularized by supporters of the QAnon conspiracy theory , which holds that a government agent called “ Q ” dribbles clues about the global elites at the center of a diabolical pedophile ring .
One image referenced Adrenochrome , a drug that adherents believe establishment politicians and Hollywood celebrities harvest from the blood of children .
Another was a handwritten list of conspiracy-driven YouTube @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Down the Rabbit Hole .
“ The Battle Between Good and [ EVIL ] , ” read a third image .
“ Where to start is the Question ?
” Healy started with Nextdoor , the social networking app for neighborhoods .
In a post titled “ Creepy photos in the mail , ” he noted the expense involved in the apparent prank .
The photos were printed on premium digital paper , and the envelope bore three stamps .
“ At least they ’ re supporting the USPS , ” he joked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was confounding .
Instead of using well-framed screenshots , the person had printed images that looked like they were hastily photographed from a computer screen .
In one instance , the screen was shot at an odd angle .
In others , the red video progress bar appeared at the bottom of the frame , as if the sender had snapped the photos on a phone while watching YouTube , then dashed off to CVS to print them up .
Adherents of QAnon often pride themselves on being “ digital soldiers , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into snail mail .
When I opened Nextdoor that night , Healy ’ s post was trending .
Four households in his corner of St. Louis Park , a first-ring suburb of Minneapolis , had received similar packets of photos .
So had a Papa John ’ s and a liquor store .
And miles away in Plymouth , another Minneapolis suburb , at least three people had received similar batches of photos .
Many of the photos received by Healy ’ s neighbors were identical .
In Plymouth , one woman got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It all suggested a time-consuming and pricey , if not well-executed , effort on behalf of a conspiracy theory that is rapidly gaining traction in the U.S. political landscape – especially in the suburbs .
It has been a weird summer everywhere , but it ’ s been a particularly weird one in Minneapolis .
The murder of George Floyd turned the floodlights on entrenched racism in the city , inspiring protests around the world .
But amid the discussion of defunding the police that followed , officers went on an unofficial strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a downtown hotel where they had started sheltering during the protests .
Many city parks now hold encampments , and violent crime is up .
So are conspiracy theories on both social media and in political life .
Minnesota has six GOP state legislature candidates on the ballot in November who have supported QAnon – including one in Healy ’ s district .
Until recently Melissa Moore , a Republican running for the state House seat in the district , maintained a Twitter account where she described herself as a # DigitalSoldier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that QAnon is “ an exciting movement that opens our minds to different possibilities of what ’ s going on , of what ’ s really happening in our world today.
” After connecting on Nextdoor , Healy and the other recipients compared notes .
The envelopes listed fake return addresses penned in a similar handwritten script .
One read “ 777 1st Avenue ” in St. Paul , Minnesota , another “ 777 Freedom ” in St Louis , Missouri .
On all of the envelopes , the sender name appeared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jokey reference to Hollywood , which QAnon adherents believe is at the center of the pedophile ring .
Some people received anti-Black Lives Matter memes , like an image of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that read , “ CALLING THESE TWO GUYS ‘ REVEREND ’ IS LIKE CALLING DOGSHIT TOOTSIE ROLLS.
” Other images referenced pandemic-related conspiracy theories .
Jared Holt , an investigative reporter at Right Wing Watch who tracks QAnon , examined the images for The Intercept .
He was struck by the list of YouTube channels .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medic , TruReporting — alongside some totally obscure ones , ” he said .
“ This indicates to me that whoever sent this envelope is incredibly deep into the conspiracy theory and a true believer.
” “ It ’ s hard to understand what the sender hoped to accomplish , but it ’ s clear that whoever is sending the mail is severely escalating in their radicalization , ” he added .
The various recipients are now searching for answers .
Some of them initially assumed that they were targeted because they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their yards .
But adjacent neighbors with similar lawn signs had not received anything at the time of publication .
In Plymouth , Carrie Kehnle called the FBI , which has identified QAnon as a potential domestic terrorist threat .
She said that someone at the Minneapolis field office took down her information and told her to call back if she felt directly threatened .
“ The level of vitriol and hate that comes through in these images is really , really scary , ” she said .
“ Considering that so many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t feel like we are being watched , but at the same time it ’ s pretty creepy .
It ’ s not just a random political campaign pamphlet that ’ s coming in our mail .
”

Around lunchtime on Monday, Minnesota resident Luke Healy found a surprise waiting in his mailbox. Along with bills and junk mail was an envelope addressed to “Resident Neighbor.” Inside were 15 glossy prints depicting memes popularized by supporters of the QAnon conspiracy theory, which holds that a government agent called “Q” dribbles clues about the global elites at the center of a diabolical pedophile ring. One image referenced Adrenochrome, a drug that adherents believe establishment politicians and Hollywood celebrities harvest from the blood of children. Another was a handwritten list of conspiracy-driven YouTube channels, including X22 Report and Alice Down the Rabbit Hole.
“The Battle Between Good and [EVIL],” read a third image. “Where to start is the Question?”
Healy started with Nextdoor, the social networking app for neighborhoods. In a post titled “Creepy photos in the mail,” he noted the expense involved in the apparent prank. The photos were printed on premium digital paper, and the envelope bore three stamps. “At least they’re supporting the USPS,” he joked.
But the sender’s style was confounding. Instead of using well-framed screenshots, the person had printed images that looked like they were hastily photographed from a computer screen. In one instance, the screen was shot at an odd angle. In others, the red video progress bar appeared at the bottom of the frame, as if the sender had snapped the photos on a phone while watching YouTube, then dashed off to CVS to print them up. Adherents of QAnon often pride themselves on being “digital soldiers,” but here was the internet crossing over into snail mail.
When I opened Nextdoor that night, Healy’s post was trending. Four households in his corner of St. Louis Park, a first-ring suburb of Minneapolis, had received similar packets of photos. So had a Papa John’s and a liquor store. And miles away in Plymouth, another Minneapolis suburb, at least three people had received similar batches of photos. Many of the photos received by Healy’s neighbors were identical. In Plymouth, one woman got a different batch of pro-QAnon photos. It all suggested a time-consuming and pricey, if not well-executed, effort on behalf of a conspiracy theory that is rapidly gaining traction in the U.S. political landscape – especially in the suburbs.
Top/Left: Packets of photos depicting memes popularized by supporters of the QAnon conspiracy theory. Bottom/Right: An envelope, which has the sender name appeared to read “MGM.” Photos: Courtesy of Luke Healy
It has been a weird summer everywhere, but it’s been a particularly weird one in Minneapolis. The murder of George Floyd turned the floodlights on entrenched racism in the city, inspiring protests around the world. But amid the discussion of defunding the police that followed, officers went on an unofficial strike, after kicking hundreds of homeless out of a downtown hotel where they had started sheltering during the protests. Many city parks now hold encampments, and violent crime is up. So are conspiracy theories on both social media and in political life.
Minnesota has six GOP state legislature candidates on the ballot in November who have supported QAnon – including one in Healy’s district. Until recently Melissa Moore, a Republican running for the state House seat in the district, maintained a Twitter account where she described herself as a #DigitalSoldier. She recently told the Associated Press that QAnon is “an exciting movement that opens our minds to different possibilities of what’s going on, of what’s really happening in our world today.”
After connecting on Nextdoor, Healy and the other recipients compared notes. The envelopes listed fake return addresses penned in a similar handwritten script. One read “777 1st Avenue” in St. Paul, Minnesota, another “777 Freedom” in St Louis, Missouri. On all of the envelopes, the sender name appeared to read “MGM” – perhaps a jokey reference to Hollywood, which QAnon adherents believe is at the center of the pedophile ring. Some people received anti-Black Lives Matter memes, like an image of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton that read, “CALLING THESE TWO GUYS ‘REVEREND’ IS LIKE CALLING DOGSHIT TOOTSIE ROLLS.” Other images referenced pandemic-related conspiracy theories.
Jared Holt, an investigative reporter at Right Wing Watch who tracks QAnon, examined the images for The Intercept. He was struck by the list of YouTube channels. “It contains some popular QAnon channels — Praying Medic, TruReporting — alongside some totally obscure ones,” he said. “This indicates to me that whoever sent this envelope is incredibly deep into the conspiracy theory and a true believer.”
“It’s hard to understand what the sender hoped to accomplish, but it’s clear that whoever is sending the mail is severely escalating in their radicalization,” he added.
The various recipients are now searching for answers. Some of them initially assumed that they were targeted because they had progressive or Black Lives Matter signs in their yards. But adjacent neighbors with similar lawn signs had not received anything at the time of publication.
In Plymouth, Carrie Kehnle called the FBI, which has identified QAnon as a potential domestic terrorist threat. She said that someone at the Minneapolis field office took down her information and told her to call back if she felt directly threatened.
“The level of vitriol and hate that comes through in these images is really, really scary,” she said. “Considering that so many other people have received this information, I don’t feel like we are being watched, but at the same time it’s pretty creepy. It’s not just a random political campaign pamphlet that’s coming in our mail.”