DECEMBER 11, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


LYING IS TRUMP’S BASIC WAY OF DEALING WITH PROBLEMS, BUT BLAMING PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR DOING THE SAME IS TOO LOW. THERE IS NO REASON TO DO THAT, AND WHEN I WAS YOUNG WE WERE TOLD THAT “TWO WRONGS DON’T MAKE A RIGHT!!” DON LEMON POINTS OUT THAT OBAMA DID NOT DO WHAT TRUMP DID, SO IT’S JUST ANOTHER TALL TALE.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/don-lemon-fact-checks-donald-095142998.html
Don Lemon Fact-Checks Donald Trump's 'Flat-Out Lie' About Barack Obama's Campaign
HuffPost
Lee Moran
,HuffPost • December 11, 2018

Don Lemon is done with President Donald Trump’s claims that campaign finance violations conducted by his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen (allegedly at Trump’s direction) are “just like what Obama did during his campaign.”

The “CNN Tonight” host said Monday that “I just want to scream at the television when I see” Trump and “his apologists” putting forward the theory.

“That is a flat-out lie. Legal experts will agree,” he said.

The Obama 2008 campaign “did miss filing deadlines” and “did not properly refund excess contributions, which they admitted, and they paid the fines,” Lemon noted. “Some of my guests will tell you, campaigns are fined for doing that all the time, sometimes there are clerical errors, sometimes there are other reasons.”

He then explained how that “is not the same, at all, as creating a shell company or using a media company to pay hush money for affairs with a porn star and a Playboy model during an election so that the voting public wouldn’t find out.”

“It is not the same at all. C’mon. Don’t be stupid. Don’t think people are stupid by pretending that is equal and the same thing. It is not,” Lemon added.

Check out the full clip here: SEE WEBSITE

This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
431 reactions4%61%35%

So the President just admitted in a tweet that he has changed his lie about these payments at least three times now. There were no payments. He didn't know about the payments. There was nothing wrong about the payments ! wow. we have a serious problem in DC. I am afraid they need to remove him from office. He is DEFINITELY not able to preform the duties of his office. I'm not sure it would be better under Pence, but could it be any worse ?

ReplyReplies (63)17868
Charles Foster Offdensen 8 hours ago (December 11, 2018)
Uhm, okay.....


IF THIS WOMAN DOESN’T TALK, I’LL BE VERY DISAPPOINTED, BECAUSE SHE WAS IN A POSITION TO KNOW A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE TRANSFER OF MONEY. AT ANY RATE IT SEEMS STRANGE INDEED THAT RUSSIA GAVE THE NRA A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY AND THEN THEY GAVE IT TO TRUMP, AND BUTINA WAS THE GO BETWEEN. THEN SHE SHOWED UP AT HIS PRESS CONFERENCE, HE CONVENIENTLY POINTED HER OUT TO ASK A QUESTION AND SHE FED HIM A LEADING QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER HE WILL REMOVE THE SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA. HE SAID THAT HE “DOESN’T SEE WHY” HE AND PUTIN CAN’T GET ALONG WELL TOGETHER. THAT LOOKS LIKE THE TOTAL TRANSACTION IN A FEW WORDS. I MAY HAVE SOME OF THAT WRONG SINCE I DIDN’T SEE IT IN PRINT, BUT THAT IS MORE OR LESS WHAT RACHEL MADDOW SAID. SHE MAY BE SNIPPETY SOMETIMES BUT SHE ISN’T A DODO BIRD NOR A LIAR. I NEVER MISS HER IF I CAN AVOID IT.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/don-lemon-fact-checks-donald-095142998.html
U.S.
Accused Russian Agent Maria Butina Reaches Plea Deal With Federal Prosecutors: Reports
HuffPost
Nick Visser
,HuffPost • December 10, 2018

Maria Butina, a Russian gun-rights activist accused of working as an agent for the Kremlin in the U.S., has reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors, according to several media reports Monday.

Butina, 30, was arrested in July and charged with illegally acting as an agent of the Russian Federation. U.S. authorities charged that she had used her close ties to the National Rifle Association and conservative operatives to wage a covert influence campaign and even tried to broker a secret meeting between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The government initially painted the woman as a spy who used sex to get close to influential targets, but The New York Times notes prosecutors later backed away from those claims, saying they were merely jokes made in text messages.

As part of her agreement, Butina will plead guilty to conspiring “with a Russian government official … and at least one other person, for Butina to act in the United States under the direction of Russian Official without prior notification to the Attorney General,” according to a copy of the plea document obtained by ABC News. The deal also mandates Butina cooperate with federal, state and local investigators and could see her serve a short prison sentence or be released for time served, upon which she would likely be deported to Russia, according to the Times. It must still be approved by a federal judge.

During her work, Butina also posed as a graduate student at American University in Washington, D.C., to gain a visa, prosecutors allege. She regularly posted photos on social media that showed her posing with guns, touting Russian policies and schmoozing with notable politicians.

This courtroom sketch depicts Maria Butina, in orange suit, during a hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., in July. (Dana Verkouteren via ASSOCIATED PRESS)
This courtroom sketch depicts Maria Butina, in orange suit, during a hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., in July. (Dana Verkouteren via ASSOCIATED PRESS)
More
The official Butina allegedly conspired with has been widely reported as Alexander Torshin, a former Russian senator who served as the deputy director of the Russian central bank until last month. He has been subject to sanctions in America, alongside two dozen other senior officials.

Butina’s romantic partner, Republican operative Paul Erickson, was also listed in court papers as helping her in the influence campaign. Erickson has not been charged in the investigation, but ABC notes that federal prosecutors have notified him that he is the subject of an ongoing investigation.

The Daily Beast reported earlier this month that Erickson was sent a “target letter” by investigators notifying him they were looking into violations of Section 951, a statute described as being reserved for espionage-like cases.

Butina has been held in federal custody for five months since her arrest after a judge denied her bail.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost.



THE USA AND FRANCE HAVE CERTAIN THINGS IN COMMON CAUSING US TO BE “OPEN SOCIETIES.” UNFORTUNATELY, THAT MEANS THAT PEOPLE AREN’T SPIED UPON AS THEY ARE IN SOME PLACES, SO THE “BAD GUYS” CAN COMMIT CRIMES. THIS, THOUGH, IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE SHOOTER WAS “KNOWN TO THE SECURITY SERVICES” BEFOREHAND. SHOULD HE HAVE BEEN WATCHED? EVEN IF WE KNOW THAT A PERSON CAN’T BE TRUSTED, THOUGH, THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN OUR MODERN CITIES AND THE POLICE SIMPLY CAN’T KEEP TRACK OF EVERYONE. IT MAY ALSO BE IMPORTANT THAT GRENADES WERE INVOLVED. SURELY THEY ARE HARDER TO PROCURE THAN GUNS AND AMMUNITION.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46530265
Strasbourg shooting: Gunman at large after two killed and 11 injured
DECEMBER 11, 2018 1 hour ago

Pater Fritz describes hearing gunshots and helping a victim of the Strasbourg shooting

Two people have been killed and 11 others wounded in a shooting in the eastern French city of Strasbourg.

The gunman, known to security services, is on the run and is being hunted by police. He had been injured in an exchange of gunfire with a soldier, police said.

The shooting happened close to a Christmas market in one of the central squares, Place Kléber.

France's counter terrorism prosecutor has opened an investigation.

Confirming the death toll had risen to two, the French interior minister, Christophe Castaner, who is on his way to the city, called it a "serious public security incident".

Seven of the injured are said to be in a serious condition.

Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
Shots rang out near a Christmas market in Strasbourg

Police said the suspect was already known to the security services as a possible terrorist threat.

According to France's BFM TV the man had fled his apartment in the Neudorf district of the city on Tuesday morning as it was being searched by police in connection with a robbery.

Grenades were found during the search.

Residents in Neudorf have been urged to stay indoors amid unconfirmed reports he has been tracked down and cornered by police in the area.

The European Parliament, which is nearby, is currently in lockdown. The parliament's president, Antonio Tajani, tweeted to say it would "not be intimidated by terrorist or criminal attacks".

Skip Twitter post by @EP_President

Antonio Tajani
✔
@EP_President
I express all my sorrow for the victims of the Strasbourg attacks. This Parliament will not be intimidated by terrorist or criminal attacks. Let us move on. We will continue to work and react strengthened by freedom and democracy against terrorist violence.

413
4:44 PM - Dec 11, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
390 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Report
End of Twitter post by @EP_President
Panic in the city centre

The attack unfolded at around 20:00 local time (19:00 GMT) close to Strasbourg's famed Christmas market.

Eyewitness Pater Fritz told the BBC he heard gunfire and found a person who had been shot, lying on a bridge. He said he tried to resuscitate him but the man died.

Local journalist Bruno Poussard wrote on Twitter that there had been a dozen shots fired on his street in the city centre - one or two to begin with, then in bursts.

Emmanuel Foulon, a press officer for the European Parliament, wrote that there was "panic" in the centre following the sound of gunfire and that police with guns were running through the streets.

A shopkeeper told BFM TV: "There were gun shots and people running everywhere. It lasted about 10 minutes."

British MEP Richard Corbett tweeted that he was in a restaurant in the city and the doors had been locked.

Skip Twitter post by @RCorbettMEP

Richard Corbett
✔
@RCorbettMEP
Am in restaurant in centre of #strasbourg where shots fired with unconfirmed reports of 3 dead.
Restaurant locked and not letting anyone in or out.

745
2:45 PM - Dec 11, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
892 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Report
End of Twitter post by @RCorbettMEP


THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE WATCHED A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING IN AGES, SO I WAS STARTLED TO SEE A FUNNY BUT “CONSERVATIVE” “ACTIVIST” SITTING BEHIND THE WITNESS, GOOGLE’S CEO MR. SUNDAR PICHAI TODAY. THE HUMOROUS RASCAL, DRESSED TO LOOK LIKE THE BANKER ON A MONOPOLY BOARD, MUGS FOR THE CAMERA, PLAYS WITH HIS RED BOWTIE AND HIS MONOCLE. ONCE HE NODDED HIS HEAD SEVERAL TIMES AS THOUGH RESPONDING TO ANOTHER PARTY, WHO I ASSUME IS SPEAKING INTO AN EARPIECE AND GIVING HIM INSTRUCTIONS. WHAT I DIDN’T THINK TO PAY ATTENTION TO WAS WHETHER HE IS DOING THAT IN RELATION TO WHAT QUESTIONS ARE BEING ASKED AND ANSWERED. JUST BECAUSE THE CONGRESSMEN WHO ARE ANTI-GOOGLE ARE CONSERVATIVE DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE CARTOONISH CHARACTER IS. SEE THE ARTICLES BELOW, ONE ON THE HEARING AND ONE OR TWO MORE ON MONOPOLY MAN.

HE HAS A NAME WITH THE PRESS, “MONOPOLY MAN,” AND MORE IMPORTANTLY HE IS NOT BEING ESCORTED OUT BY A UNIFORMED OFFICER AS THE “RED HAT” LADIES OR THE PROCHOICE WOMEN, AND SOMETIMES MEN, WHO COME IN DRESSED IN PINK ALWAYS ARE. HE DIDN’T SPEAK, BUT HIS MOTIONS WERE DESIGNED TO GET ATTENTION AND BE A DISTRACTION. THAT LOOKS LIKE A BIASED PATTERN TO ME, BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT HE/SHE/THEY IS A LEFT-LEANING TROLL INSTEAD. IT IS VERY FUNNY TO WATCH HIM, AND MAKES ME WISH I HAD LOOKED AT MORE HEARINGS IN THE PAST. UNFORTUNATELY THEY ARE LIKE POLITICAL DEBATES, STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGES AND MOST PRESS CONFERENCES. I WATCH THEM BECAUSE I NEED TO KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON AND NOT BECAUSE I EXPECT TO ENJOY IT. THIS CHARACTER ACTOR SHOWED ME TO BE IN ERROR. I WILL DO BETTER IN THE FUTURE. I WILL WATCH AT LEAST A FEW OF THEM.

THE GOOGLE CEO IS BEING TROLLED BECAUSE OF GOOGLE’S MONOPOLY STATUS. MUCH AS I DON’T LIKE MONOPOLIES, I DON’T THINK THEY SHOULD EXIST, I DO BELIEVE THAT IF THEY HAVE A GOOD PRODUCT AS GOOGLE DOES, THEY SHOULD BE REGULATED AND REQUIRED TO DOWNSIZE RATHER THAN BE TOTALLY DESTROYED. I SAY THAT BECAUSE GOOGLE CHROME, SUSPECTED DATA THIEF, GIVES A THOROUGH SEARCH SERVICE, AND FASTER THAN ANOTHER SEARCH ENGINE I BRIEFLY USED THOUGH IT IS POPULAR ASLO -- BING. THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT IT HAD LONG DELAYS WHEN SWITCHING IN AND OUT OF THE SITE AND OF SEARCH SUBJECTS. THEN I SAW DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN A LONG LIST OF ADWARE THAT WAS TRYING TO PLAY. I NEVER HAVE THAT ON GOOGLE. ALSO, GOOGLE FEATURES WIKIPEDIA, BLOGGER AND SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, COP BLOCK, ETC., ALL SITES I RESPECT AND ENJOY VERY MUCH. IF YOU WONDER WHETHER A MILITANT GROUP OF RIGHTWING AGITATORS IS DANGEROUS, GO TO SPLC FOR THEIR INFORMATION.

I NOTICED THAT SEVERAL CONSERVATIVE CONGRESSMEN DID COMPLAIN ABOUT AN OBVIOUS “BIAS” ON THE CONTENT SERVED BY GOOGLE, NAMING SPECIFICALLY MY FAVORITES AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL CAMP, AND THEREFORE UNFAIR. ONE SAID THAT SPLC STIRS UP HATE, RATHER THAN COMBATING IT. SPLC DOES HAVE A CLEAR-CUT POSITION ON HATE GROUPS AND HATE SPEECH THAT IS NOT CONSERVATIVE, BUT THE FACT THAT THE HATE MONGERS RESPOND IN HATE SIMPLY MEANS THAT SPLC IS CORRECT IN ITS’ ASSESSMENT OF THEM. (MY VIEWPOINT.)

I PERSONALLY LOVE BOTH THE SPLC AND WIKIPEDIA, PLUS COP BLOCK, COMMON DREAMS, HUFFINGTON POST, THE DAILY BEAST, LA TIMES, AND OTHER SUCH BOLDLY LIBERAL (TRUTHFUL) OUTLETS.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/420749-monopoly-man-returns-for-google-ceo-hearing
'Monopoly man' returns for Google CEO hearing
BY EMILY BIRNBAUM - 12/11/18 10:34 AM EST

An activist who attends congressional hearings dressed as the mustachioed Monopoly mascot returned to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to attend a hearing with Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

Ian Madrigal* sat a few rows behind Pichai during the House Judiciary Committee hearing.

VIDEO CLIP -- MAJOR STORM 17 SECONDS DURATION
@MAJORSTORM1
Google gets trolled by #MonopolyMan

22
10:17 AM - Dec 11, 2018

Madrigal, who uses gender-neutral pronouns, said in an emailed statement that their presence as Rich Uncle Pennybags is meant to draw attention to Google's lobbying efforts in Congress, as well as the search engine giant's access to customer data.

"Google spent $18 million lobbying politicians in 2017 — more than any other company," Madrigal said. "In return, Congress has abandoned its oversight role and allowed Google to wield monopoly power over every person who uses the internet."

“We have no say in how Google uses even our most personal data, and the only way to opt out is to boycott the internet itself," Madrigal added. "We can't rely on tech giants to self-regulate. It is past time for Congress to step in and do its job.”

Madrigal first appeared at the Senate Banking Committee’s 2017 hearing on the massive Equifax data breach, sitting directly behind then-Equifax CEO Richard Smith and occasionally making a show of crinkling dollar bills.

Throughout Smith's hearing, Madrigal adjusted their monocle, wiped their face with a larger-than-life $100 bill and finally chased the consumer credit reporting firm's chief into an elevator with a bag of money.

Pichai's hearing on Tuesday marks the first time the Google CEO has publicly testified before a congressional committee. He is likely to face questions about allegations of bias against conservatives, data security and the company's reported work on a censored Chinese search engine.


THE FACEBOOK SITE FOR IAN MADRIGAL, MONOPOLY MAN, STATES THAT HE IS A TRANS MAN, AND A TWEET BELOW SAYS “FORMERLY AMANDA WERNER. STRATEGY DIRECTOR ...” TRUE OR NOT? I DON’T KNOW, BUT SHE HAS ADOPTED A MALE PERSONA, AND PROBABLY IS TRANS. SHE USES BOTH HE AND SHE AND “THEY.” PERSONALLY I CAN ONLY SAY THAT THEY (I LIKE THAT ONE BETTER) ARE VERY FUNNY!

FOR A PHOTO WITHOUT THE MUSTACHE, GO TO https://twitter.com/wamandajd/status/916068956791885825.

Ian Madrigal* -- https://www.inverse.com/article/51672-who-is-monopoly-man-meet-the-activist-troll-crashing-the-google-hearing
Who Is Monopoly Man? Meet the Activist Troll Crashing the Google Hearing
Ian Madrigal has elevated trolling into an artform.
By James Dennin on December 11, 2018
Filed Under Cosplay, Facebook & Mark Zuckerberg

Internet trolls have many talents: They are often funny, know how to get online communities talking, and are as close as anyone to mastering the mysterious art of going viral. But we would rarely, if ever, call them commendable.

Ian Madrigal might be the exception. The activist’s knack for photobombing the congressional hearings of your favorite corporate villains elevates the humble troll to the makings of fine art. They first rose to prominence during the October, 2017, hearings over the Equifax breach that exposed the personal information of more than 143 million people. Today, Madrigal repeated their signature gate-crashing stunt during Alphabet* CEO Sundar Pichai’s congressional testimony and, once again, managed to steal the show


Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man
@wamandajd
I’m baaaack! 🧐

Monopoly Man returns to Congress to troll the CEO of the biggest Monopoly in the world: Google.

WATCH LIVE HERE: https://youtu.be/WfbTbPEEJxI

1,480
10:24 AM - Dec 11, 2018
487 people are talking about this


SEE THE TWEETS HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION ON WHO WERNER/MADRIGAL IS. I CUT THE LIST OFF BECAUSE SHE/HE IS VERY POPULAR, AND IT TAKES UP LOTS OF SPACE. WATCH TODAY’S NEWS VIDEO.

https://twitter.com/wamandajd?lang=en
Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man
@wamandajd
Formerly Amanda Werner. Strategy Director @revmsg taking on rich & powerful. Known for Monopoly Man & shaming Trump lackeys at dinner. Trans & queer, they/them.

Washington, DC

facebook.com/MonopolyManSer…
Joined January 2015
746 Photos and videos

Tweets, current page. Tweets & replies Media
Pinned Tweet

Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man
‏

@wamandajd
4h4 hours ago
More
I’m baaaack! 🧐

Monopoly Man returns to Congress to troll the CEO of the biggest Monopoly in the world: Google.

WATCH LIVE HERE: https://youtu.be/WfbTbPEEJxI

55 replies 432 retweets 1,484 likes
Reply 55 Retweet 432 Like 1.5K
Show this thread
Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man Retweeted

Henrik Moltke
‏

@moltke


Inverse‏
Verified account

@inversedotcom
55m55 minutes ago
More
.@wamandajd has perfected the art of the congressional hearing photobomb. Check out this supercut of their latest work:
0 replies 10 retweets 25 likes
Reply Retweet 10 Like 25
Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man Retweeted

Sushovan Sircar
‏

@Maha_Shoonya
3h3 hours ago
More
Monopoly Man casually chilling in the background as a metaphor while Sundar Pichai testifies before Congress on Google's data practices including the highly controversial 'Dragonfly' project in China. 🧐#googlehearing

2 replies 3 retweets 13 likes
Reply 2 Retweet 3 Like 13
Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man Retweeted

Sarbjeet Johal
‏

@sarbjeetjohal
2h2 hours ago
More
The white #mustache dude at #GoogleTestimony to Congress is playing with his fake mustaches all the time! Look, he just put second mustache on his eyes! 🤣🤣🤣

@evankirstel @JoannMoretti @waqasmakhdum @TmanSpeaks @avrohomg @Hazloe3 @MusicComposer1 @Shirastweet @ValaAfshar @stu

Sally Eaves, Ed Featherston, Dean of Big Data and 7 others
2 replies 6 retweets 15 likes
Reply 2 Retweet 6 Like 15
Show this thread
Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man Retweeted

Razor Rodriguez (The_Dude_Razor)‏


James Dennin
‏
Verified account

@JamesFDennin
2h2 hours ago
More
rules for attending a hearing in congress: 1/ commit to your bit
0 replies 5 retweets 21 likes
Reply Retweet 5 Like 21
Show this thread
Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man Retweeted

James Dennin
‏
Verified account

@JamesFDennin
2h2 hours ago
More
hi the wizards on the video team made a supercut of @wamandajd's latest congressional gatecrashing already


Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man
‏

@wamandajd
2h2 hours ago
More
Yesss @RepJayapal! Google must end the use of forced arbitration #RipoffClause.

Forced arbitration is a get-out-of-jail-free card for abuse and discrimination.

0 replies 4 retweets 27 likes
Reply Retweet 4 Like 27

Ian Madrigal - The Monopoly Man
‏

@wamandajd
2h2 hours ago
More
As my four mustaches can tell you, I’m a multitasker.

I DMed with @JamesFDennin while trolling the Google CEO. Read the piece here:

1 reply 4 retweets 22 likes
Reply 1 Retweet 4 Like 22


THIS IS SAD. I LIKE GOOGLE CHROME’S SERVICE VERY MUCH, SO I WON’T REMOVE MY NAME FROM THEIR ROLLS. I GUESS EITHER THE VAST AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY CAN GAIN FROM DOING THIS IS AN OFFER THEY SIMPLY CAN’T REFUSE, OR A NEW CEO CAME TO POWER IN GOOGLE WHO QUESTIONED THE WHOLE SUPER-MORALITY STANCE OF PRESERVING HUMAN RIGHTS IN A COUNTRY WHICH IS MAINLY A COMPETITOR. OR PERHAPS IT IS BECAUSE THE USA HAS BEEN BORROWING MONEY FROM CHINA FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS. THAT IS WHEN I FIRST HEARD NEWS REPORTS ON OUR UNHEALTHY LEVEL OF INDEBTEDNESS TO THEM. I WONDER IF THAT IS TRUE OF SAUDI ARABIA AS WELL, BASED ON THE TIGHT RELATIONSHIP THAT TRUMP HAS FORMED WITH THEM. MONEY TO MONEY OR AN EVIL ALLIANCE – IF PEOPLE CAUGHT BY “DRAGONFLY” GOING AGAINST THE RULES, COULD THEY BE IMPRISONED OR WORSE? I PRAY NOT.

https://thinkprogress.org/google-dragonfly-china-censorship-human-rights-fe1fe1ddf55a/
Google’s secret ‘Dragonfly’ project is a major threat to human rights
"This has much wider implications for Google, and for human rights online more generally."
CASEY MICHEL
DEC 11, 2018, 8:00 AM

PHOTOGRAPH -- GOOGLE IS TRYING TO HELP CHINA STRENGTHEN ITS MASSIVE CENSORSHIP MACHINE, AND THE COMPANY KEEPS LYING ABOUT ITS WORK. CREDIT: JOHANNES EISELE / GETTY

For years, Google has acted as the model of a Big Tech company with an ethical backbone. Much of that reputation stems from the company’s 2010 decision to leave China entirely, a move Google attributed to its desire to “no longer continue censoring our results” in the face of Chinese government pressure.

Over the past few months, however, Google’s moral standing has plummeted. Thanks to a series of insider leaks and investigations, coupled with concerted pressure from human rights groups, Google’s plans to quietly return to China and aid the Chinese government’s unprecedented censorship regime are no longer secret.

Google’s “Dragonfly” project is a new search engine — one the company claims is only in its earliest stages — that would censor information at the behest of the Chinese government. Dragonfly would not only allow Chinese authorities to prevent citizens from learning about issues like human rights, but it would also, according to one Google employee who resigned in protest, even block access to accurate air quality data.


TOP ARTICLES
Golf course owners, farmers, property developers greet
Trump water protections rollback

A new bipartisan letter from the U.S. calling out China's concentration camps in Xinjiang appears to have touched a nerve. CREDIT: OZAN KOSE / GETTY

China bites back at U.S. suggestion of sanctions over concentration camps

The development of Dragonfly comes as the Chinese government continues building the world’s largest system of concentration camps globally, disappearing and detaining at least one million Muslims across the country’s western region of Xinjiang. The camps are the latest in the Chinese Communist Party’s lengthy list of human rights abuses, from becoming the global leader in executions to cracking down on Christians to widespread organ harvesting.

Google executives like CEO Sundar Pichai have elected to repeatedly downplay and distort the company’s work with the Chinese government, but Google employees aren’t taking the news lying down. Dragonfly revelations have sparked an unprecedented explosion of internal dissent; the number of Google employees expressing their opposition to the project now reaches into the thousands, and some of the more vocal are beginning to discuss the possibility of a strike.

“This has much wider implications for Google, and for human rights online more generally,” Joe Westby, a researcher on technology and human rights with Amnesty International, told ThinkProgress. “We’re talking about the world’s largest search engine caving in to a model of the internet that is probably the most repressive in the world… [Google’s] willingness to so demonstrably compromise on its human rights commitment will mean that it’s very difficult to trust Google on its statements on human rights, and on its own commitments to human rights in the future.”

Flight of the Dragonfly
Google’s planned search engine, first revealed by The Intercept in August, is a deceptively simple system. Structured as an Android app, Google has reportedly constructed a search system mirroring it current set-up in the U.S. — with one colossal difference.

Where Google in the U.S. provides a wealth of search returns on all topics, the Chinese project takes an opposite approach. The search function for Dragonfly will return search findings, but it will throttle anything that might lead citizens to question the Chinese Communist Party’s lines on topics like human rights or the 1989 government-led massacre at Tiananmen Square, during which Communist Party forces killed thousands of protesters.

One former Google senior researcher even revealed that Dragonfly would “ensure only Chinese government-approved air quality data would be returned in response to Chinese users’ search” — a restriction that would not only help whitewash one of the most pressing environmental issues in the country, but directly threaten the health of tens of millions of Chinese citizens in the country’s urban cores.

“Human rights defenders are routinely arrested in China, and by providing access to data in China, there’s a really high risk Google will be complicit.”

But that’s not all. Dragonfly would reportedly link Chinese users’ search queries directly to their phone numbers, according to The Guardian. The search engine will also track the locations of Chinese users.

As an open letter to Pichai from over a dozen human rights organizations — including Amnesty International, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Human Rights Watch — stated, the Dragonfly project “would represent an alarming capitulation by Google on human rights.”

View this document on Scribd
“In terms of the most worrying aspects of the Dragonfly prototype we’ve been hearing, I think it’s the fact that Google would seemingly be giving pretty open access to Chinese authorities, giving them info and data on all Chinese users,” Westby told ThinkProgress. “Human rights defenders are routinely arrested in China, and by providing access to data in China, there’s a really high risk Google will be complicit.”

Westby added that he’s been “disappointed” by Google’s milquetoast response to the human rights’ groups concerns thus far.

Amnesty International released a parody video critiquing the tech giant; “Google: Don’t be evil. Except when it’s profitable,” the narrator says.

Employing defense

Google first began working on the new search engine early last year and has reportedly demonstrated how it works for Chinese government officials. But it wasn’t until a series of reports a few months ago that the world, and almost all of Google’s employees, realized what the company was doing.

“The secrecy surrounding the work,” wrote The Intercept’s Ryan Gallagher, “was unheard of at Google.”

Based on the actions of Google’s executives, however, it seems the secrecy was a feature, not a bug. Only a few dozen employees knew about the project; even then, as one former Google employee wrote, that information was “siloed,” much of it “kept from prying eyes.”

“To make ethical choices, Googlers need to know what we’re building. Right now we don’t.”

But Google’s executives couldn’t keep a project of this magnitude under wraps for long. As details began spilling out, pro-democracy and human rights advocates weren’t the only ones taking note. Google’s employees, attracted to a company that had long touted the unofficial motto, “Don’t be evil,” began bucking their superiors and voicing their concerns.

In August, a letter circulated among Google employees who wanted to take a stand against Dragonfly. “To make ethical choices, Googlers need to know what we’re building. Right now we don’t,” the letter read. “We urgently need more transparency, a seat at the table, and a commitment to clear and open processes: Google employees need to know what we’re building.”

The letter’s recommendations weren’t radical; the employees who signed on weren’t calling for a cancellation of the project or a complete overhaul. Instead, it described the situation as a “Code Yellow,” alerting employees about an imminent crisis, and called for simple, obvious fixes, from the creation of an ombudsperson to an ethics review structure. In the end, the letter was signed by nearly 1,500 employees.

“I think the fact that you see employees uncomfortable working on these products, or what looks like in a secret, underhanded way, and expressing disapproval — it’s important, because the fact is you can’t rely only on NGOs to fight for freedom of expression,” Courtney Radsch, the Committee to Protect Journalist’s advocacy director, told ThinkProgress.

A handful of employees have already reportedly resigned due to the company’s secrecy surrounding Dragonfly. While some haven’t publicized their departure, others, like former Google engineer Brandon Downey and former senior researcher Jack Poulson, have come out publicly against what they see as Google’s moral collapse.

“I want to say I’m sorry for helping to do this,” Downey wrote. “I don’t know how much this contributed to strengthening political support for the censorship regime in [China], but it was wrong. It did nothing but benefit me and my career, and so it fits the classic definition of morally heedless behavior: I got things and in return it probably made some other people’s life worse.”

Poulson has already written two public letters blasting Google for its sudden lack of “ethical red lines.” Poulson’s first letter, from August, announced that he’d been “forced to resign in order to avoid contributing to, or profiting from, the erosion of protections for dissidents.”

View this document on Scribd
Another letter, from September, had a more direct audience: Congress. Addressing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Poulson wrote that he was “compelled to resign… in the wake of a pattern of unethical and unaccountable decision making from company leadership.” Since he left the company, Poulson added, he’d learned that employee discussions on Dragonfly have “been increasingly stifled.”

View this document on Scribd
Poulson’s public resignation appears to have had its intended effect, at least as it pertains to Congress taking interest in Google’s work with the Chinese government. Growing concern about Google helping the Chinese Communist Party censor and track Chinese citizens has also crossed party lines.

A bipartisan group of senators — including Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and Mark Warner (D-VA) — wrote a letter to Pichai, Google’s CEO, noting that the company’s decision to help Beijing is a “coup for the Chinese government and Communist Party,” one that “is deeply troubling and risks making Google complicit in human rights abuses related to China’s rigorous censorship regime.”

View this document on Scribd
The House of Representatives followed with its own bipartisan letter to Pichai shortly thereafter. Led by Reps. David Cicilline (D-RI) and Michael McCaul (R-TX), the letter reminded Google that Congress had “a responsibility to ensure that American companies are not perpetuating human rights abuses abroad.”

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

David Cicilline
✔
@davidcicilline
NEW: Google should not be helping China crack down on free speech and political dissent. I just sent this letter with some of my Republican and Democratic colleagues raising our serious concerns and questions about what they’re doing.

87
11:17 AM - Sep 13, 2018
55 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

And while President Donald Trump, amidst his trade war with Beijing, hasn’t commented directly on Dragonfly, Vice President Mike Pence blasted the company in October, saying, “Google should immediately end development of the ‘Dragonfly’ app that will strengthen Communist Party censorship and compromise the privacy of Chinese customers.”

Lies, damned lies, and Google
Much of the concern over Google’s decision to return to Beijing and work directly with the Chinese Communist Party stems from the company’s choice to cloak the project in secrecy and go out of its way to misdirect and misinform anyone asking questions about Dragonfly.

Google executives “forced employees to delete a confidential memo… that revealed explosive details” about Dragonfly, according to The Intercept. The outlet also discovered that Google executives were “trying to shut down employees’ access to any documents that contained information” about Dragonfly.

“Pichai’s statement that Dragonfly was in its early stages ‘was ultimately horse shit.'”

“Google’s leadership considered Dragonfly so sensitive that they would often communicate only verbally about it and would not take written notes during high-level meetings to reduce the paper trail,” the outlet wrote in late November.

Alongside the effort to prevent Google employees from learning about the project, the company’s top executives repeatedly ducked questions about their work in China.

Much of that obfuscation has come from Pichai himself. Reportedly an enthusiastic supporter of the project in private, Pichai has said in public that Dragonfly is an “experiment” without any firm plans to launch — a claim that not only contradicts reporting on the project but Google employees’ own understanding of its status. Pichai even claimed Google would still be able to service 99 percent of queries with Dragonfly. (The censored terms, again, reportedly include words like “human rights.”)

As one Google employee said, Pichai’s statement that Dragonfly was in its early stages “was ultimately horse shit.”

Muddying the waters
Other Google executives have followed Pichai’s lead, at least as it pertains to obfuscation.

Search engine chief Ben Gomes, for instance, claimed in a leaked transcript obtained by The Intercept that Dragonfly is “extremely important to the company.” Gomes then told the BBC that Google has only done “some exploration” on the project with no plans to launch. Gomes’ claims that Dragonfly is merely an experiment were “bullshit,” according to another unnamed employee.

“It’s brought up the question: Who’s running the show?”

Scott Beaumont, Google’s head of Chinese operations, has also followed suit. Not only did Beaumont bypass Google’s security and privacy teams when developing Dragonfly, according to The Intercept’s Gallagher, but he even reportedly claimed that Google co-founder Sergey Brin had met with senior Chinese government officials, apparently voicing Google’s desire to re-enter the market.

“Two sources working on Dragonfly believed that Beaumont may have misrepresented Brin’s position in an attempt to reassure the employees working on Dragonfly that the effort was fully supported at the highest levels of the company, when that may not have been the truth,” Gallagher wrote.

Google spokesperson Jenn Kaiser told ThinkProgress that “we dispute the allegations made in [the] story last week,” regarding recent reports of Dragonfly’s status. Kaiser did not respond to specific questions regarding reports that Google will only provide false air quality data, or the level of concern and outrage within the company.

Kaiser also pointed to a statement from Heather Adkins, Google’s senior director of information security, saying Dragonfly remains an “exploratory project,” and that “no decision has been made about whether we could or would launch.”

It’s a familiar refrain from Google’s executives, one that gives human rights advocates increasing cause for concern.

“That’s another troubling aspect of this — it does seem like misdirection at times from a company that’s generally been one of the more mature ones and open on a lot of issues,” Peter Micek, general counsel at the anti-censorship group Access Now, told ThinkProgress. “It’s brought up the question: Who’s running the show?”

Answers to the questions of who is overseeing Dragonfly and why the company has been so opaque about its work with the Chinese government could be imminent: Pichai was scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee last week, but a national day of mourning for George H.W. Bush postponed the hearing to Tuesday morning. It will be the company’s highest profile appearance on Capitol Hill, a newsworthy moment considering Google executives refused to appear at a separate hearing in September, leaving only an empty chair.

Google’s censorship machine
In the interim, the pressure is only building in opposition to Google’s plans to help burnish the Chinese government’s censorship machine. Another public letter is currently circulating among Google employees — one that no longer simply expresses concern, but this time calls for Google to “cancel project Dragonfly.”

“Our opposition to Dragonfly is not about China: we object to technologies that aid the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable, wherever they may be,” the letter states. “Dragonfly in China would establish a dangerous precedent at a volatile political moment, one that would make it harder for Google to deny other countries similar concessions.”

Over 700 Google employees have publicly added their name to the letter, with more signing on every day. And employees have floated the idea of a strike if the company proceeds with Dragonfly, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover potential expenses.


Liz Fong-Jones (方禮真)
@lizthegrey
As usual, I do not speak for my employer, nor do I vouch for the authenticity of any of this.

However, I do want to say that @yonatanzunger has been my counterpart on the other side of the negotiating table dozens of times, and I believe his ethical backbone is ironclad.

Ryan Gallagher
✔
@rj_gallagher
NEW: Google executives shut out privacy & security teams from key meetings on China censored search project & did not address human rights concerns that were repeatedly raised internally dating back nearly two years: https://theintercept.com/2018/11/29/google-china-censored-search/ … #Dragonfly

347
1:22 PM - Nov 29, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
120 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Meanwhile, civil society organizations aren’t easing up either. Over 60 human rights groups issued another open letter this week condemning the company and its work to help Chinese authorities stifle their citizens. “We are writing to ask you to ensure that Google drops Project Dragonfly and any plans to launch a censored search app in China,” the signatories — including Edward Snowden — wrote.

“We’ve seen this with [Mark] Zuckerberg and Facebook: countless apologies, and then policies and practices that are in direct contradiction to those [apologies],” Radsch told ThinkProgress. “Their motto used to be ‘Don’t be evil’ — but maybe they’ve left that to the wayside.”

#CENSORSHIP, #CHINA, #FACEBOOK, #GOOGLE, #HUMAN RIGHTS, #SUNDAR PICHAI, #XINJIANG


JUST SO THOSE OF YOU WHO CARE AS MUCH AS I DO WILL KNOW, THE DATE ON THIS ARTICLE IS DECEMBER 10, 2018, OR SO I DEDUCE. THIS CASE OF OUR LATEST FAD – FAILING TO GIVE THE DATE OF THE INFORMATION ON ARTICLES – IS ENTERTAINING IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THEY DID BOTHER TO GIVE THE TIME OF DAY, BUT OTHERWISE ANNOYING. REALLY HELPFUL, MR. NOLAN!

ABOUT HIS PAINFULLY COGENT COMMENTS, HOWEVER, I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE HUGE FIELD OF LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS WHO MAY LIKELY RUN. IT IS A DANGEROUSLY LARGE FIELD FOR BERNIE’S EVEN HAVING A CHANCE TO BE CHOSEN AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, I FEAR; AND IF HE THEN RUNS ON HIS OWN UNDER A NEW NAME -- “PROGRESSIVE” WOULD BE IDEAL I THINK -- HE WILL OF COURSE BE HIT WITH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF ABUSE AT FIRST, BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS A LARGE RESERVOIR OF PEOPLE WHO GENUINELY WANT TO MOVE TO THE LEFT IN THIS COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY IF IT MEANS THAT THEY WILL GET HEALTH CARE, A GENUINELY LIVABLE RETIREMENT – WHICH SOCIAL SECURITY ISN’T EXACTLY, DUE TO THE REPUBLICAN INFLUENCES -- A LARGE MINIMUM WAGE, SERIOUSLY USEFUL MANDATORY JOB BENEFITS AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, AND SOME OTHER GOOD THINGS FOR OUR LONG LARGELY JOBLESS FUTURE.

IF WE DO SPLIT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, I THINK OUR NEW POLITICAL PARTY SHOULD BE CALLED “PROGRESSIVES.” BERNIE PROBABLY SHOULDN’T CALL HIMSELF A “DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST,” A “SOCIAL DEMOCRAT” SOUNDS BETTER; EITHER ONE, THOUGH, IS TREACHEROUS, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY ARE MUCH TOO HIGHLY BRAINWASHED FOR THAT TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN FRIGHTEN OR INFURIATE PEOPLE. WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS IN THE REAL WORLD IS “SIX OF ONE AND HALF A DOZEN OF THE OTHER,” OF COURSE, BUT THE TERM IS TOXIC.

THE PROBLEM IS, CAN ANY OTHER CANDIDATE BE RELIED UPON TO ACTUALLY PULL HARD FOR THE BERNIE AGENDA AND MORE? I HAVE A SUSPICION THAT MANY OF THESE DEMOCRATIC “JOHNNIE-COME-LATELIES” HAVE SUDDENLY DECIDED TO RIDE ON HIS COATTAILS JUST BECAUSE CLEARLY THAT IS THE “PACKAGE” THAT IS POPULAR AND NEEDED BY THE PEOPLE. SO, THEY PROMISE TO DO THOSE THINGS, AND THEN AS SOON AS THEY ARE ELECTED, THEY GO BACK TO THEIR OLD WAYS. MAYBE I’M WRONG, BUT THAT’S THE WAY PEOPLE BEHAVE WHEN THEY ARE FORCED INTO ANYTHING.

I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN SEEING THE DEMOCRATS EN MASSE EITHER REALLY WORK TO BECOME MORE “DEMOCRATIC,” OR CALL THEMSELVES “THIRD WAY,” OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I AM THOROUGHLY ANGRY AT THEM AS THEY ARE. IF THEY DID THAT, I WOULD KNOW FOR SURE THAT I SHOULDN’T VOTE FOR THEM, AND I WOULD JUST SATISFY MYSELF WITH A PARTY OF TRUTH EVEN IF IT DOESN’T WIN ALL THE TIME. IT’S LIKE BEING ABLE TO BE IN LOVE “WITH ONE GOOD ONE TIME.” PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER DONE THAT WILL WANT IT UNTIL THEY DIE, AND THOSE WHO HAVE WILL BE FULLY SATISFIED.

https://splinternews.com/bernie-dont-run-1830983072
BERNIE DON'T RUN
Hamilton Nolan
Yesterday 11:31amFiled to: LISTEN

PHOTOGRAPH – SANDERS SPEAKING Photo: Getty

Since it is almost the end of 2018, we are well into 2020 presidential campaign speculation season already. Though it is still too early to know very much, I do know one thing: BERNIE DON’T RUN.

Why did so many people get behind Bernie Sanders in 2016? Besides the fact that he was the only candidate offering policy prescriptions that matched the scale of our nation’s biggest problems, his appeal was also rooted in the fact that he clearly believed in a set of principles. Unlike most nakedly ambitious presidential contenders, he seemed to actually be concerned with trying to solve the problems that he spoke about—including, above all, the growing inequality that underlies almost everything else. His campaign was a way to start a movement to improve the country; the movement was not in service only of his own career.

Okay, he didn’t win. Fine. Here we are, getting ready for the next election. This is, I would argue, the most promising political landscape for the left in my lifetime. Shit is so fucked up that people are ready to try some wild shit. They even tried Donald fucking Trump. That, obviously, is and will continue to be a disaster. Now the time is ripe for us to try left wing solutions that mainstream pundits normally dismiss as being out of bounds. Universal health care? Free college? Stronger regulation of Wall Street? Forceful downward redistribution of wealth? A true “Green New Deal?” None of these things are implausible now. And all of them are ideas that Bernie Sanders stands for. So what is the best way for him to contribute to the possibility of bringing them into reality?

BY NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Bernie, you’re old as hell man. Too old I’m afraid. In eight years there is a distinct possibility that you will have declined into a lurching, vacant-eyed Ronald Reagan character. We don’t need that. It’s not the time for an 80 year-old president. The movement needs young blood. A new generation of political leadership is already bursting forth. Bernie, you can take satisfaction in the knowledge that you played a leading role in pulling these left wing ideas into the mainstream. You will not be president, though. And that is fine.

Here is what Bernie Sanders should do: endorse a Democratic presidential candidate who will best carry on his own ideas. I don’t really give a damn who it is. Warren, or Kamala Harris, or Sherrod Brown, or whoever. Pick one and get behind them from the very beginning. Any solid top-tier true left wing candidate should, barring a serious fuck-up, be able to win the Democratic nomination if Bernie Sanders hands them all of his supporters on a platter. He still commands a significant percentage of Democratic primary voters. In a large field, his endorsement should prove decisive. That means that Bernie Sanders can, right now, ensure that whichever candidate best represents his own movement can be in the strongest possible position to be the Democratic nominee. As an added benefit, that candidate may not have some of the flaws Bernie himself his. That candidate may be decades younger than him, and possibly not a white man! Everybody wins.

Alternately, Bernie himself could run for president. What would this accomplish? It would accomplish the splintering of the left wing vote in the Democratic primary, which would open a lane for an “establishment” centrist Democratic to take the nomination. Bernie could very well shave off enough votes from Warren or Harris or whoever else represents the true left that all of the lefties in the race would fall short of Joe Biden—or of fucking Mike Bloomberg, or Mark Cuban, or whatever other nightmare candidate may emerge from the muck. You can’t take anything for granted these days.

So the choice that faces Bernie Sanders is: Will you be a kingmaker, or a spoiler? Why not help to cement the power of the left in the Democratic party, rather than dividing it? Why not be the man who ensures that all of your ideas live on in a presidential nominee, rather than the man who opens the door to some “We must run to the center to attract disillusioned Republicans in 2020" bullshit? Do not run, Bernie. Endorse. Don’t blow your purity with an ill-advised late career power grab.

Bernie my man I love you but please do not fuck this up.


THIS NEXT IS A FOLLOWUP ON THE BERNIE QUESTION FROM YESTERDAY – A BRISK AND ENLIGHTENING DISCUSSION. I AGREE WITH LIBBY WATSON, FOR THE CHARACTER TRAIT ANALYSIS IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH, ESPECIALLY. I DISTRUST WARREN SINCE SOME REPORTER ASKED HER WHETHER SHE WOULD CONSIDER RUNNING ON BERNIE’S TICKET WELL BEFORE THE PRIMARY WAS OVER, AND SHE GOT A SUDDEN INSTINCTIVE NEGATIVE LOOK ON HER FACE AND SAID NO RATHER SHORTLY. I THOUGHT THAT PROBABLY SHE WANTED THE JOB FOR HERSELF, THEN. WITHIN A WEEK OR SO SHE CAME OUT FOR CLINTON, THOUGH, AND NOW SHE’S TALKING ABOUT BEING A STRONG CAPITALIST.

SO, WHAT’S WITH HER PROGRESSIVE CLAIMS? SHE’S BEEN PLAYING UP HER SIMILARITY OF VIEWS TO SANDERS, AND THEN SHE JUMPS OFF. AMONG THE DEMOCRATS ONLY CERTAIN ONES CAN BE TRUSTED EITHER IDEOLOGICALLY OR ON THE PERSONAL LEVEL IN REGARD TO AN AFFILIATION THAT BERNIE SHOULD TAKE UP. OCASIO-CORTEZ MIGHT BE GOOD AS A RUNNING MATE FOR BERNIE, THOUGH, AND THEY DO APPEAR TO FEEL FRIENDLY RATHER THAN HIGHLY COMPETITIVE WITH EACH OTHER. I ALSO SAW HER IN ACTION RECENTLY AND SHE DOES HAVE THE QUICKNESS, FIRE AND CONCERN ABOUT THE NEEDS OF OUR PEOPLE THAT I WANT TO SEE.

AFTERWORD: WHAT THE HECK IS M4A*?
(PS, THEY DIDN’T DATE THIS ARTICLE EITHER.)

WELL, PERSISTENCE PAYS OFF. IT IS “MEDICARE FOR ALL,” ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE LITTLE IN-GROUP PHRASES THAT THE REST OF US WILL JUST HAVE TO DO WITHOUT – UNLESS OF COURSE THE WRITERS WOULD EXPLAIN WHAT THEY MEAN AS THEY GO ALONG. “SAY WHAT YOU MEAN, AND MEAN WHAT YOU SAY,” RIGHT? IT MAY NOT SEEM AS CLEVER AND SHOWY, BUT IT’S DEFINITELY THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.

https://splinternews.com/point-counterpoint-to-bernie-or-not-to-bernie-1831021728
ELECTIONS
2020
Point-Counterpoint: To Bernie, or Not to Bernie?
Libby Watson and Hamilton Nolan
Today 3:50pmFiled to: ARGUMENTS

Photo: Getty SANDERS, SEEMINGLY EITHER SLEEPING OR PRAYING, AN EXCELLENT SHOT.

Yesterday, a Splinter writer made the extremely unpopular argument that Bernie Sanders should not run for president in 2020. Today, Splinter’s own Libby Watson argues with him about whether or not he is very wrong.

Libby Watson: So, my primary reason for thinking your post was wrong is because I agreed so much with your previous post about how you should vote for the candidate you agree with. Bernie is the candidate I agree with most and I want him to be president, therefore. But I also don’t think there’s another candidate who comes close to him, policy-wise. We can debate what “comes close” means endlessly, and this is essentially the essence of intra-Dem party fights for the last three years—who is Good, and does that matter if they can beat Trump, and are you making things worse by supporting a candidate who is Good over one who political elites think can win? Frankly, I don’t think there’s another serious 2020 contender right now who would really push for the things we need. There isn’t another socialist. Bring me another socialist and we’ll talk.

Hamilton Nolan: Well you ju-jitsued by paying me a compliment first before disagreeing, very crafty. I have not changed my belief that people should vote for who they agree with. And I too overwhelmingly agree with Bernie’s positions. However in the case of Bernie as a possible candidate I see three mitigating issues that we should take seriously: A) He will be more than 80 years old in his first term. That is a big downside, in my opinion. Not disqualifying but not ideal. B) Unlike 2016 when there were 2 candidates, this time we can expect a large number of primary candidates. I believe the fundamental battle will be between a lefty candidate and a centrist candidate for the Democrats. In that framework, it would be good to try not to split the non-centrist vote. And C) Since we are so far from the election still, there is time for Bernie to seek out and handpick a candidate—who SHARES HIS VALUES and largely agrees with him on policy and gives him an important role in the administration—and throw his support behind that candidate and have them win. This strikes me as the best way to ensure that the actual policies and values that the lefties support carries successfully through the primaries.

Libby Watson: I agree with you on his age, it really is not ideal and I’m not 100 percent sure I would be ok with a president that old. He does seem to be in better shape cognitively than Trump by a long way, but it’s hard to ignore when we’ve got such an obviously decrepit president. However! I care more about the policies than I do about that, I guess, is the answer. Just do not care enough about the president being too old to give up on such a thoroughly great and authentic candidate. On B, you’re right again that this is very different, but I guess the lesson I drew from 2016 was the power of having a socialist making socialist arguments on stage. I don’t know who would make those arguments, and who would push the platform left, without him. Bernie’s 2016 run inarguably pushed the entire party left. Now, you have all these candidates who say they support Medicare for All, for example—and I admit I’m very singleminded about that—but I don’t trust that any of them actually give a shit about it like Bernie did. I guess I want him up there to keep them honest. On C, I’d honestly be fine with that if he could find one who actually did! I just don’t know who that is right now. If AOC [Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez] could run, conversation over. I think Sherrod Brown is probably the closest to that, but, again on M4A*, he doesn’t support the Sanders bill; he supports a buy-in at 55, which sucks ass. Maybe it’s Warren; her thing about being a capitalist drives me totally nuts, but if she could stop saying that I could get there.

Hamilton Nolan: I also would 100 percent vote for AOC for president if she was old enough to be legal. Guess we’ll have to wait a few years. Until then, of all the 2020 candidates floated thus far it does seem like Warren is probably the closest to Bernie, and I think she is generally very good on policy although I admit she lacks the fire Bernie has when she speaks. But I can absolutely see her ceding some amount of control over policy to Bernie (or just moving a little farther left) in exchange for his backing, and I would be happy with that. I would NOT like to see Warren, Bernie, and several others all run and divide the votes between them resulting in a Biden nomination. (Like, lefties can dislike Gillibrand or Harris or Brown or Warren, but there is no doubt that each of them will take a slice of the people who voted for Bernie in 2016, making his road that much harder.) That said it is so early on that we don’t even know who the candidates are or what their platforms will be, so I think that if Bernie were to decide to back someone else now is the time, because he can exercise his influence on their policies from day one. If a year from now the whole field is completely disappointing, I would still vote for Bernie. But I think anyone who knows many 80 year olds would have some concerns about giving them a job for eight years.

Libby Watson: I guess that’s the trade off—are you so firmly against an 80 year old president that you’re willing to make the risky bet that a candidate, like Warren, would definitely move left with his backing, and actually stick to that if she won? I am not willing to make that bet. I don’t worry as much as you do about the centrist/left split, though I don’t know why... I guess I don’t really see the vote splitting thing as as much of an issue in a primary process that lasts months, where people drop out after the first one or two primaries. Nor do I put as much weight on Bernie backing another candidate as you do; I think if Bernie doesn’t run, a lot of voters who were energized by him just stop paying attention, they don’t go vote for Warren just because he tells them to. He has a unique ability to rally those voters because of his policies and his authenticity, and I don’t see that translating over if he throws his weight behind someone else. But I guess I’m also just not that afraid of Joe Biden. I’m weirdly optimistic that the 2020 nominee would be someone more like Harris, Warren, or Brown than someone like Biden, Klobuchar or, god forbid, a Bloomberg.

Hamilton Nolan: Well I sincerely hope you are right about the direction the Democratic Party will take in the primary. After 2016 I stopped trying to predict how people will vote because I found I have no ability to predict it— I really did not think people would elect the dumbest man in America president but here we are. Honestly, I’ve always liked Warren a lot and have assumed I would be happy voting for her except in the past six months or so when she’s gone into full-on campaign mode I find I am starting to like her less. Which is not a good sign but it’s still early so I’m thinking positive. In any case I do believe this election is the best chance the left has had in my lifetime to actually translate policies into power within the federal government so I hope we do not blow it with a candidate who is either a tepid centrist OR dead. Now I will give you the last word.

Libby Watson: Yep, totally agree about Warren. I also think I’m probably completely fucking wrong to feel optimistic about 2020—what? Libby, what? Why would I feel optimistic about anything? And I also have no ability to predict how people will vote. I’m a moron, give me a New York Times column. That said, I agree with you this is the left’s best chance in years, and I don’t want to spoil it by giving the nomination to a candidate who will make all the right noises in the campaign and then govern like Obama or, god forbid, Clinton. With the left ascendant, the biggest risk to me isn’t a centrist defeating the left, but a fraud taking up the mantle of the left in order to win and then throwing it off in office. Bernie’s the only one I trust not to do that.


MSNBC MADDOW

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/10/18
Cohen sentencing, other key milestones set for court this week
Rachel Maddow lists some of this week's significant court dates for key figures in the Trump-Russia scandal, including the sentencing of Donald Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen. Duration: 7:31


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/10/18
Butina takes plea deal, cooperating with investigators: reports
Rachel Maddow shares reports that accused Russia agent Maria Butina will change her plea to guilty and has been cooperating with investigators in a deal to be explicated in court on Wednesday. Duration: 16:13


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/10/18
Butina's GOP operative boyfriend eyed on news of cooperation deal
Erin Banco, national security reporter for The Daily Beast, talks with Rachel Maddow about what is known about the scope and implications of Maria Butina's plea deal and cooperation with prosecutors. Duration: 5:49


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/10/18
Law unsettled on if or how long the presidency can protect Trump
Joon Kim, former acting-U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, talks with Rachel Maddow about whether a president's time in office counts toward the statute of limitations on a crime that president may have committed, and whether a person who isn't president would expect indictment if they were described the way Donald Trump is in the Michael Cohen court filings. Duration: 9:33


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/10/18
Trump outreach to Barr for legal defense could force recusal
Rachel Maddow explains how Donald Trump's outreach to William Barr to to be his lawyer in the Trump-Russia case could mean that Barr would have to recuse himself from matters related to the Mueller investigation if he is confirmed as attorney general. Duration: 1:43


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/10/18
Maria Butina to 'fully cooperate' with investigators: Daily Beast
Rachel Maddow relays a clarification from the Daily Beast's Betsy Woodruff that accused Russian agent Maria Butina's plea agreement with prosecutors requires "no holds barred" cooperation. Duration: 3:43