America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,013 comments
  • 1,486,642 views
Aaaaand Mike Masnick addresses the fumble, even pointing to remarks from Ken White that I've already mentioned.

Thanks for posting that. It looks like probably the most favorable (and maybe the most likely) take on the situation. But it's not clear from what we've been told yet whether it is actually the situation. Without knowing more information it's hard to really dig in and say that it crossed the line, but they haven't given details yet to rule it out either. If it is benign it still stupidly walked right into a big right-wing narrative. I feel like someone should have seen this one coming.
 
I feel like someone should have seen this one coming.
It would be fairly unprecedented but I'm curious if they did know exactly what would happen but didn't care. Many Dems in congress have signaled that they're over it and have zero interest in dealing with the other side anymore. And - 6D chess here - this announcement was virtually guaranteed to rile up the loudest voices which may in some cases be the same voices at the center of the whole ordeal. Judging by how slow and deliberate Capitol consequences are moving along, in some cases it may be effective to keep those voices talking until they say or do something legally dumb. That might sound spooky but government is spooky, that's just how it works. An example: To my knowledge, Alex Jones has never done anything bad enough to land him in jail but if he gets pissed enough he might. I wouldn't complain if that happened.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, public safety has been (justifiably?) used numerous times in the past to deprive people of their most fundamental rights.
 
If it is benign it still stupidly walked right into a big right-wing narrative. I feel like someone should have seen this one coming.
Jen Psaki is often fairly unflappable, which is what surprises me most by this. I think the aim was to suggest that something is being done about disinformation to those concerned about it, whether it actually is or not. But even if the most favorable interpretation is what's actually happening, that government actors are reaching out to platform providers with content they've found and saying "you have the lead here but this sort of rhetoric is potentially very harmful," that's really more involvement than I want government actors to have. It doesn't remotely amount to infringement upon constitutionally protected rights, but I'd prefer a broader, public statement regarding the presence of potentially harmful content that doesn't suggest any kind of cooperation. Social networks have just as much right to not censor disinformation as citizens have to spew it.

I don't know how confident I am that the most favorable interpretation of what Psaki said is what's actually been going on. Biden really didn't help either. When he walked up to the camera outside, I thought he was going to challenge someone to a duel, or worse, bring up "Jim Eagle" again. He got absolutely pasted on 1A Twitter over saying that the platforms are killing people, and rightfully so.

I'm under no illusions when it comes to the current administration wanting these platforms to enjoy fewer freedoms than they presently do. I'm certain their motivations differ wildly from those of Republicans and I think they're more likely to figure out constitutional work-arounds than craft inarguably unconstitutional legislation like the ******** coming out of red states, but the desire is absolutely there.

To be fair, public safety has been (justifiably?) used numerous times in the past to deprive people of their most fundamental rights.
giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
I'm under no illusions when it comes to the current administration wanting these platforms to enjoy fewer freedoms than they presently do. I'm certain their motivations differ wildly from those of Republicans and I think they're more likely to figure out constitutional work-arounds than craft inarguably unconstitutional legislation like the ******** coming out of red states, but the desire is absolutely there.
One way to not trample on 1A while also defending the US from digital foreign actors would be to block access to American social media from foreign IPs, and also block access to VPNs so nobody can switch IPs. Basically cut off American internet from the rest of the world. We would still have all the freedom of speech we could ever want...in America, where it belongs, and where foreign disinformation is not welcome. That strategy seems less invasive than telling social media providers to get their stuff together.
 
Last edited:
One way to not trample on 1A while also defending the US from digital foreign actors would be to block access to American social media from foreign IPs, and also block access to VPNs so nobody can switch IPs. Basically cut off American internet from the rest of the world. We would still have all the freedom of speech we could ever want...in America, where it belongs, and where foreign disinformation is not welcome. That strategy seems less invasive than telling social media providers to get their stuff together.
This looks an awful lot like "America First!" isolationism, but beyond that, however significant the foreign element of this is, there's also undoubtedly a domestic element; some of these sacks of **** are actually members of Congress.

We need more viewpoints, not fewer, the presence of potentially harmful viewpoints notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
But even if the most favorable interpretation is what's actually happening, that government actors are reaching out to platform providers with content they've found and saying "you have the lead here but this sort of rhetoric is potentially very harmful," that's really more involvement than I want government actors to have.
I think I could do one sliiiiighly better in terms of most favorable interpretation - which is that facebook went to the government and said "help us out, can you let us know which of these 10,000 posts have misinformation about covid" and someone said "oh sure!" That's about the best story I can come up with. Worst case scenario they sent facebook a nastygram saying label these misinformation (or ban members) or else!
 
Last edited:
I think I could do one sliiiiighly better in terms of most favorable interpretation - which is that facebook went to the government and said "help us out, can you let us know which of these 10,000 posts have misinformation about covid" and someone said "oh sure!" That's about the best story I can come up with. Worst case scenario they sent facebook a nastygram saying label these misinformation (or ban members) or else!
:lol:

Yes, that's more favorable. I also don't think it's very likely. The Z-1000 just isn't programmed that way and I don't think Jack Dorsey appreciated being brought in front of Congress very much, making him less likely to reach out like that.

I just don't know what's actually happening and I'd wager we never will. I'm a cynic masquerading as a realist who desperately wants to be an optimist (I'm more likely to become an optometrist), and right now I just can't tap into the sort of optimism necessary to think what's going on is anything like that.
 
This looks an awful lot like "America First!" isolationism, but beyond that, however significant the foreign element of this is, there's also undoubtedly a domestic element; some of these sacks of **** are actually members of Congress.

We need more viewpoints, not fewer, the presence of potentially harmful viewpoints notwithstanding.
It looks an awful lot like China, is what it looks like.
 
The Texas state Senate has passed S.B. 3, a bill purported to prohibit teaching of "critical race theory" in the Texas public school system. Oddly, though it's in the bill's name, the phrase "critical race theory" doesn't appear in the body of the bill's text. What's concerning is how the bill has been amended regarding required instruction.

(Now...it needs to be said that the bill requires a majority vote in the Texas state House of Representative before it's sent to the governor's desk (where it's certain to be signed as it's a piece of Texas GOP priority legislation) and such a vote cannot be held with members of the House of Representatives currently absent.)

Edit:

 
Last edited:
The Texas state Senate has passed S.B. 3, a bill purported to prohibit teaching of "critical race theory" in the Texas public school system. Oddly, though it's in the bill's name, the phrase "critical race theory" doesn't appear in the body of the bill's text. What's concerning is how the bill has been amended regarding required instruction.

(Now...it needs to be said that the bill requires a majority vote in the Texas state House of Representative before it's sent to the governor's desk (where it's certain to be signed as it's a piece of Texas GOP priority legislation) and such a vote cannot be held with members of the House of Representatives currently absent.)

Edit:


Conservatives: "Stop erasing our history!"

Also Conservatives: "Stop teaching the history that makes us look bad!"
 
No Mr Cruz. In authoritarian countries if there are facts contrary to the government orthodoxy, the authoritarian regime prevents you from sharing the facts.

I think you'll find that you're very familiar with some of the examples of this that we have prepared.
 
US, Allies Accuse China of Global Cyber-hacking Campaign.

Edit: Apparently the US military has been making all sorts of interesting moves for the past several years. The Navy has been on a mission to decommission littoral combat ships as we know them, but has been testing a new style of littoral ship called the M80 Stiletto which is geared toward spec ops and Coast Guard operations. No need for traditional littoral ships if its more survivable to operate small, fast craft out of larger traditional ships further from shore. This ship is obviously not a mystery but I've never heard of it until just now. That said, I don't fly boats so I don't pay much attention.

Another move is that the Army is apparently shifting funds away from acquiring new JLTVs and toward upgrading Humvees. Their thinking is that the JLTV was designed mostly to be more survivable in a Middle East conflict, particularly ones with IEDs and mines, but are larger and more complex than Humvees. Humvees would be easier to manage in a confined-space battle scenario, such as on an island in the Pacific, particularly because several of our allies are already operating Humvees. They can more easily be transported on planes and ships as well.

Seems like numerous strategies are turning to focus on naval and island operations away from the desert ops we've been doing for 20 (!) years. Times are a-changing.
 
Last edited:
From my understanding, this is the first sentencing for someone involved in the Jan. 6 riot.

A Florida man who breached the U.S. Senate chamber carrying a Trump campaign flag was sentenced Monday to eight months behind bars, the first resolution for a felony case in the Capitol insurrection.

Paul Allard Hodgkins apologized and said he was ashamed of his actions on Jan 6. Speaking calmly from a prepared text, he described being caught up in the euphoria as he walked down Washington's most famous avenue, then followed a crowd of hundreds into the Capitol.

"If I had any idea that the protest ... would escalate (the way) it did ... I would never have ventured farther than the sidewalk of Pennsylvania Avenue," Hodgkins told the judge. He added: "This was a foolish decision on my part."
 
From my understanding, this is the first sentencing for someone involved in the Jan. 6 riot.


There have been several other sentences. I think the distinction here is that it's the first felony sentencing. As far as I know, and this may be wrong, all of the sentencing thus far has been from guilty pleas.
 
Slightly better messaging from Biden himself regarding Facebook. No new information on the administration's involvement, unsurprisingly.



Feels like a backpedal, but it's the sort of backpedal that would have been nearly impossible a year ago.
 
Last edited:
A seven-count indictment was unsealed today in a New York federal court relating to the defendants’ unlawful efforts to advance the interests of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the United States at the direction of senior UAE officials by influencing the foreign policy positions of the campaign of a candidate in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and, subsequently, the foreign policy positions of the U.S. government in the incoming administration, as well as seeking to influence public opinion in favor of UAE interests.

Thomas Joseph Barrack, 74, of Santa Monica, California; Matthew Grimes, 27, of Aspen, Colorado; and Rashid Sultan Rashid Al Malik Alshahhi, aka Rashid Al Malik and Rashid Al‑Malik, 43, a UAE national, are accused of acting and conspiring to act as agents of the UAE between April 2016 and April 2018. The indictment also charges Barrack with obstruction of justice and making multiple false statements during a June 20, 2019, interview with federal law enforcement agents.

“The defendants repeatedly capitalized on Barrack’s friendships and access to a candidate who was eventually elected President, high-ranking campaign and government officials, and the American media to advance the policy goals of a foreign government without disclosing their true allegiances,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Mark Lesko of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “The conduct alleged in the indictment is nothing short of a betrayal of those officials in the United States, including the former President. Through this indictment, we are putting everyone — regardless of their wealth or perceived political power — on notice that the Department of Justice will enforce the prohibition of this sort of undisclosed foreign influence.”

“As alleged, the defendants, using their positions of power and influence in a presidential election year, engaged in a conspiracy to illegally advance and promote the interests of the United Arab Emirates in this country, in flagrant violation of their obligation to notify the Attorney General of their activities and in derogation of the American people’s right to know when a foreign government seeks to influence the policies of our government and our public opinion,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Jacquelin M. Kasulis for the Eastern District of New York. “These arrests serve as a warning to those who act at the direction of foreign governments without disclosing their actions, as well as those who seek to mislead investigators about their actions, that they will be brought to justice and face the consequences.”

“Today’s indictment confirms the FBI’s unwavering commitment to rooting out those individuals who think they can manipulate the system to the detriment of the United States and the American people,” said Assistant Director Calvin Shivers of the FBI's Criminal Investigative Division. "Barrack is alleged to have abused his access to government officials to illegally advance the interests of foreign governments. The FBI stands in concert with our external partners to ensure all who seek to wield illegal influence are charged for their crimes.”

“American citizens have a right to know when foreign governments, or their agents, are attempting to exert influence on our government,” said Assistant Director in Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. of the FBI’s New York Field Office. “This is especially important to Americans during a presidential election year, and the laws on the books were created to protect our nation from such untoward influence. This case is about secret attempts to influence our highest officials, and when that corrupt behavior was discovered, we allege Mr. Barrack went even further, obstructing and lying to FBI special agents. In case it needs repeating, each of those bad choices is a federal felony, and each now comes with significant consequences – the first being today’s indictment.”

According to court documents, between April and November 2016, Barrack served as an informal advisor to the campaign of the candidate in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Between November 2016 and January 2017, Barrack served as Chairman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee. Beginning in January 2017, Barrack informally advised senior U.S. government officials on issues related to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Barrack also sought appointment to a senior role in the U.S. government, including the role of Special Envoy to the Middle East. Barrack served as the Executive Chairman of a global investment management firm headquartered in Los Angeles, and Grimes was employed at the firm and reported directly to Barrack. During the relevant time period, Alshahhi worked as an agent of the UAE and was in frequent contact with Barrack and Grimes, including numerous in-person meetings in the United States and the UAE.

As alleged in the indictment, the defendants used Barrack’s status as a senior outside advisor to the campaign and, subsequently, to senior U.S. government officials, to advance the interests of and provide intelligence to the UAE while simultaneously failing to notify the Attorney General that their actions were taken at the direction of senior UAE officials. Barrack – directly and through Alshahhi and Grimes – was regularly and repeatedly in contact with the senior leadership of the UAE government. On multiple occasions, Barrack referred to Alshahhi as the UAE’s “secret weapon” to advance its foreign policy agenda in the United States.

Barrack, Alshahhi and Grimes allegedly took numerous steps in the United States to advance the interests of the UAE. For example, in May 2016, Barrack inserted language praising the UAE into a campaign speech to be delivered by the candidate about U.S. energy policy in May 2016 and emailed an advance draft of the speech to Alshahhi for delivery to senior UAE officials. Similarly, throughout 2016 and 2017, the defendants sought and received direction and feedback, including talking points, from senior UAE officials in connection with national press appearances Barrack used to promote the interests of the UAE. After one appearance in which Barrack repeatedly praised the UAE, Barrack emailed Alshahhi, “I nailed it. . . for the home team,” referring to the UAE. Barrack and Grimes also solicited direction from senior UAE officials in advance of the publication of an op-ed authored by Barrack and published in a national magazine in October 2016 and removed certain language at the direction of senior UAE officials, as relayed by Alshahhi.

Following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the defendants repeatedly acted at the direction of UAE officials to influence the foreign policy positions of the incoming administration in favor of UAE interests. For example, in December 2016, Barrack attended a meeting with Grimes, Alshahhi and senior UAE government officials, during which he advised them to create a “wish list” of U.S. foreign policy items that the UAE wanted accomplished in the first 100 days, six months, year and four years of the incoming administration of the U.S. President-elect.

In March 2017, Barrack and his co-defendants agreed to promote the candidacy of an individual favored by senior UAE officials for the position of U.S. Ambassador to the UAE. In May 2017, Barrack agreed to provide Alshahhi with non-public information about the views and reactions of senior U.S. government officials following a White House meeting between senior U.S. officials and senior UAE officials.

In September 2017, Alshahhi communicated with Barrack about the opposition of the UAE to a proposed summit at Camp David to address an ongoing dispute between the State of Qatar, the UAE and other Middle Eastern governments, after which Barrack sought to advise the President of the United States against holding the Camp David summit. The summit never happened.

In furtherance of the alleged criminal conspiracy and conduct, Barrack and Grimes, with the assistance of Alshahhi, acquired a dedicated cellular telephone and installed a secure messaging application to facilitate Barrack’s communications with senior UAE officials.

Neither Alshahhi nor Barrack nor Grimes provided the required notification to the U.S. Attorney General that they were acting in the United States as agents of a foreign government.

On June 20, 2019, Barrack voluntarily met with FBI special agents. During the interview, Barrack allegedly made numerous false statements, including falsely denying that Alshahhi had ever requested that he take any actions on behalf of the UAE.

Barrack and Grimes were arrested this morning and are scheduled to be arraigned this afternoon in the Central District of California. Alshahhi remains at large.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nathan Reilly, Ryan Harris, Samuel Nitze and Hiral Mehta of the Eastern District of New York and Trial Attorney Matthew McKenzie of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control are prosecuting the case.
 
Wait a second.

UAE?

I mean I know these investigations are long and complicated but this is what they've come up with so far? UAE is one of our allies, this is hardly any different than corporate lobbying! What the hell were their "foreign policy interests", to buy more oil? To swap Austin and Abu Dhabi on the F1 schedule?
 
Wait a second.

UAE?

I mean I know these investigations are long and complicated but this is what they've come up with so far? UAE is one of our allies, this is hardly any different than corporate lobbying! What the hell were their "foreign policy interests", to buy more oil? To swap Austin and Abu Dhabi on the F1 schedule?
I don't know. That's kind of the point. Though they may be allies, they shouldn't have unmonitored influence on policy.
 
Students, teachers protest poposal for Chick Fil A on Notre Dame campus

Lindsey Graham:



These are the important issues!
 
Students, teachers protest poposal for Chick Fil A on Notre Dame campus

Lindsey Graham:



These are the important issues!
Ken Burns violin music plays

Screenshot_20210721-161910_Chrome.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back