Month: April 2022

Loose Lips McCarthy strikes again.

Oops, he did it again! House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif, shot off his mouth and may have ended his second chance to become speaker of the House of Representatives much as he ended his first one. Apparently, he just can’t help himself.

Excerpts of the latest tell-all book about Donald Trump’s tumultuous final days in the White House as he attempted to execute his coup d’etat, this one by New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, made the rounds on Thursday and contained some new juicy details about the doings of then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and McCarthy during that period. The book, entitled “This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden and the Battle for America’s Future,” reveals McConnell making delightful comments like, “The Democrats are going to take care of the son of a bitch for us,” referring to the impending impeachment over the events of January 6th about which he reasonably said, “If this isn’t impeachable, I don’t know what is.”

This isn’t the first time McCarthy’s loose lips got him into trouble.

That’s not surprising. McConnell said as much on the floor of the Senate and despite his unprincipled commitment to vote for Trump in 2024 should he be the nominee, McConnell has made no secret of his loathing for Trump — a loathing that is fully reciprocated by the man who calls McConnell “Old Crow” and urges every Senate candidate to vote against him for Senate leader.

McCarthy, however, is another story.

Yes, he also took to the floor on the night of January 6th and said that Trump bore responsibility for what happened that day. But almost immediately after the Joe Biden’s inauguration, McCarthy dashed off to Mar-a-Lago to kiss Trump’s ring. The two men posed for a picture to commemorate the event and Trump made sure it was circulated. The new book reveals what McCarthy was saying in the interim. McCarthy told a group of top House Republicans on January 8th that Trump’s conduct was “atrocious and totally wrong” and he blamed the president for inciting people to attack the Capitol. He asked about the process involved in invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office, but he was tremulous and afraid that the upcoming impeachment would “put more fuel on the fire.” According to Martin and Burns, as time went on, McCarthy actually seemed to gather some conviction the more clear it became what a disastrous event the insurrection was.

Two days later McCarthy was on the phone with his leadership team again,  as the Times reported:

When Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming asked about the chances Mr. Trump might resign, Mr. McCarthy said he was doubtful, but he had a plan.

The Democrats were driving hard at an impeachment resolution, Mr. McCarthy said, and they would have the votes to pass it. Now he planned to call Mr. Trump and tell him it was time for him to go.

Mr. McCarthy said he would tell Mr. Trump of the impeachment resolution: “I think this will pass, and it would be my recommendation you should resign,” he said, according to the recording of the call, which runs just over an hour. The Times has reviewed the full recording of the conversation.

He acknowledged it was unlikely Mr. Trump would follow that suggestion.

“What he did is unacceptable. Nobody can defend that and nobody should defend it,” he told the group.

McCarthy even went so far as to admit that he wished the social media companies would ban Republicans in his caucus like Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado as they had banned Trump. 

I don’t think anyone expected that the man Trump called “My Kevin” would actually call Trump and tell him to resign. But the mere fact that he said he would is a problem for him with the MAGA crowd, and, needless to say, Trump himself.

McCarthy’s spokesman denied that he ever said such a thing. He issued a statement saying, that McCarthy never said he was going to call the president and tell him to resign. The minority leader himself put out a statement later:

My statement on the New York Times pic.twitter.com/PWi2WkoWzh

— Kevin McCarthy (@SpeakerMcCarthy) April 21, 2022

Last night the two authors appeared on Rachel Maddow’s show with receipts:

There’s no word from Trump as I write this and one assumes that the MAGA faithful in the House are waiting to get the signal from their Dear Leader. McCarthy, meanwhile, is almost certainly rueing the day he booted Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wy., from the leadership. Payback’s a bitch.

As I mentioned, this isn’t the first time McCarthy’s loose lips got him into trouble. Recall that back in 2015 when then-speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, resigned, he was considered the heir apparent until he blurted out to the TV cameras that they had staged the Benghazi hearings to bring down Hillary Clinton. That precipitated a mad dash for a replacement and they ended up coercing former Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan into taking the job against his will.

And then there was this:

A month before Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination, one of his closest allies in Congress — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy — made a politically explosive assertion in a private conversation on Capitol Hill with his fellow GOP leaders: that Trump could be the beneficiary of payments from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016 exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post.

He just keeps stepping in it, over and over again. It’s like a tic with him.

McCarthy isn’t the only one with dreams of holding the Speaker’s gavel. 

McCarthy didn’t suffer any repercussions from Trump for that little slip-up. By the time it came out, he had correctly sussed out the most advantageous ways to suck up to the president by paying attention to the most minute details. He communicated to him using colorful pictures and big charts and made note of his infantile preferences and catered to them. Observing that Trump only liked the red and pink Starburst candies he deployed a staff member to buy cases of them, pull out the president’s favorites and put them in a glass jar with his name on it. It’s doubtful that even Trump’s nanny ever went to such trouble.

And it paid off for him. Trump has always eventually forgiven McCarthy for these transgressions, apparently because he really likes the way he grovels. One suspects that he’ll need to do a full hair-shirt/self-flagellation while crawling on his belly singing “YMCA” for this one. There is no subject about which Trump is more sensitive or volatile.

McCarthy’s caught on tape and there’s no way Trump won’t hear it. You can be sure that Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan will let him know about it if he hasn’t. After all, McCarthy isn’t the only one with dreams of holding the Speaker’s gavel. 

Salon

Update –

Trump is their God. https://t.co/cHOA9anOLJ pic.twitter.com/ujiO0bpicP

— Dan Froomkin (PressWatchers.org) (@froomkin) April 22, 2022

We’ll see if Trump has really forgiven him once again … or not. Trump’s not usually one to forgive. Of course, McCarthy is an excellent groveler, so who knows?

More important is this:

Not only has Fox News not yet mentioned the Kevin McCarthy audio tapes on-air, but they also haven't done even a basic online write-up of the story.

Meanwhile, here's the top story on Fox News' website right now: pic.twitter.com/DOaU2z22QU

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) April 22, 2022

Burying his crimes worked for Stalin

But then Vladimir Putin likely admires Stalin.

The Associated Press reports from Ukraine:

Satellite images released Thursday showed what appeared to be mass graves near Mariupol, and local officials accused Russia of burying up to 9,000 Ukrainian civilians there in an effort to conceal the slaughter taking place in the siege of the port city.

The images emerged hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed victory in the battle for the Mariupol, despite the presence of an estimated 2,000 Ukrainian fighters who were still holed up at a giant steel mill. Putin ordered his troops not to storm the stronghold but to seal it off “so that not even a fly comes through.”

More from the AP:

Cities in the Donbas came under Russian fire overnight, and the attacks interfered with attempts to evacuate civilians in one area, according to a regional official. The region, home to coal mines, metal plants and heavy-equipment factories, is bracing for what could be a decisive campaign as Russian President Vladimir Putin attempts to salvage an 8-week-old war already widely seen as a blunder and a humanitarian disaster.

Slate’s Fred Kaplan wonders if Putin has learned anything from his failures to date in Ukraine. The open ground in the Donbas region will make it more difficult for Ukraine’s defenders to restrain Russian forces with hit-and-run attacks. There are few places to hide. We could instead witness tank-on-tank battles not seen since World War II:

For weeks now, Russian tank battalions have been lining up all across the 300-mile border with Ukraine, with the goal—once the fighting begins in full force—of breaking through the defenses, then enveloping the Ukrainian soldiers from all sides.

This tactic works both ways: The Ukrainians will try to punch a hole in the offensive line, then envelop the Russian soldiers—and, at the same time, cut off Russian supply lines. (Helpfully, Russia’s supply lines in the East are dependent on rail tracks, which Ukrainians have been adept at blowing up.)

[…]

If Putin finds himself on the verge of losing in Donbas, however, he might set off chemical or tactical nuclear weapons in a brash stab at shocking Zelensky and the Western allies into stopping the war before all hell breaks loose. (Russian military doctrine refers to this ploy as “escalate to de-escalate.”) This is the main reason President Joe Biden and some of the European leaders refrain from pushing Putin still harder or intervening in the war directly.

Nevertheless, the U.S. and NATO countries have relaxed their earlier narrow scope of supply and stepped up delivery of heavier and more long-range weapons to Ukraine. The latest U.S. shipment includes “72 155mm howitzers and the tactical vehicles to tow them, along with 144,000 artillery rounds,” reports the Washington Post.

While that four-weeks of amunition supply may not win the war, the artillery will “help Ukrainians hold the line against the forthcoming Russian assaults,” says military analyst Samir Puri of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Also included are 120 Phoenix Ghost Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems. Unlike the short-lived Switchblade drones, these can loiter above the battlefield for up to six hours and provide aerial reconnaissance (even at night) before impacting targets. More details (or photos) are unavailable.

Just called @AEVEX_Aerospace and asked to talk with someone cleared to speak to the media. Was told by whoever picked up the phone that "we have no comment on the issue you are calling about." "So you have no comment on the company's work on Phoenix Ghost?" "No we do not."

— Valerie Insinna (@ValerieInsinna) April 21, 2022

Kaplan continues:

There is one other factor that should make Russian commanders pessimistic: Their troops are exhausted. This is why the offensive in Donbas is not yet fully underway. Many of the Russian battalions—some redeployed from their failed campaigns in northern and western Ukraine, some newly mobilized from distant bases inside Russia—lost too many troops, tanks, and other weapons to fight as coherent combat units, and it will take a few weeks, if not much longer, to fill in the gaps.

Michael Kofman, a military expert at CNA, whose analyses of the war have proved more prescient than most, tweeted on Wednesday, “Overall I think the Russian military has dramatically reduced combat effectiveness given [the] high level of losses. … They’ve scraped together what was left … to get some reinforcements. It can’t make up for losses.”

It appears both Ukraine and its friends in Europe are settling in for what Kaplan describes as “a long, bloody slugfest, to be decided not by which side achieves some grand strategic victory but rather by which side simply stays standing a little bit longer.”

Would that Democrats had the same stomach Ukrainians have for defending every inch of their homeland.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

Losing sleep over ways Republicans might steal 2024?

The New Republic examines a constitutional tool Democrats might use to relevel the playing field in places where Republicans are restricting the right to vote:

Imagine that Speaker Nancy Pelosi were to declare that several states have violated a clause largely unused and forgotten for 154 years: Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates that states lose a portion of their congressional delegation if they unduly restrict the right to vote. Sorry, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, but Georgia went too far in rolling back voting rights; your state lost a seat in Congress—and it’s yours.

It would be a radical decision, one that some could compare to conservative lawyer John Eastman’s “coup memo” urging Vice President Mike Pence to nullify Electoral College votes. But unlike Eastman’s memo, it would have actual grounding in the text of the Constitution.

Can’t imagine that happening? Me neither. Not only, Patrick Caldwell writes in explaining Section 2’s provenance, because “the clause has never been successfully used.” But because for fear of appearing radical to voters Democrats are afraid to use the powers invested in them to defend the republic in this dark hour.

“The Fourteenth Amendment has never really been fully utilized to protect the rights of Black people the way Congress intended,” Reconstruction historian Eric Foner tells Caldwell. “But when you get to other kinds of rights, it’s been used in a very vigorous manner.”

That doesn’t mean it won’t ever be used, however. Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin told me that he and a handful of colleagues discuss how Section 2—along with Section 3, which bars serving in Congress if you’ve “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”—might be implemented to fight back against anti-democracy forces. “We’re in the fight of our lives for democracy, and we need every tool in the constitutional toolbox on the table,” Raskin said. “This is absolutely something we need to consider.”

But the only way you’d know Democrats are in the fight of our lives is by listening to them discuss it dispassionately. Doing something about it they will focus-group to death while the republic burns. Do Democrats mean what they say or are they all talk?

Delineating what would or would not constitute a violation raises tricky questions. Is it voter-ID laws? Voter roll purges? “The devil’s in the details,” Raskin said. “It needs to respond to active disenfranchisement efforts. But there are certainly a lot of those going on.” He noted that many of the broader voting restrictions—repeals of weekend or early voting, say—aren’t as clear-cut. It would be up to Congress to sort out. “It’s been dead for so long that it’s hard to imagine it being resurrected,” Foner said. “Much as I think it should be.”

But that doesn’t mean it’s not time to raise the possibility. We are living in dangerous times—ones that require a revival of the spirit of Reconstruction if we hope to maintain representative democracy. “Everything is hypothetical until it becomes urgent,” Raskin said. “Both Section 2 and Section 3 could be waking up soon. There’s no such thing as a dead letter in the Constitution.”

But Will Democrats Fight? So, One More Time:

I’ve noted before: How many Rocky movies did Stallone make? And they’re all the same movie. So why do people keep going? Because so many Americans themselves feel like underdogs. We want to root for the little guy with heart. Facing insurmountable odds. Risking it all. We want to feel the thrill up our spines and in the tops of our heads when Bill Conti’s trumpet fanfare introduces the training sequence. We want to hear that. Wait for it. Cheer for it. Pay for it. Over and over and over.

Democrats think politics is about good policy and good governance. It is. But only if you win the power to make it happen. Elections are not about good policy. If Trumpism has not disabused Democrats of that fantasy, there’s no hope for them. Voters want leaders — even phony ones — willing to fight for them and to risk themselves in the effort. Wimps need not apply. Stern words to not count.

It’s why James Carville complained this week that “no on fears” Democrats.

“The overwhelming embrace of @MalloryMcMorrow’s speech is proof positive of how desperate people are to hear Democrats actually stand up for what is right.” — Anat Shenker-Osorio @anatosaurus

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

The cringiest thing you will see this week, maybe this millennium.

This is a dying culture.

It’s 1955 all over again

The Voting Rights Act was passed explicitly to prevent this. When you put it together with all the voting roadblocks they are putting up, it’s clear that we are one step away from poll taxes and poll tests. They are just going for it:

Florida Republicans approved a new congressional map that severely curtails Black voting power in the state on Thursday, taking a final vote as Black lawmakers staged a sit-in on the floor of the legislature.

The new plan, which was drawn by Governor Ron DeSantis, gives Republicans a significant boost in the state and is one of the most aggressively gerrymandered maps passed in recent months. Republicans would be expected to win 20 of the state’s 28 congressional districts, a four seat increase from the 16 they hold now. It also eliminates two of four districts where Black voters have been able to elect the candidate of their choice.

DeSantis is expected to sign the districts into law, and lawsuits challenging the maps are immediately expected.

“We are plainly in this map denying minority voters the ability to elect the representative of their choice,” said state representative Fentrice Driskell, a Democrat who represents the Tampa area.

Black Democratic lawmakers halted the final debate of the bill Thursday morning just before noon. They took over the floor of the legislature, leading prayer and chants. One member, state representative Dianne Hart, was seen wiping tears from her eyes during the protest, according to the Miami Herald.

The Sergeant at Arms removed an Associated Press photographer from the floor of the legislature while the demonstration was ongoing, the Miami Herald reported. The legislature reconvened and held a final vote on the maps while the protest was continuing, according to The Tributary.

A focal point of the new maps has been the way it eliminates the fifth congressional district, which stretches from Jacksonville to Tallahassee. 46% of that district is currently Black, and it is represented by Al Lawson, a Black Democrat. DeSantis has openly called for getting rid of the district, saying it is unusually shaped and was unlawfully drawn based on race. After vetoing a proposal that would have allowed Black voters in Jacksonville to continue to elect the candidate of their choice, DeSantis’s map breaks up the district into four pieces in which Black voters comprise a much smaller share of the population.

DeSantis and lawyers from his office have said the law allows them to dismantle the district, voting rights experts have said the plan brazenly disregards laws designed to protect the interests of minority voters.

Republicans would be favored to win all of those districts.

At one point during the debate on Thursday, Representative Randy Fine, a Republican who was the vice-chair of the redistricting committee, explained why he was opposed to drawing districts that prevented minorities from electing candidates of their choice if they don’t comprise a majority of voters.

“When we guarantee that a group of people gets to select the candidate of their choice, what we’re saying is we’re guaranteeing that those who aren’t part of that group get no say. Chew on that one for a little bit,” he said. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was designed to prevent this kind of voting discrimination, ensuring that lawmakers could not split up sizable and compact minority communities to dilute their vote.

It’s possible that the courts will reverse this. But since this is happening so close to the election — part of the plan, no doubt — it’s highly likely that it will stand for this election.

It’s straight-up racism and it’s just heartbreaking:

With loud protests echoing throughout the Chamber, FL rams through Desantis’ edicts to eliminate two majority-black congressional districts and Disney’s 55 year-old governing charter. The FL Legislature ceases to exist as a functioning, independent branch of government. pic.twitter.com/nK17mbpodT

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) April 21, 2022

Just look at that group of racist, white, men in suits gleefully denying Black voters their rights.(The guy with the mic on the floor is the asshole who said “chew on that for a little while.”)

It really is 1955 all over again.

Ivanka’s betrayal

I’m sure she has denied ever saying that on January 6th and I’m sure her daddy has decided to believe her. But I would bet money that it’s true. She was already plotting her return to respectable society. (Good luck with that.)

This reporting from Politico yesterday escaped my notice but I think it’s interesting. It’s highly unlikely that Mike Pence will cooperate with the committee but you never know. It would certainly be interesting to hear his version of this phone call:

Congressional investigators entering the last stage of their probe are gathering new evidence about a crucial moment on the Jan. 6 timeline: the final, fateful phone call between Donald Trump and Mike Pence before a pro-Trump mob attacked the Capitol.

They’ve had a lot of success on that front — court records and Jan. 6 select committee documents reveal that the panel has obtained significant details about that call. In recent weeks, they’ve learned even more from several high-profile witnesses who were in the Oval Office while Trump berated Pence for refusing to overturn the election.

Yet one crucial gap remains. Top Pence aides say the former vice president was in his residence when the call came in. He then left the room and was out of earshot for 15 to 20 minutes. Those aides told the select committee that Pence never disclosed to them the contents of the conversation. More importantly, Pence’s aides say he never revealed how he replied to Trump’s intense last-minute pressure.

That gap of information looms as the House panel works to finalize a minute-by-minute account of Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, when he pushed Pence to prevent the transfer of power to Biden. Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) has remained publicly undecided about whether to seek testimony from Pence himself, noting that Pence’s closest advisers have cooperated fulsomely. But investigators must also confront whether Pence’s side of that conversation — for which no Pence advisers were present — is significant enough to ask him to fill in the blanks.

It’s unlikely the committee will attempt to force Pence to testify. There are imposing legal obstacles for subpoenaing a former vice president, and the panel considers Pence a witness, not a target of their probe. Whether they ask for his voluntary help is another question.

An hour after the call, Pence would publicly declare what he’d privately told Trump for weeks: He would not assert unprecedented power to overturn the election. Barring some unforeseen twist, Joe Biden would be the next president. Aides who had been working all morning to finalize Pence’s statement delayed it to give Trump a chance to address his supporters, but the decision had long been settled.

But Pence’s words to Trump could be significant as congressional and criminal probes of Jan. 6 advance. A federal judge has concluded that Trump “more likely than not” criminally conspired to obstruct Congress’ proceedings to finalize Biden’s victory. He described Trump’s pressure campaign against Pence as “a coup in search of a legal theory.” The select committee has also argued that Trump committed multiple crimes as he leaned on Pence to subvert the election.

The Pence side

Jan. 6 call logs obtained by the select committee, revealed last month by The Washington Post and CBS, show that Trump first tried to reach Pence at 9:02 a.m. But the two men did not connect. The operator, according to those call logs, left a message at 9:15 a.m. Trump had already twice tweeted that morning that Pence had the power to stop Congress from finalizing Biden’s victory.

The logs don’t reflect Trump’s subsequent call with Pence, but a private schedule investigators obtained from the National Archives suggests the two men connected at 11:20 a.m. while Pence was in his residence and Trump was in the Oval Office. Pence’s chief of staff Marc Short and chief counsel Greg Jacob told the select committee that they remembered Pence receiving the call from Trump at about that time.

“[A]t some point during our meeting a military aide knocked on the door and said the President was holding for the Vice President, at which point he excused himself to take the call,” Short recalled.

“How long was he gone?” a committee attorney asked.

“My best guess would be 15, 20 minutes,” Short replied.

“Upon his return, did he share any details of the conversation with you?” the investigator asked.

Jacob also recalled that Pence left the room to take Trump’s call and agreed Pence didn’t brief them on it when he came back.

“The Vice President’s rule was never to divulge the contents of his conversations with the President,“ Jacob testified.

Shortly after hanging up, Pence traveled to the Capitol to preside over the joint session of Congress.

The Trump side

Pence’s apparent privacy hasn’t stopped accounts of the call from emerging. They’ve just all come from people who only heard Trump’s side of it.

The same private schedule showing Trump’s call with Pence also reveals who entered the Oval Office just minutes earlier, a group that appeared to be present while Trump made his final push to pressure his vice president. The list includes Trump’s adult children Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric, as well as Kimberly Guilfoyle, Donald Jr.’s then-girlfriend. Also in the room were White House aide Keith Kellogg, chief of staff Mark Meadows and counsel Eric Herschmann. Kellogg, who testified to the select committee, said he recalled seeing Eric Trump’s wife, Lara, in the vicinity, though she’s not listed on the schedule.

Multiple people familiar with the testimony given to the select committee about the call offered a consistent account. One of those people — granted anonymity to speak candidly — said witnesses described the conversation as beginning relatively pleasantly, with Trump embracing the legal advice he was given about Pence’s ability to send the election back to the states.

Although people in the Oval Office couldn’t hear him, Pence had clearly rejected Trump’s entreaties, the person indicated. Witnesses have said listeners in the room were surprised because it was the first time they recalled Pence saying no to Trump. The call deteriorated and Trump grew frustrated.

A portion of Kellogg’s testimony has become public in court filings and provided a similar recollection of Trump’s side of the phone call. Kellogg said he couldn’t hear Pence’s responses but remembered Trump pushing his vice president to embrace a fringe theory intended to stop Biden’s victory: sending the election back to a handful of GOP-controlled state legislatures to appoint new presidential electors.

Kellogg said he presumed Pence rebuffed Trump because Trump seemed disappointed. He recalled Trump saying something to the effect of: “You’re not tough enough to make the call.”

“I would say [he] was frustrated,” Kellogg told the committee. “He hung up. And after he hung up, we went right back to speech prep. He didn’t get up, walk out, yell, throw things. He just said okay and went back to the speech discussion.”

Kellogg also told the select committee that Ivanka Trump turned to him at the close of the call and said, “Mike Pence is a good man.”

Trump didn’t have a tantrum because he’d already heard from Pence the night before that he wasn’t going to do it. This was just a last ditch effort.

I guess we know all this. But it’s still jarring to read these accounts of what went on that day, It’s even more jarring to think that this monster might become president again.

Right now my editor at Crooks and Liars, Karoli, is facing a suspension of her personal Facebook account. She was phished and hacked. The hacker inserted offensive words and images in her account. She reported it right away. but she can’t get Facebook to act.

Hello, @andymstone, can you tell me why this account which I had for 15 years and immediately reported as hacked on 3/26 (along with giving FB my ID) is still not reviewed even though it would take about 10 minutes to figure out I post dog pics mostly??? pic.twitter.com/UqeKFGAJ80

— Karoli 💙 (@Karoli) April 8, 2022

The Facebook algorithm caught the offensive words and images. If it WAS reviewed the outsourced review by contractors they didn’t know that she was a “high profile individual” connected to Crooks and Liars. What she needed was a human at Facebook to recognize this connection, understand that this was an organized attack and do something about it.

Based on the excellent reporting by Ryan Mac and Craig Silverman at Buzzfeed News, we know that Facebook has a process to help “high profile individuals” so when they are reported by people, they will “cross check” or “XCheck,” them to determine what is happening that an AI would miss.

I happen to think that Karoli is a “high profile individual” but how do I get to a human at Facebook and convince them of that?

I suppose I could call Sheryl Sandberg and say, “Hey Sheryl, Karoli’s page was removed by your AI when she was phished during an organized campaign of harassment. I’d like to get it restored, but I’d also like the entire Crooks and Liars’ staff to be on your human reviewed “cross check” list, because the attackers won’t just stop with her. ”

She’s probably say, “Spocko? You are a crook and a liar? Cross check? What?” [Security! Trace this call!]

If I got to complete the call she might tell a human at Facebook to review Karoli’s case & restore her page. For most people that would be enough. But frankly I want to more. I want to see accountability for those threatening and attacking her online. Because as I wrote the other day, accepting threats on social media should not be part of anyone’s job.

But who should we contact so that there are negative consequences for the people doing the harassing? Who will pursue the people who organized and funded the harassing? Will they pay a price for their use of these phishers using these specific vile accusations on an individual’s page?

We have this assumption that if the people are caught and punished severely enough in the legal system, they will change their behavior. But if there are no negative legal consequences, why would anyone bother to change their behavior?

I’ve found that there are some concrete steps you can take to defend yourself and others from online harassment. Like:

• You’re Not Powerless in the Face of Online Harassment – Harvard Business Review
• Online Harassment Field Manual – PEN America
• International Women’s Media Foundation has a page on online and physical safety.
• Troll Busters helps journalists who are being harassed online in real time.
• Crash Overide has a great resource page and a “step-by-step tool that will help you protect your online life”
• Legal Resources for Writers & Journalists – PEN America lists various groups that offer legal advice and services, in some cases pro bono, for writers and journalists experiencing online harassment.
• Minc Law which focuses on defamation and on-line harassment.

These are all great, but what I am interested in are cases where people won civil suits against harassers, organizers and the funders.

PEN America lists a case against the publisher of The Daily Stormer where they were ordered to pay $14 million and another one against an individual who was ordered to pay $6.45 million in damages.

In part one of my piece I noted that major journalism organizations should be filing civil suits against the organizers of people who are harassing and threatening others. So many of these resources I listed are directed toward helping the individual, but this an rare individual problem. It’s a collective problem that needs a larger collective response.  

For example, the type of attack that Senator Lana Theis chose to use against Senator Mallory McMurrow the other day is similar to the type attack that was directed at Karoli and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Recently Jane Mayer did a piece identifying who is behind these attacks and used these specific words and phrases to defame.

Thank you @Maddow for shining a light on this dark story tonight- great show. ICYMI please read: The Slime Machine Targeting Dozens of Biden Nominees https://t.co/gqOrmHnAPZ

— Jane Mayer (@JaneMayerNYer) April 19, 2022

I’m not saying that American Accountability Foundation is behind the attacks on Karoli and Crooks and Liars, but what a lot of people don’t know is that FACEBOOK likely knows EXACTLY who is behind the attack.

Let’s get this investigations started!

Because of my background in tech and computer security, I know something about what a company like Facebook knows about attacks on their users and who are the attackers.
(If you would like to read what they admit to knowing, here are two interesting article from them, How Does Facebook Investigate Cyber Threats and Information Operations? and
Removing Bad Actors on Facebook)

I would like to get a criminal investigation started about this attack on Karoli. We always hear how hard it is to prove a criminal conspiracy, you have to show intent and have hard evidence. But if we can’t prove a criminal case, I’d like to file a civil case. “But Spocko,” you ask, “What good is a civil case if the defendants are a bunch of broke randos? ” That’s where the mountains of data that Facebook’ gathers can be used to prove it was an organized campaign and to connect the perpetrators to the funders.

Based on other evidence we already gathered, we know that certain wealthy individuals and organizations ARE connected with this specific type of defamation campaign. Bottom line: Someone needs to go after them.

People ARE harmed by organized harassment and defamation campaigns. Death threats via social media are serious. Big Journalism entities like The Washington Post and PBS should be pushing for more serious consequences for the perpetrators and funders of this harassment and these threats, but are reluctant to do so. Small journalism entities don’t have the resources to do so.

The owners of the social media platforms HAVE tools and the evidence to prove the cases, but they don’t get involved further unless law enforcement is asking for it. Law enforcement needs the appropriate laws to use and the DAs will to use them. We can push for law enforcement and prosecutors to get more aggressive in these cases. We can remind others on the left that pushing for negative legal consequences to the people harassing others online doesn’t mean we are against free speech.

After my massive post talking about the issues behind harassment and threats online, for part two I wanted to give you an example of a journalist being harassed online. I gave some ideas about what I think should be done, but I’ve learned that telling people, “You know what you should do?” is often met with, “Yeah, but…” or “I already tried that and it didn’t work.” So I understand that my desire for criminal and civil action might not happen, for many reasons. I have already shown how to organize negative financial consequences for those engaging in violent rhetoric, but I recognize that the legal system, though not perfect, has a major role to play in how we as a civilized country seek justice.

UPDATE: Karoli’s account was restored, but she is still in Facebook jail for offenses *she* didn’t commit. But no word from humans at Facebook that C&L editors and contributors are now part of the “cross check” list. This is important because targeted phishing is still coming at us. If she doesn’t hear from them this week I’m going to have to call Sheryl!

I’m glad her account is back, but I REALLY want to see accountability for those who are threatening and attacking her online and punishment for the wealthy individuals and organizations behind it that are connected with this specific type of defamation campaign.

Cross posted at Spocko’s Brain

It’s just sad…

There are some new analyses about the death toll from the pandemic and it’s simply appalling. Many, many more people died than needed to:

Within weeks, it’s likely that the 1,000,000th American will die of covid-19. The millionth death on record, that is — it’s likely that the number of deaths is undercounted. At the outset of the pandemic, after all, medical professionals didn’t know what they were looking for, and Americans were unprepared for the effects of the coronavirus and the disease it causes.

The good news is that there now exist vaccines that largely eliminate the risk of death. Data from the months since vaccination was made broadly available in the United States has consistently shown that those who are vaccinated are far less likely to succumb to covid-19 than those who aren’t.

New analysis from the Peterson Center on Healthcare and Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) quantifies the effects of vaccination. Since June 2021, the point at which every American adult had access to coronavirus vaccines, they estimate that just over 234,000 unvaccinated Americans died who could have lived had they been immunized against the virus.Advertisement

That’s nearly a quarter of the total death toll from the pandemic.

Most Americans recognize that the deadliest period for the pandemic was the winter of 2020-2021. But the combination of the delta variant last fall and the emergence of omicron in December has meant that the country has seen a steady monthly death toll since September — that is, within the window of vaccine availability.

You’ll notice that January and February of this year were among the worst months of the pandemic. That was just 2 months ago.

Peterson and KFF analyzed the monthly death toll, parsing out vaccination status and controlling both for age (older Americans are still at increased risk of death even when vaccinated) and for the imperfect efficacy of the vaccines. That allowed them to estimate the number of preventable deaths per month from last June through March.

Particularly during last year’s delta surge, most of the deaths each month could have been prevented with vaccination.

Since June (and excluding April, for which data is not yet complete), about 61 percent of covid-19 deaths were probably preventable had the decedent been vaccinated. Given that well over half of deaths during the pandemic occurred before that point, it’s remarkable that just shy of a quarter of the total pandemic death toll in the United States was probably preventable.

Since this analysis is based on national data, the researchers didn’t break down the number of preventable deaths per state. But we would be remiss if we didn’t note that this phenomenon is not independent of politics.

Over the course of the period during which vaccinations were broadly available, KFF has been assessing the partisan divide in vaccine uptake. There are gaps in the likelihood of being vaccinated by age and race. But the broadest gap seen in KFF’s data is by party. Last November, it estimated that the unvaccinated were three times as likely to be Republican as to be Democrats.

That correlates with where coronavirus deaths are occurring. During the period since September in which the delta and then omicron variants struck, it was consistently counties that voted for President Donald Trump in 2020 that saw more per capita deaths. Lower vaccination, more death.

It is rare that there is a political issue that translates directly into literal death. This is one. Skepticism about vaccination — an impulse stoked opportunistically by Republican politicians such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and right-wing media figures such as Fox News’s Tucker Carlson — suppressed immunization rates among Republicans. More than 200,000 people died without the protection that the vaccines demonstrably offered.

Had the country embraced the utility of the vaccines in a bipartisan manner from the outset, what would our death toll be today?

Vaccines have been widely available since last year at this time. I will never understand why anyone would resist getting them. But then the older I get the less I understand what makes people tick.

but this is alarming

Meanwhile on Russian state TV: hosts and panelists giggling uncontrollably, while discussing nuclear strikes against the continental territory of the United States. Can you imagine any of our prominent media anchors laughing at the idea of destroying cities? Watch this: pic.twitter.com/uOp7MaBh9K

— Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) April 21, 2022

This is just Russian propaganda, of course. But still… that sort of talk goes directly to amxiety formed when I was a little kid doing nuclear drills in school. It’s the stuff of nightmares.

I’ll give you “not tough enough”

Here's Donald Trump desperately trying to get Vlad's attention at the G20 dinner. pic.twitter.com/5sIKuJvtu8

— Jennifer Hayden (@Scout_Finch) July 19, 2017

Josh Marshall makes a good point here:

A new AP poll says that 54% of Americans think President Biden has been “not tough enough” on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. These kinds of public perceptions can be shaped by perceptions of a leader as much as they drive them. So you think Biden is weak as your starting point and therefore you think he’s not being tough enough on Russia rather than the other way around. Also notable, Americans’ hawkishness over Ukraine has dipped a bit from a month ago. But the first, second and third most important thing about this poll is that this is what you get when you’re not reminding Americans every day – and I mean every god-damned day – that the GOP has spent the last 7 years boosting, allying with and even conspiring with Russia.

This is so obvious I don’t see the need to even rehearse all the details and the bill of particulars. This is just losing the game because you didn’t put a team on the field. Political messaging, political storytelling isn’t a one and done or binary thing. You don’t seize on the silver bullet message and then the waters part in front of you. But there’s only so many hours in the day. In a setting like this, when Republicans are attacking Democrats 24/7 you need to carve out some of those hours for Republicans to explain why just three years ago they were helping Presidents Trump and Putin conspire against Ukraine and the United States. Only four years ago eight Republican Senators decided to spend July 4th making fealty to Vladimir Putin in Moscow. The list is endless.

When you’re in a war and on the defense an army will also attack at its opponent’s weak points. Capacity diverted from offense to defense means less incoming fire. Only so much army to go around; only so many hours in the day. The physical realities are different but the basic calculus is just the same.

Will pushing the GOP’s guilt and complicity on Russia make people stop caring about inflation? Of course not. But if you’re not even putting that team on the field you are simply not doing the simplest blocking and tackling of politics. It’s that bad.

As Josh tweeted:

If Clinton and the Democrats had spent the 90s cooing over and cutting deals with bin Laden, believe me the GOP would have mentioned it after 9/11. https://t.co/B84xZdLeqi via @TPM

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) April 21, 2022