When Trump returns to Facebook he will likely instantly violate their lax new “guardrails.” We know it will happen. Adam Schiff even pointed out what the violations will be in a letter to Meta on December 2022.

When it happens we should demand that Meta enforce their own rules. Will they?

If they do, they will lose engagement. In Zuckerberg’s mind more engagement, even engagement that violates their community standards, means more revenue. We know this from the Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen. We also know from the Jan 6th committee memo on Social Media (Link to gifted Washington Post article) that Zuckerberg overruled his staff who wanted to ban Trump for his multiple violations of their community standards before Jan 6th.

But engagement isn’t the only metric for Meta’s success. Meta’s stock price can be hurt in multiple ways. Stories about management making bad decisions hurt the stock. Stories about management supporting and enabling domestic terrorists can hurt the stock price. Big investors put pressure on management all the time when they see them making bad decisions (like they did on Zuckerberg for investing in the legless VR experience). Zuck thought it was going to be huge, he was wrong. Many investors think bringing Trump back to Facebook is a bad idea. It will be filled with controversy and advertisers don’t like controversy.

The investment community can punish Meta if it keeps Trump on OR if they kick Trump off. It all depends on how they see his return. A case can be made either way. Let’s help make the case that bringing Trump back on Facebook is reckless & wrong. And then make this decision hurt Zuckerberg financially.

When the violations happen the mainstream media will politely ask Nick Clegg, President of Global Affairs who announced the guardrails, what Meta is going to do about the violation.

I’ve watched Clegg in interviews on TV. The media isn’t going to pin him down and this pisses me off. He’s a trained spokesperson, so I’d push him harder about the past & his promises for the future and ask “You decided to let a man with a history of inciting violence and threats of violence on your platform. You created special guidelines and said you would act when he does violates them. Now that he has violated the new guidelines, where is that action?
Why won’t you tell us what is happening and who is making the decisions?
Where is the transparency you promised?”

The media typically only think about all the ways Trump coming back on Facebook can help Meta be profitable. They don’t look at the big picture. Here’s the thing, Facebook doesn’t operate in a vacuum. The Trump of 2016 – Jan 6th 2020 is not the same as today’s Trump. He has a history of inciting violence. He is not going to stop being who he is. He will keep inciting violence and spreading lies about the election. To ignore that history and bring him back on Facebook is a bad decision by the CEO. And investors should punish Zuckerberg for it.

Yes, there are a bunch of people who believe bringing Trump back on Meta is going to be profitable. But is that the only outcome? NO! Right now there are people talking to the instructional investors saying, “Trump’s return is going to have a negative impact on Meta.”

When I read the new guidelines and policies I saw that they are clearly designed to give Trump multiple ways to stay on the platform, no matter what he says. But some violations are clearly worse than others. THAT is what we should focus on.

Here are some of Meta’s community standards on violence and incitement. I’ve read them all. There are multiple ways that Trump has violated them and WILL violate them.

META Violence and Incitement Policies
Do Not Post:

• Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) and admission of past violence targeting people or places where threat is defined as any of the following:
• Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence. This includes content where a symbol represents the target and/or includes a visual of an armament or method to represent violence.
• Calls for high-severity violence including content where no target is specified but a symbol represents the target and/or includes a visual of an armament or method that represents violence.
• Statements advocating for high-severity violence.
• Aspirational or conditional statements to commit high-severity violence.
• Statements admitting to committing high-severity violence except when shared in a context of redemption, self-defense or when committed by law enforcement, military or state security personnel.

Link to META Violence and Incitement Policies

The New Paper Mâché Guardrails For Trump

Meta’s previously bent the rules to keep TFG on the platform, ranging from their “newsworthiness allowance” to their creation of a Public Figures and Civil Unrest Policy for when there is a riot happening. They have a policy for restricting accounts of public figures during civil unrest and now they have a “Crisis Policy Protocol” which is a basically a black box of people who are supposed to “assesses the risks of imminent harm both on and off of our platform so we can respond with specific policy and product actions that will help keep people safe. ” The specifics on what the Crisis Policy Protocol contains are not made public and, as we have learned, the decisions made can be overruled by Mark Zuckerberg.

(BTW. they have this weird sanction/rule that what Trump puts up on his Facebook feed will be visible only to HIM, but nobody else will see it, even if they follow him. This is a blatant dodge designed just for Trump (as if his minions can’t figure out what is happening. “Hey we posted his Truth Social Murder Rant on Facebook and I can see it on his page, but when I look at my own personal account it doesn’t show up!” )

This policy will have NO impact on stopping the spread of his messages of violence, in practice they will be amplified. The policy was created just so Meta can say, “But we HAVE limited what he said! We removed the reshare button!!!” This is a lame sanction especially for someone who already starts with a massive audience for the original message.

What will happen is that the media will COVER what was made “invisible” to Trump’s followers thereby amplifying the message AND now making it “newsworthy” which allows Meta to keep it up because now it’s “News.” (It will likely be something that was already said on Truth Social that the Trump team didn’t bother to change for Facebook’s TOS.)

The followers will scream “They are censuring him!” They will cover it on Fox News, post if all over their platforms that have content moderation policies, but don’t enforce them. The followers don’t care that it was clear violation of Facebook’s defined policy, like incitement directed at a person. They just will scream CENSORSHIP! And what pisses me off is that there will be a bunch of woolly headed people who refuse to focus on the issue of Meta’s Community Standards and clear violations of them and talk about “The 1st Amendment.” and “Free speech.”

We have to stop giving TFG & his supporter the benefit of the doubt when they make threats! We now have multiple cases where threats were made, intent was the confirmed and action taken. And they are doing it again! Just last week, Trump promotes message from ‘locked and loaded’ supporter who vows to ‘physically fight’ for him

The minute Trump violates Facebook’s the media SHOULD dig into the evidence of how Trump and the right wing influencers used social media to incite violence and how they were protected by Zuckerberg–even when they clearly violated Meta’s own terms of service.

The right wing have been whining and complaining for years about how the “Woke Left” at Social Media companies are censoring them. It’s like how they worked the refs in the mainstream media. “The reporters are Democrats. They can’t be objective! They are covering us unfairly!” “The Social Media employees are Democrats. They are banning us for no reason! We need to be protected from being shadowbanned!”
Of course it’s all BS, but it worked on the media and it works on social media.

Here’s the deal, Meta EMPLOYEES created policies based on definitions of various types of comments people make, like threats of violence. They applied those policies in multiple areas. Meta is a private entity and can make decisions on what it allows to be posted. Employees created procedures to address what to do when there are violations. What we have learned from Frances Haugen (the Facebook Whistleblower written statement ) and the January 6th committee on Social Media, is that Zuckerberg consistantly overruled policies, decisions and the recommendations of his Trust and Safety employees.

But if there is one thing that I hope everyone takes away from these disclosures it is that Facebook chooses profit over safety every day — and without action, this will continue.

Congress can change the rules Facebook plays by and stop the harm it is causing.

Frances Haugen, Statement to Sub-Committee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security
October 4, 2021

The 122 page memo from the January 6th committee on Social Media covered the role they played before, during and after the insurrection. Big takeaways for me include:

• Popular right-wing figures are protected from enforcement of Meta’s terms of service.
• They can incite violence & intentionally spreading disinformation and get no “strikes”
• Trump had perpetual “Zero Strikes”

Another big takeaway is that Zuckerberg worries most about negative press and criticism from the right vs. criticism from the left. Right wing groups come to him complaining that they were being removed for no reason (even when the reasons are very clear) they are given “a person” to call to complain to when they are reported by humans. And if they trigger Facebook’s AI, they are given the chance of human review (Which is a HUGE deal at a company where it’s almost impossible to talk to a human.)

Bottom line is that there have been no negative financial consequences to Zuckerberg for his bad decisions about Trump on Meta, so we need to make them happen to him.

This is not simply a matter of some social media users being angry or unstable.
Facebook became a $1 trillion company by paying for its profits with our safety,
including the safety of our children. And that is unacceptable.

Frances Haugen statement to United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
October 4, 2021

Musk is making massive blunders in his take over of Twitter. It’s great fun to point and laugh. Which I will happily do. It’s an opportunity to show him (& the rest of the world) why his definition of “free speech” is juvenile and harmful. It’s also a time to point out that when social media companies fail to act on known harmful content, there should be consequences.

Showing companies the financial consequences of their failure to act on harmful rhetoric is a powerful tool for change. It’s one of the methods that I have developed and taught multiple groups & people for the last 15 years.

Bloggers Take on Talk Radio Hosts — New York Times January 15, 2007

A San Francisco talk radio station pre-empted three hours of programming on Friday in response to a campaign by bloggers who have recorded extreme comments by several hosts and passed on digital copies to advertisers.

The lead blogger, who uses the name Spocko, said that he and other bloggers had contacted more than 30 advertisers on KSFO-AM to inform them of comments made on the air and to ask them to pull their ads.

The activist groups and individuals that I have worked with over the years like Color of Change, Free Press, and Angelo Carusone, (now the head of Media Matters for America) have used Musk’s failure to understand the harm caused by violating Twitter’s own terms and conditions around safety to convince advertisers to leave the platform.

"Musk’s now-deleted Paul Pelosi tweet was perhaps the most expensive tweet ever: It may have cost Twitter billions in advertising revenue."https://t.co/ck0xLAmMsn

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) November 8, 2022

Musk’s Paul Pelosi tweet might cost him billions in lost revenue

Musk tried to blame the activists for advertisers leaving, but just like my advertiser alert campaign in 2006, the advertisers looked at the situation and made their own decision to stop advertising.

Musk’s response reminded me of how the management of the RW radio station KSFO responded when I alerted the advertisers of the violent rhetoric coming from their hosts. First they told the advertisers that it wasn’t true, but the advertisers heard for themselves. Then they said the hosts were joking, but I had enough examples to prove that they were serious, including audio clips of them saying, ‘I’m not joking!” Instead of the station telling the hosts to stop talking about “putting a bullseye” on Nancy Pelosi, they attacked me and had my website shut down. It was a great narrative flip where they couldn’t play the victim.

When advertisers started leaving the station, one caller suggested to a host he should “name and shame” advertisers who left, to punish them. One of the three host’s agreed with that idea!
(The same suggestion was made to Musk, look at his bone head response!)

This is stupid behavior based on impulsive emotion. Lashing out at others, instead of looking at and fixing their own behavior, is typical narcissist behavior. THEY can never be the problem. “No one can tell ME what to say on my own show!” one RW host said.

Musk’s is seeing now what his definition of ‘free speech’ includes and doesn’t include. Mocking him isn’t included. Nor is impersonating brands.

Musk is learning TOS exist for a reason. “Hey, falsely impersonating others is bad! It happened to me! Spreading disinformation is bad, it led to harm to me, my bottom line!”

We know harmful content connected with terrorism, racism, misogyny and online hate is very real. I was telling someone I recently met about my work to defund right wing media because management wouldn’t take action to stop it. I told her that the movie Hotel Rwanda had a major impact on me and when I heard violent rhetoric coming out of my local radio station I decided to act. I knew that in America people change their behavior when money is involved. I set about showing the radio stations, and then TV stations, that what they thought was an asset, was actual a liability.

In America the impact of financial harm on a company is one of the ways we can drive change. It’s good to show everyone that Musk’s failure to follow Twitter’s own TOS is causing him financial harm.

But what if threatening violence is profitable? What if, like Murdoch’s Tucker Carlson show, threatening violence doesn’t earn the network money directly, but it does earn them power?
Twitter’s TOS has restrictions on threats of violence. I’ll bet that if Elon gets threats of violence toward him he’ll remove them. If they are removed, it needs to be pointed out that threats toward others should be removed too. I would say,

“Hey, Elon, you didn’t like it when you got threats of violence. You removed them. Other people should have the the same protections. Also, this is what the people you fired in the Trust Safety division did for the platform.”

POLICY & PEOPLE make a difference. AI programs alone aren’t going to cut it.

The people who incited violence and bomb threats against children's hospitals have now all been verified under Twitter Blue. Advertisers should not support the vile hate being legitimized and amplified on this platform. pic.twitter.com/mKbkIufWFJ

— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) November 9, 2022

My friends in the activist community know that “Brand Safety” matters to companies and they have the financial incentive to protect their brands. They organized and taking these actions for a reason, they know some of the same things that upset Brands, like disinformation about medicine, can also hurt people. As individuals it often feels that you have no power to make a change, so I suggest you join up with these groups that are doing great, effective activism.

1. Sign up for their email alerts
2. Donate money to them
3. Support their efforts to make social media a safer place

Here are four of my favorites and what they have said.
Free Press Action Fund
Jessica J. González, co-CEO of Free Press. “Racists and conspiracy theorists are testing how far they can go with spreading lies, harassment and abuse — and misinformation about the midterm election is rampant. This is not the healthy forum that the vast majority of Twitter users want, and it exposes Twitter’s advertising partners to great risk. We’re calling on Twitter to, at a minimum, retain and actually enforce existing community safeguards and content-moderation systems.

Media Matters For America
Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters for America. “Musk has already put Twitter on that glide path, firing employees responsible for content moderation and brand protection and even tweeting out political conspiracy theories himself. Luckily, major brands that advertise on Twitter, and provide over 90 percent of its revenue each year, can speak up and make it clear: Their buys are contingent on the maintenance of the key brand-safety guidelines and community standards — and they will accept nothing less.”

Color of Change: Tell Advertisers: Keep Twitter Safe

Here is a copy of the open letter they sent to the top Twitter advertisers.

My new favorite group is The Center for Countering Digital Hate
“Elon Musk has consistently failed to comprehend that freedom of speech does not mean freedom to abuse and that online spaces should be safe for women, people of color, the LGBTQ+ community and other marginalized groups,” said Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. ”Twitter must make a clear commitment to retaining existing standards, and Musk should provide a credible plan for applying his undeniable engineering prowess to reducing the prevalence of bots, increasing the detection and pre-publication removal of violative content, and enforcing the rules that prevent his platform from becoming a ‘hellscape’ with what appears to be significantly reduced staff and resources.”

I suggest people read their STAR Framework, a Global Standard for Regulating Social Media.
Safety by Design, Transparency, Accountability and Responsibility.

Here’s a quote from it,

We cannot continue on the current trajectory with bad actors creating a muddy and dangerous information ecosystem and a broken business model from Big Tech that drives offline harm. We need to reset our relationship with technology companies and collectively legislate to address the systems that amplify hate and dangerous misinformation around the globe.

 Imran Ahmed, CEO The Center for Countering Digital Hate

I was really anxious & depressed for the last 2 weeks. Today I’m feeling a bit better because it wasn’t the blow out that the BS polls were predicting. 

During my delusions of grandeur I think about how to change the system. Part of it is Spreading the Good News about what good Democrats have done and can keep doing.
But that is REALLY boring to the media and Social Media.

What is more exciting to the media is when we Fight the Bad Guys. So, talk about our wins then talk about fighting bad guys!

Hey, that Fetterman win felt good! RIGHT? I’d also I’d like to say, “F that Oz guy!”
But talking about crushing Oz is uncool. The consultant class says “Be the bigger man… ” Well, Fetterman is, but they will also push him to “be a uniter.”

The MSM will ask what he is going to do next. 
“Are you going to “Reach across the Aisle to all the people who didn’t vote for you?” 
He’s supposed to look out for  “all Pennsylvanians, no matter their party.”

But that’s different from his role in the Senate. He can support the need to prosecute people where we have evidence and probable cause they committed crimes that harmed the country during a coup attempt. But Fetterman doesn’t need to go after the coup plotters and the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol, but we can. DEMOCRATS CAN. GO! Go! Go! Do it NOW!

We have probable cause Republicans  COMMITTED CRIMINAL ACTS. They need to be indicted. Keep talking about their crimes!

Say, “The can have their ‘day in court’ where they have to testify under oath. (Vs lying to the public on social media.)
They can see the EVIDENCE against them.
They can argue about the evidence. They can question it. They can provide exculpatory evidence, if it exists. (Which I doubt.)
They want to prove their innocence? Great, bring it!

During this time will a House REPUBLICAN majority want to start investigating Democrats for no reason? Sure! They’ve already said they would. So what? We just CONSTANTLY point out the huge amounts of evidence that points to probable cause that they committed CRIMINAL ACTS.

Glenn Kirschner reminds us that a Republican controlled House can NOT stop the DOJ.

A Republican controlled House can NOT stop us from saying, “When there is probable cause people committed crimes they should be indicted.”

 The Republicans will play the victim, even when they control of the House.
They play the victim as they harass and intimidate others. 
They just straight out LIE that Democrats are the criminals, because they project. 

The media will both sides this, but we have the stronger story. WE HAVE HARD EVIDENCE that they committed CRIMES, whereas they lie and make shirt up!  

NOW is the time to start talking about their CRIMES. Also the media will love it, it makes for an exciting news story, now that the horse race is almost over.

Start spreading this story on all your new social media channels!

I’m in beautiful downtown Asheville North Carolina. Mrs. Spocko & I had a vegan pizza & a great conversation with fellow Hullabaloo blogger Tom Sullivan & his wife.

We talked about what was happening & I described the various actions by activists I was following. My big focus now is on current harm being done by the right & what can be done. I had lot of pent up talking and some “You know what you should do… ‘ thoughts. I said that I found this clip from Ben Collins very interesting.

Ben starts with how bad information about the assassination attempt on Nancy Pelosi got distorted by the right and then a false story got spread from the top rapidly.

Social media companies will tell you that there is nothing they can do. They are lying. We know this based on the Facebook Whistleblower & this report from @CCDHate. https://t.co/H6ONGgsXmG https://t.co/0jRkiR5BSx

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) October 31, 2022

His comment starts with “If we don’t cut this out right now, * instantly my inner Sam Seder popped up.

PAUSE IT! Who is we? What does cut this out right now mean?”

When I talk to people about threats and intimidation online, via email, social media or RW media I have suggestions on what to do. Some are accepted, “Make them pay a financial price. Use the market against them. Convince advertisers to stop associatiomg their brand with this threatening violent rhetoric.”

But other suggestions to stop harm are met with lots of “Yes but…” and “If you try to do that, then…” what I want to do is get people to acknowledge the reality that harm is caused and that we need to do something about it.

I suggest people read the first four pages of this piece from The Center For Countering Digital Hate.

One of the things that has to be made clear as said on pages 4-5, self regulation is no regulation. The social media companies know harm is happening & choose to ignore for profit. They need to be regulated. (I can hear the “Yes, but…” from here in Asheville! But read the rest of the article first.)

As we watch Musk’s sophomoric view of ‘free speech’ lead to new harm, people will keep asking “what can be done? ” based on their Disinformation Dozen research & follow up report the answer that will be given is, “Nothing, people are just going to have to keep being harmed.”

People in the media can see disinfo, racism, & antisemitism lead to harm and that something needs to be done. BUT THEY feel they can’t change things.

They aren’t activists. We are.

Since for the tech companies the harm they amplify leads to more profit, they aren’t going to change things. . But we CAN.

Change the equation, change the world.

Here is a clip from the Young Turks that I find especially relevant.

It is a follow up on the woman who called the police on a black man who was bird watching. You probably saw the clip when it went viral. Her company saw it, investigated it and fired her. She then SUED the company for defamation. Well, SHE LOST the case.

This is another case of how the RW always has to be the victim EVEN after they face justifiable negative consequences for their actions. The good news is because there was DUE process and an investigation when they fired her, the company was on solid ground and proved even MORE so that she was fired for a justified cause.

This is why when I talk about giving the people making threats a chance to do the right thing before we go to their boss or bring in the law. Because they WILL turn around and say they are the victim or go on to attack others even more!

When they do that we can then use our evidence of offering them an out and them not taking it to incriminate them further. If, say for example, we find the people making death threats to Boston Children’s Hospital and it looks like they made them “on the clock” while at work. We need to provide evidence and the employers should investigate before they act. Maybe they were on a lunch break when they sent vicious death threats. Or maybe they did it on company time via a company phone.

Besides being the right thing to do, another reason we want due process is that anything that we do in good faith they will do in BAD FAITH. They love to flip the script so they are the REAL victims who were “just stating an opinion!” They want to turn any legitimate push back against them saying or doing horrible things into, “It’s all a big witch hunt just because I’m a conservative!”

Many intentionally refuse to get it. We can say, “You had a chance to be better, but you doubled down on racism and threats of violence. Now you have double the loses. Just stop it. You lost. You were wrong.” That is the kind of message that others need to see.

I found this comment under the YouTube video very interesting, because it shows the thought process that many people go through:

In kind of two minds when it comes to firing someone for what they did off of the clock. For certain jobs I can see it, like if you are a cop or a judge or a teacher; But what if you are a roofer? a plumber, or store clerk? There should be a certain amount of freedom allowed people who mess up and still keep a job.

I dont know. I havent decided yet which is the correct way to be. Personally what she did was abhorrent, but it wasn’t while she was at her job. Should we just fire all racists? What if you were on one side of covid or another and your employer had the opposite side and just decided to fire you because you went to a rally, but you complied with whatever orders the employer decided was best?

Its not as cut and dry as we think. I can see many instances of me wanting to fire someone because they are horrible and I want the revenge of seeing them fired, but I can also see where it would be unfair to do so.

The only conclusion I can come to based on those facts is that it is a bias to do so, therefore free speech is NOT the overriding principle here.

With that said she did do something wrong, but being fired for that alone should not have happened.

I responded.
This follow up story of the case is important. The woman was given a chance, IN THE MOMENT, to do the right thing. She didn’t. She intentionally lied to the police. She is the perpetrator.

When the company saw this, they investigated. That is the right response, because they needed to know the context, see the whole video and talk to people. (She was first put on administrative leave, then fired.)

Now in most situations companies don’t HAVE to do this because in most states people are at will employees, but doing an investigation is the right thing to do because people do make false accusations, and employees can turn around and sue for wrongful termination. )
(This is one reason we have unions and tenure, it gives people due process for false accusations.)

But notice here how you put yourself in her shoes for being fired for what she said and did “off the clock” and then faced negative consequences for it.

Now please put yourself in the shoes of the black man who was falsely accused of threatening her.
Police could come and it could be a death sentence for him. He was “off the clock” too. Was it fair that he might end up dead?

These days, people who make racist comments, or threaten violence to others, often face NO consequences for their actions. In this case, she did. In a civil society if your “off the clock” peers accept your racism we don’t have a way to ensure negative consequences for that. But corporations can have guidelines for employees. Sometimes an employee’s actions are public and their association with the company is made known. If it is a GREAT thing, they are fine with that, they might even promote it. “After hours these employees save sick kittens!”

But in this case they didn’t want their brand to be associated with this woman’s racism and the actions that came from that. To NOT do anything about it (after the investigation) would be to condone it.

But the woman didn’t accept that she was wrong, even after it was proved she was wrong. Society’s impression of her racism was already out there, she didn’t “walk it back” immediately. She got hit with a fast, massive response condemning it. Then afterward, when she didn’t recant, she got hit with modern day shunning which can follow you around forever. That can be done to people unjustified and is a problem that needs to be addressed, but in her case it is now more clearly shown it was justified.

One way that we enforce norms in our our capitalist society is to use financial leverage. Sometimes even that doesn’t work. We are seeing now how racists RAISE MONEY on their racism or bigotry “I got fired just for trying to protect my life!”
(Forgetting to mention the lie, the racism and the knowledge that her actions could lead to great bodily harm to the man.)

You worry about the fairness to HER for losing her job because you identify with her. You think, “what if that happened to me? What if I was unfairly accused?” (Of course some people know they would be FAIRLY accused, and are afraid of it coming out!) Your desire for fairness is a GOOD thing, We SHOULD work for equal justice for all. What we are seeing is how today’s modern bullies try to use our compassion, empathy and fairness AGAINST us.

We need to prepare for when they do this. Then we use their clearly shown horrible words and actions against them for further negative consequences.

I was working on a long post about the recent arrest of a woman for calling in a bomb threat to Boston Children’s Hospital. I was suggesting a plan for steps BCH could take to hold people accountable for their threats. Then I saw this tweet about Tucker Carlson’s show. I got really depressed.

Tucker Carlson just named and showed pics of executives at a hospital that provides gender affirming care to trans teens, calling them criminals who deserve the bomb threats they receive. I won’t share the image, but I think we all know where this is headed…

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) September 22, 2022

The right knows how to make threats and face no consequences

• The cunning ones have learned how to “just ask questions” when suggesting violence.
• Others use mob-speak and have learned what law enforcement can and can’t use to charge them.
• Many right wingers know to use the “I was JOKING!” line or the “I didn’t intend to actually DO anything I said!” response when questioned. Some will say, “I was just being hyperbolic! Everyone says stuff like that!”
• Tech savvy right wingers have learned the key words not to say on Facebook or Twitter.
  (Some learn the phrases and then they use the rules against their enemies and report them. Others know how to hack accounts, use banned phrases to get an account permanently banned. This recently happened to my editor at C&L who was targeted.)
• If they are on a social media platform that takes some steps to stop the threats, the offenders go into victim mode and cry they are being censored, “Just for saying mean things to doctors!” That was the actual line used by Tucker Carlson following the bomb threats to BCH!)
• Many move to right wing social media sites that don’t take any action to stop threats.
  (Truth Social’s policy is, “Don’t do it. But if you do, we don’t have to take any action to stop it. If anything bad happens, we aren’t liable.” The Cincinnati FBI shooter made multiple threats on line via Truth Social. )

There is also a VERY savvy group in the right wing that knows how to work the legal system, the media and social media world to coordinate and attack others online. What is fascinating is how they use legal defense experts, MSM’s bias when covering speech, social media’s engagement business model and democratic politicians’ fear of passing any legislation that has anything to do with speech to successfully stop or stall any negative consequences against them for their actions. And, if we do finally figure out a way to ensure there are some negative consequences for them they whine & cry how unfair it is.

They also have an audience that claims victimization when held accountable for the harm that they do. “I’ve been cancelled!”

On the rhetorical side they have trolls that go on the attack when anyone attempts to counter them. I’m sure you’ve all see these types of arguments :

• “Your proposal would have a chilling effect on free speech. Aren’t you FOR the marketplace of ideas? Curious.”
• “You say that people whose words you think causes harm should be identified, yet when we identify people who say things WE think causes harm we are wrong? Interesting.”
• “You supported BLM protests. They turned violent. Should the activists who told people to protest be locked up for talking about the issue? Should the government identify & lock up people who tell others to protest? Should the government prosecute the BLM organizers?”

“You know what you should do…”

I’ve been thinking about what I’d tell the executives at Boston Children’s Hospital & other hospitals being targeted. First I’d ask what they are already doing, because they probably already have a plan. I’d encourage them to implement a comprehensive response to these threats of violence.
I’d tell them what to expect, and to connect to the people who have been doing great work already.
I’d say, “Learn from these people.”

But here’s the deal. Multi-million dollar organizations don’t turn to a bunch of lefty activists for advice. Even ones that have fought and won battles against the coordinated actions of the right wing. Corporations are cautious by nature. They just want the pain of the moment to stop. If that involves deleting their website that talks about gender affirming care, they will.

They go to law enforcement to pursue the people making threats. They still believe that when one woman was arrested for making a bomb threat that it will “Send a message to all the other people to stop doing this.” The message most get is, “Be more vague in your threats, and use a burner phone.”

Now if someone wanted to connect me with the BCH & Vanderbilt execs I’d tell them what I’ve learned about how threats are used in the modern world and how to fight them now.

I’d talk about my COVID reporting and conversations with people in the public health field who were getting threats. I’d show them the reporting from Reuters & Washington Post about how law enforcement didn’t pursue those making them. I’d note that legislators didn’t pass laws to protect people from harassment or doxxing. I’d explain why public health commissions didn’t independently, aggressively investigate the threats. They could see how the burden was put on the victims. And they would understand why so many of them just quit.

So for the multimillion dollar health care businesses I’d show them how when they fail to do something about this it impacts their staff and patients. And since they also care about revenue I’d say “Here is how threats of violence negatively impact your bottom line.”

Prepare for the Bully’s Victim Narrative

One of my biggest pieces of advice to them is to understand that ANY action they take will already have been anticipated by the right. Your actions to protect the health and safety of your staff from harassment and bomb threats will be turned into an attack on free speech.

Remember when the Association of School Boards went to the FBI and said, “We are getting death threats and threats of violence. Please investigate.” We even saw video of a woman threatening violence at a meeting. The right turned those very justified investigations into death threats into a cry of victimhood,

“The FBI is monitoring all of us! Just for our opinions!!!” And the FBI had to put out a statement that they aren’t doing that, only looking into specific credible threats.

It’s all BS, but they use their media and social media to amplify their “I’m the real victim here!” message.

If I were to present to the big cheeses in these hospitals, I’d suggest they learn what happened in other cases of people threatened with violence. I’ve followed up on several cases in tech, journalism, education, public health officials and election workers where people were threatened.

I’d explain how most threats are dismissed by law enforcement. (I’d excerpt the brilliant and shocking reporting from Reuters called Campaign of Fear. ) Yes, a few people were found and charged, but they were extreme cases where a prosecutor could easily prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” but most are dropped.

I’d describe the vicious threats that Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss got. I’d point out that the threats to them were ignored by police. It took national media coverage on the Rachel Maddow show to get criminal charges filed. Then I’d tell them about the successful multi-million dollar defamation lawsuits they won against a OAN, a cable TV media company owned by Herring Networks, Inc.

If they want to figure out how to stop Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson from spreading lies & slander I’d direct them to talk to the people behind the various voting machine defamation lawsuits.

But first I’d tell them to look into the civil lawsuit of another hospital, St. Lukes in Idaho. The lawsuit filed in May accused Ammon Bundy and Diego Rodriguez of defamation and harassment. I talked to the lawyer working on the case to get an update. It’s still active, but Bundy is taking a page from Trump’s playbook and ignored the court order. The thing to note about that case is it “follows the money” and two political organizations — People’s Rights Network and Freedom Man PAC were also named.

Since social media plays a huge role in spreading disinformation, I’d make sure they talked to the people who tracked down the Dirty Dozen of Disinformation and got them deplatformed. The Center for Countering Digital Hate has done some especially relevant reports that the senior execs should know about. Like,
Don’t Feed the Trolls A Practical Guide to Dealing With Hate on Social Media?

I talked to Imran Ahmed, the founder yesterday and he told me about a new report they did with the Human Rights Campaign, Social Media’s Role in Amplifying Dangerous Lies About LGBTQ+ People
(If you aren’t a “reading” person I suggest they listen to his amazing interview on the Matt Binder Podcast Doomed, listen here. )

I know I have a tendency to talk AT people, so if I was on a Zoom call with these execs I’d ask them if they know how the Feds busted Al Capone. They’d all say “tax evasion!” Then I’d ask them why the Feds had to use that method. Would it have been good to get him for his violent crimes? Does busting someone on tax evasion the only method that can work?

I’d ask them if they saw that Soprano’s episode where Tony tells Christopher to kill someone, but he used vague phrases like “Take care of that thing” because he knew his phone was tapped. I’d ask if they know how law enforcement classifies threats & why they don’t bring certain cases even when experts say laws were broken. (Just for fun I’d ask them if they know how to record a call on their Smartphone if they got a threat right now and where the closest pay phone is.)

The techniques used to threaten people and avoid prosecution are still around. But today the people making threats have expanded by thousands. The techniques to find them have grown but the people making them watch the Soprano’s too, and know how to use mob-speak and a burner phone.

If anyone wants to do something about those who use of threats of violence they have to prepare for the right wing to turn around and doxx and threaten those who investigate them. Because that is what they do.

The right wing “works the refs” in the media on issues of speech. When I talk about a plan to stop the threats and seek justice for the victims, it’s because I want someone with resources and power to help them. But I know that rarely happens, so sometimes all I can do is suggest how to help individuals who have personally experienced threats of violence.

I recently watched the Twitch stream of Clara Sorrenti, better known as Keffals, the woman who stopped Kiwi Farms. She gave the timeline of the threats directed at BCH & Vanderbilt. She knows something must be done about the people harassing and threatening the people at BCH & Vanderbilt, but she hasn’t articulated a plan yet.

• (Personally I think she should be given big time funding from the hospitals for her work. But sadly, one of the things that I’ve learned is that on the left we will only rally around someone after they has been attacked, If that person goes on the offense it makes people in power on the left uncomfortable.)

The thing is people on the left LOVE it when someone stands up to bullies!

There is a whole segment of our population that has been getting away with threatening us individually and collectively for years. Unlike the out of date concept of school yard bullies, these people DON’T back down when you stand up to them. They double down. They make more threats. If they are held accountable, they flip the script. They become the victim.

They avoid accountability for their actions, or attribute their motives to some noble cause. They gaslight followers and work to convince people in authority they did nothing wrong. And when it is made clear the harm they did and the intent behind their threats was deadly, they downplay the harm and claim being held to account for their actions is unfair.

Right now MSNBC is running an ad with Rachel Maddow talking about how threats of violence pushes people out of public life. She’s right. The radical right uses threats of violence to get what they want. They aren’t going to stop until they are stopped.

I was explaining the Elonis v. U.S. Supreme court case on the Scam Economy post show. I pointed out that the very savvy right wing USE this ruling to avoid prosecution for threats of violence. The case said that the prosecution needed to prove intent for a criminal charge. I looked at that and thought. “Okay, since they have made that their standard, let’s use that to our benefit.”

On the left we often give people the benefit of the doubt on things they say since sometimes we don’t make our intent clear when we say something. If we were accused we would want a chance to clarify a statement, explain hyperbole, point out when we are being sarcastic or joking. People need a chance to walk back their threatening, vicious comments. That is what we want for our people accused. Due process is good.

So what happens when we give them a chance to moderate their comments and they don’t? What if we ask if they are joking and they chose to double down on the threats? We USE that admission of intent to give us more confidence when we ensure they face the negative consequences of their actions. I could then say:

“We gave you an opportunity to be better. You chose not to.”

If this whole process sounds too complex, I understand. It’s the advanced part of a broader strategy and plan. We have a plan to fight “the boots” who are threatening us, and we must also have a plan to fight “the suits.” The methods and strategies for fighting one doesn’t always work for the other.

The good news is that there are ways to successfully fight a rhetorically clever, media savvy foe, even ones who want to turn our strengths into weaknesses. If you want to see a current example of what I’m talking about look at how the J6 committee and the DOJ have been anticipating how TFG would react to any action, and then USES his over reaction against him. It’s glorious.

This is what we can do. Use their own words, actions and overreactions against them.

cross posted to Spocko’s Brain

I’m a big fan of the TV show Leverage, when the team is going after a bad guy they study them first and anticipate how they will respond. They then USE how he respond as part of the process to take him down. They also plan for contingencies. “If the mark does X then we do Y. After we do Y he will likely do Z, but he might do “C” so prepare for that too. “

We, as the viewer, are brought along in the process to a certain degree, but we don’t always see the whole story. At the end of the show, when the bad guy is caught and the victim gets some kind of justice, they show the prep they did that was off camera.

The show involves former Con men & women, thieves, hackers and muscle working with an insider, someone who understands “The system” either the corporate system or the legal & justice system. The insider’s job is to say, “Here’s how the mark got away with it before by using the system. This is how we can USE that system against them if they try it again. ”

In the latest season, Leverage: Redemption they added in the additional complexities of our modern media ecosystem.

• Here is how this story will be played out on Social Media. Here is how we can respond.

• Their clever computer security team will see us coming. This is our response.

• Their violent physical security teams will attack us for making the Mark look bad. Our response will be X.

• Their clever communications team will flip the script so the Evil Mark looks like the victim to the public & the people he ripped off are the real terrorists.

Watching the DOJ respond to Trump’s statements and his McLawyers’ legal briefs, written for the court of MAGA opinion, is like watching a long episode of Leverage. The DOJ has studied Trump. They have anticipated how he, his people and the RW media will respond to any action that they take. Then they USE that action AGAINST him.

The most recent example was today, Tuesday September 6, 2022 when the Washington Post broke the story that Trump did have information about other countries’ nuclear capabilities in an unsecure box in Mar-a-lago. He said he didn’t, now they are rubbing his face in his lie. It’s GREAT to see.

One of Steve Bannon’s most successful tactics, that fits in with Trump’s narcissism, was “Flooding the zone with s***.” The media was constantly in reaction mode. Just when they covered one criminal act, another one popped up.

During Trump’s reign the congressional committees tried to figured out how to deal with his co-conspirators delay tactics. Now they have been using the strategy of getting the people around him to testify which then puts pressure on the key figures. (That and charging people for contempt for not responding to the subpoena!)

The J6 committee has shown how Democrats can be prepared for the typical responses from TFG, RW media & his MAGA social base. Right now the DOJ is making the moves that dig Trump in deeper legally. Now is another opportunity for the Democrats to use Trump’s moves to dig in Trump deeper to a specific target, The Main Stream Media who still want to believe there are good Republicans who will stand up to Trump.

The MSM always pushes Democrats to “Move toward the center!” They focus on the 3% independants that will leave Trump. That’s what the consultants say to Democrats to get more voters. “Kitchen table issues!” But pissed Democrats ask, ‘WHY AIN’T THIS DUDE IN JAIL!” at the kitchen table.

Yep. @ElieNYC said what's gotten missed is these 15 boxes that we're focused on are what they ALREADY found on the man.
"President Sticky Fingers already stole classified documents, top secret documents. Dude had the NOC List from Mission Impossible sitting in his basement." pic.twitter.com/pvfbcS9MO0

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) August 30, 2022

However, the MSM can be counted on to cover more and more horrific crimes of Trump as they are revealed. They could talk about how gas prices are coming down, but the MSM will run with Trump’s lies about nuclear documents. They will lead with audio of Trump calling up a witness and threatening to kill them if they talk. That’s what they do.

Hey, what about Tony Ornato & the deleted texts?

While we are waiting for the DOJ we can start looking into OTHER crimes of TFG and his co-conspirators.

What’s the deal with Tony Ornato & the Secret Service? Is that DHS inspector general gone yet? (BTW, I still want Ornato exposed and prosecuted for his role in covering up COVID infections at Tulsa, which was a deadly superspreader event.)

We know of “outrage fatigue.” Now it’s ‘where is the prosecution?” fatigue. To help I suggest we look at some SUCCESSFUL prosecution of “Boots” while we wait for prosecution of “Suits.” Hey, that J6 insurrectionist cop got 10 years in the slammer!

The area that I want to see some successful prosecution in next are people making death threats to election workers, public health officials and democratic congress members.
Any arrests there? Can the coordinated campaigns of harassment led to criminal charges of groups as well as individuals? Will the FBI start investigating threats to FBI from the MAGA crowd via social media platforms like T****h Social? (The Cincinnati shooter threatened via TS. Trump makes threats to people on TS. Anyone working on banning him?)

I LIKE the way the DOJ has planned ahead for TFG’s reactions. I liked the way the J6 committee planned ahead. I’m pointing this out because it’s a good thing. But you know me, I’m always thinking “How can I help? What I can do to amplify what CAN be done? “

HOW TO GET TRUMP TO INCRIMINATE HIMSELF

I’ve recognized, as does the show Leverage, that the rich and powerful do what they want, they use the systems to protect them. The rich use money, Trump uses blackmail and threats to avoid consequences. The legal and intelligence community KNOWS what crimes he has committed, but they don’t want to expose their knowledge or involvement (UNLESS the person went against The System like Bernie Madoff ripping off rich people.)

The DOJ actions are working to pierce each of Trump’s barriers to a legal prosecution, but they are also giving us an opportunity to weaken his political support. Everytime he blows through an excuses that requires a Republican to condemn him is a good thing. Like Bill Barr destroying his pet judge’s ruling.

I want to talk about what we want in the future. Like a possible recording of Trump calling one of his insiders he think leaked the Mar-a-lago info. That recording, like the Georgia one, would show Trump admitting what he had and demonstrating his intent to obstruct justice.

Glenn Kurschner says the DOJ has a process for that witness tampering called “Recorded call back”

I understand some of the reasons that TFG wasn't prosecuted while he was President, but we need to keep hammering on the DOJ to do it now.
We know his pattern on witness tampering. Why hasn't the DOJ used their standard method & set up a recorded call back? #IndictTrumpNow pic.twitter.com/zbHkn14q7Y

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) July 15, 2022

I don’t want to WAIT until it’s announced. I want to ASK NOW, “Did you record Trump tampering with witnesses? When can we hear it?” Of course the DOJ won’t say if it exists. But the MAGA sphere knows that he does this. They are just hoping that Trump is too clever not to get recorded doing it. HA! Imagine, one of his own people betraying him and getting him to incriminate himself. I look forward to the trial.

I think the J6 committee already knows the contents of the missing texts from the Secret Service, DHS and now the DoD. Texts of top Trump officials in the Department of Defense wiped. The “missing texts” investigation is designed to reveal people involved in the cover up. It’s a setup to implicate Trumpers embedded in government. And it’s working, it’s already exposed actions and non-actions taken by Trump appointed Inspector General Joseph Cuffari. Monday, Reps. Bennie Thompson and Carolyn Maloney said they also have new evidence the inspector general’s office stopped trying to recover the missing records over a year ago. Link

.@SamSeder the J6 cmte telling the media the Secret Service texts are "missing" is a set up designed to catch those who tried & are trying to obstruct justice. It's working too, it's exposed IG Cuffari. @MattLech @majorityfm
Good Job #J6committee! @January6thCmte pic.twitter.com/T4J0VEJAxm

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) August 2, 2022

“But Spocko,” you ask, “if the committee has copies of the texts, why didn’t they reveal them?” There are a couple of reasons. Not revealing the content now is giving the committee the opportunity to get more people in to “refresh their memory” and cut deals. They have said this explicitly.

The BS reasons given that the texts are missing are BS. However, they are used to give some people an out if they come forward with more information. (Remember, the J6 committee wants the information, not necessarily to prosecute everyone for all their crimes. That’s the DoJ’s job.)

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who KNOWS what’s in the texts AND KNOWS that the reasons given they disappeared are BS. The committee is giving people an excuse to come forward now and cut a deal. They are SAYING the texts were deleted and missing. They are NOT saying there is no way to ever know what is in those texts. They are expecting people to come forward and say things like “I deleted the texts, but now I remember who told me to.” Or “I really DID send most of them in, but I didn’t send in the encrypted ones on my personal phone. Here they are now.”

Some will keep stonewalling right up until they are presented with copies of their texts. Then they will start with disputing the content, “Fake evidence!” or “You have to prove intent!!!” Or, “I was just following procedure and orders of the head of the protection detail.” Or “Where is your chain of custody for this text, it’s inadmissible in court!” Or, when they really get it, “I plead the 5th.”

I talked to Matt Binder on his podcast Doomed last night. (Link. I start at 1:46.) I asked if he believed the texts were really deleted. He thought they were because of who was doing this and their technical sophistication. I laughed, I shouldn’t have, because he’s correct. The Secret Service DOES have that level of technical sophistication. What I was laughing about was how often people only look in their area of expertise and don’t consider others. *I’m guilty of the same bias. I know about the technical reasons it’s hard to delete texts everywhere AND I pointed out that other agencies, like the NSA, probably have copies. But then Glenn Kirschner pointed out I didn’t even need to go that far!

Cooperating witnesses have testified under oath about their texts

The J6 committee has interviewed over 1,000 witnesses–for over a year. Most of them cooperated. Cooperating witnesses turn over texts, from their private phones and messages sent on encrypted services.

Those who don’t take the deal to provide information will be sent to the DOJ, where they might cut deals to avoid prosecution there. Some will be charged with obstructing justice, others will have the charges dropped if they cooperate.

Jill-Wine Banks has pointed out that the J6 hearings are a public education process. Things happen in order for a reason. If the committee had just revealed the crimes shown in the texts, everyone would be focusing on that crime. Now we can add obstruction of justice to the sedition crimes. Thee public is learning about other people involved in ordering phones wiped, or the people who decided not to investigate wiped phones. Nobody knew the name of Tony Ornato or Inspector General Cuffari until recently. Cuffari might not have been in ANY planning or received of text messages about the coup, but now he might be charged with obstruction of justice.

The J6 committee is not playing 3 dimensional chess, they are just planning 3 moves ahead and anticipating the responses of their opponent. Prosecutors do this all the time.

What is frustrating for people is seeing a political party that fails to prepare for their opponents tricks, and and not using their excesses against them. I think the J6 committee has thought at least 2 steps ahead. What I can’t know now is if the DOJ and the Democrats will drop the ball on the 3rd step, which is pushing to prosecute people for their crimes. The “good” news is that as more people talk the Democrats can use that against the Insurrectionists, coup plotters & justice obstructors. And the pressure on the DOJ to publicly indict continues to mount.

They are predictable. Use their threats against them!

We know how TFG & his people act. They lie. They threaten anyone who challenges them. Politicians with primaries. Witnesses and whistleblowers with death threats. When someone does challenge them they’ll destroy the entire board rather than accept a loss. (Like how Charlie X melted the chess pieces at the end when he lost.)

We know how they act. Prepare for their witness tampering & death threats!
Prepare for them destroying the board! Catch them red handed!

There is a reason that the committee offered anonymity to the person talking about the calls that Pence’s Secret Service protection detail made to their loved ones. That person represents the people in the Multi-Agency Communications Center that has all the comms from that day heard in real time, like the Secret Service radio traffic that we saw coupled with the VP’s exit from the Capitol.

His comment “I don’t like to talk about it.” had two meanings. 1) It’s disturbing and 2) “If they find out it’s me, I’m a dead man. “

I know a lot about computer surveillance & security, corporate & political butt covering, how our political journalists & experts think and how the RW media drives RW victim narratives. But I’ll admit I’m not as knowledgeable about how the behind the scenes deal cutting works to get information. Or how deal cutting works at the DOJ to reduce penalties for certain crimes.

I’ve found that people often come at a problem from their area of expertise. I’d like to hear from OTHER kinds of experts too. Someone who can explain the political reasons no one mentions the NSA or other agencies, “This story is being used to avoid revealing the truth because a deal is being cut.” Or someone who will say,”The committee can’t say where they got the texts, it would reveal sources and methods.” Or “The committee doesn’t want to acknowledge that multiple friendly agencies and countries like Canada, Britain and Israel have copies. Also, unfriendly countries have copies too which they can use as blackmail.” That would set off Trump people screaming about the intelligence community being out to get them.

For a legal cases the DOJ might have to show they got the information from a different source than over the air monitoring . They might not want to mention and that the NSA can break all the encryptions of all the apps being used. (Remember how the British didn’t want the Germans to know they had cracked their code.)
(BTW, this process of covering up for the NSA signal intelligences is something that the NSA did with the DEA after they provided information about drug dealers. The DEA used the information the NSA gave them and then went back and find a legitimate source that they could use in a court of law. )

Last week I said the excuses for missing Secret Service texts are BS & the NSA likely has copies.
Then @glennkirschner2 pointed out the J6 cmte has interviewed over 1,000 witnesses–for months.
Lots of cooperating witnesses turned over texts.
I wasn't thinking 4th dimensionally! pic.twitter.com/zj2wAypGVz

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) August 2, 2022

We need to think in multiple dimensions to understand why certain things happen, or don’t happen.
We are fighting people who break norms, rules and laws. They are willing to lie, cheat, steal, threaten to destroy others and our entire system to win.

If it was ISIS we’d know, but it’s Insiders, Proud Boys & Oath Keepers

Imagine ISIS had attacked congress on January 6th, attempted to hang the VP and kill the Speaker of the House. They didn’t succeed. We would expect our intelligence agencies to have ALL of ISIS’ communications, right? To pull it off ISIS had to have people in the Capitol Police, the Secret Service, DHS & DoD. Everyone in the country would expect the NSA to have a copy of ISIS’s communications with the insiders. One way to find the insiders is to look for who is covered their tracks.

To root out insiders you need cooperators and leverage. Evidence of obstruction is leverage.

I expect deals are being cut now to get more information. In the future the committee can reveal the content of the texts (or texts themselves) if necessary. The committee’s job is to gather information and tell the story of what happened. They are doing a good job. The DOJ’s job will be to prosecute the crimes revealed using admissible evidence. The committee doesn’t have to.

As we have heard over and over the committee wants to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Part of that is by changing the laws. But also, in a world were top lawbreakers are never punished, they have to expose all the cooperators on the way to the top. We are on the way. Yesterday Ex-White House counsel Pat Cipollone was subpoenaed by federal grand jury.

Thread Theorist, Mauvais Homme over at Eschaton pointed out that David Brooks at the New York Times gave his prediction: “The January 6 committee has already blown it”

Mauvais said, “He’s the kind of guy who writes movie reviews before he has seen the movie.”

So I wrote how David Brooks would review the Godfather before he saw the movie, before I read his column.

If David Brooks’ reviewed 1972’s The Godfather the month before it came out:

Don’t bother watching The Godfather, it will be a waste of time.

“The Godfather was a great book. But Mario Puzo has never written a screenplay. It’s highly unlikely he’ll be able to turn his 448 pages of prose into a filmable script.

And whose genius idea was it to hire the man who helmed the cloying 1969 musical Finian’s Rainbow to direct this? Francis Ford Coppola is clearly the wrong man for this type of movie.

The casting is horrible. Marlon Brando is way past his prime. It has been 18 years since On The Waterfront. Maybe musical film director Coppola picked him because of his singing role in Guys and Dolls! (Speaking of bad music, he hired his own father to score it! He’s no Henry Mancini, I predict the soundtrack will be an ear bleeding, money losing disaster.)

Sadly the whole cast is filled by unknown TV actors, wannabes and has beens. Newcomer Al Pacino played a drug addict in Panic in Needle Park last year, but he just doesn’t have the range to play a character that grows and changes.

Don’t waste your time, save your $5.00 for something better. Mark my words, this will be an epic flop.” – David Brooks, New York Times unseen movie critic

The Show’s Not Over Until…

I’ve been watching the MSNBC shows and reading pieces on what they think the hearings will bring.

There are the theater questions: “Will they create a compelling narrative? How will it play on TV? What role does social media play?”

Political questions: “How will this impact democrats success in the midterms? Who will this sway? What will the Trump base think?”

Legal questions: “What will the DOJ do?” I know from watching Glenn, Barbara, Jill, Joyce and Eli that a criminal conviction needs to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. The DOJ needs to do this right and it takes time. I also know that the DOJ can get indictments if probable cause exists to support the charges.

I have since read his column. He’s not totally full of sh*t. Maybe 98% full. It’s based on what he thinks will happen. He thinks it will be a failure because the hearings won’t do what HE thinks they should do.

So that part of my fake review of his pre-review of The Godfather is correct, he’s basing it on what people have done in the past. As Digby wrote earlier today, The savvy media will call all this, “Old news.” The politico’s are doing the “You can’t reach Trump’s audience to change their minds” bit.

I’m tired of the “Trump’s base doesn’t care” stories. We, the majority of Americans, care. Also, the LAW cares.

Brooks thinks that people won’t care about the details about who texted Meadows about what. Well, when those people were talking about and texting their plan to obstruct the count are senators & congress people who are STILL SERVING, that detail MATTERS! Those people need to be removed from office.

I’ve heard multiple people ask former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner, “When will Garland act? What can we do to pressure him to act?” I hear him and others talk about how the prosecutors need to follow the law and be politically independent. I hear, “We don’t want the DOJ to be politicized. They shouldn’t look like they are going after Biden’s political enemies. “
(My response is. “I want them to go after lawbreakers, period. Just because they happen to be Republicans and politicians isn’t the point.”

So I asked him, “What DOES get prosecutors to act?” He said that when they get new evidence, often from journalists and congressional committees, they have to investigate.

As my friend Professor Derbes said, “I would love five or ten of these monsters to be ejected from Congress.” Sure Trump’s base won’t like it, but I DON’T care. I’m not going to be in a diner in Ohio anytime soon to give my opinion to the New York Times, so I’ll write it here.

We, the majority of Americans, care. We care about our democracy. We care that TFG attempted to stop the certification of the fair election and invalidate our votes. We want changes made so this doesn’t happen again. AND we want the people who did this to be held accountable. Tell everyone what you want to happen.

Say what you are feeling to everyone. Your friends, enemies, social media, the press, your congress people. Don’t assume you are preaching to the choir. Don’t fall into learned helplessness. “Nothing will happen.”

I’m pretty good at predictions. But I’ve learned that my correct predictions don’t matter. My actions do. When you see these horrible things tonight say something.

I’m not a big phone caller, but I might make some calls tonight to my congresspeople. Their answer machines take calls after hours.

“It’s ultimately on us to make this the big deal it so obviously is.”

B1 Bummer

I’ve been writing about gun violence, the messages used to sell guns and actions activists have been taking to prevent gun deaths for over 15 years. After the Uvalde shooting I went back to revisit to see what I’ve learned and what I think will happen next. I also want to point to some good gun law changes we have made and some messages we can spread about them.

The Republicans will push to get more guns in schools following the Uvalde shooting. This is the “do something” that the Republicans can get behind. It builds on the premise that people with guns in school will be able to gun down an active shooter before they kill kids.*

Guns are NOT a passive defensive tool like a bullet proof vest. They won’t stop a bullet coming at you. Guns are an active, offensive weapon. This active, offensive role of the “virtuous person with a gun” is what appeals to men who want to actively respond to threats to their property and their families. For them it’s not good enough to passively stop bullets, they want an active component that stops/kills the person who is the threat.

*Of the nearly 200 Post-identified incidents of school gunfire, only once before this week has a resource officer gunned down an active shooter.

Scarred by School Shootings, March 25, 2018 Washington Post 

In Florida the NRA super lobbyist Marion Hammer used this understanding of the desire for action to give parents an active, offensive response to gun violence by pushing legislation that allocated massive amounts of money for more people with guns in schools–even though there was no evidence that they were effective.

Here are some I wrote back in 2018-19
Lawmakers Determined To Get Guns In Schools
Why Are School Boards Putting More Guns In Schools?
Florida House To Vote On Giving More Teachers Guns, Just Days After Armed Teacher Injured Child

The strategy was that when the money was provided, the local school board would take it. They also put in rules like, “If you don’t take the money for these armed people, you can’t use it for something else.” So Florida had school board meetings with board members saying, “We have to have SROs.” If the parents said, “We don’t WANT SROs! They don’t work! They put minority kids in jail!” The board response was, “Well, then we’ll have to arm teachers.” When the teachers and parents said, “We don’t want armed teachers!” The Board said, “All the other school districts get money for “safety” and we have to use it this way. If we don’t. we’ll miss out. Do you want YOUR kids to die? Better safe than sorry!”

At the time I wrote and suggested all the ways to stop arming teachers, like the costs of insurance, the problems with training teachers, the liability to the district when there was a negligent discharge of a gun. But time and time again it was the allocation of money that won. That, and a concerted effort to push a narrative that was not supported by reality. A narrative that non-coincidently supported more guns in schools.

These armed teachers or other adults were sold an active surrogate who would respond as a stereotypical male parent would. Meaning the stand-in parent wouldn’t just die to protect their child, they would also kill the person hurting their child. The stereotypical male parent operates under the idea that you must stop the threat with the same deadly force the threat was using. This flies in the face of the facts since, the majority of school shootings were stopped by unarmed people tackling the shooter. This strategy also had the primary benefit to the gun lobby of selling more guns.

I’m basing this on having listened to dozens of town hall and school board meetings, following multiple state gun legislation hearings, reading the great work of Mike Spies on Marion Hammer and the NRA, lurking in concealed gun carrying forum and talking to gun rights activists.

I watched hours of Florida legislation hearings. I saw how slogans overpowered reality. Myths and wishful thinking won the day when it came to getting more armed people in schools. HOWEVER, I also saw some good, effective laws get passed. David Hogg was on Joy Reid talking about what they did to pass one set of good laws. Red Flag laws.

Gun laws work! @DavidHogg w @JoyAnnReid on working to get a red flag law passed.
"Because of the laws that we created we disarmed somebody who threaten to kill my own mother, through a court order with a right to due process." It's been used nearly 6,000 times since.#RedFlagLaws pic.twitter.com/Y3AvJ5ZHWp

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) May 31, 2022

With the Uvalde shooting we know that the police didn’t respond quickly enough. We now know that the School Resource Officer (SRO) wasn’t there. But even with armed people there, they can’t respond fast enough, especially if someone gets the drop on them. The Washington Post article points out that most school shootings happen quickly.

The Post analysis found that gun violence has occurred in at least 68 schools that employed a police officer or security guard. In all but a few of those incidents, the shootings ended before law enforcement of any kind interceded — often because the gunfire lasted only a few seconds. 

Scarred by School Shootings, March 25, 2018 Washington Post 

The “more guns in schools” people want to kill the perpetrators before they can kill kids & teachers. But that is rare. Since they can’t do that, their next goal is to minimizing the number of dead. And they believe that using a gun to kill the shooter is the only way to stop them. But based on the facts, the majority of school shootings were stopped by unarmed people tackling the shooter.

I wrote a piece about this, Keep Praising Unarmed Good Guys Who Tackle Shooters, featuring James Shaw, who tackled a shooter at the Waffle House in 2018 in Nashville, Tennessee and Jason Seaman, science teacher & school football coach who ‘immediately ran up to the un-named student, swatted the boy’s cocked gun out of his hand before tackling him” in Indiana, Noblesville West Middle School in 2018.

Here’s a short video I made about how student Jon Meis tackled a shooter at the Seattle Pacific University in 2015. The shooter killed Paul Lee, 19 and injured Sarah Williams. He is serving 112 years in prison.

This myth that people will guns is the only way to stop shooters persists because of the power of a slogan and the psychology of the people wanting a solution that offers them the hope that a teacher or other adult responsible will take action that is not just defensive, but offensive. They will run toward the shooting to kill the shooter before more can be killed. JUST LIKE the parent imagines he would in the same situation.

I expect the same push for guns in school will happen now, even though the evidence clearly isn’t there. They will using the line, “If that Uvalde SRO cop was there, like they were supposed to be, he would have stopped him!” They will point to the times that after the killing was done, cops finally killed the shooter. They will say armed guards are “deterrents,” even though this isn’t supported, They use flawed data about defensive gun use to say guns are deterrents and to get rid of “gun free zones”**

They will use the same discredited arguments this time and move the battle to the school district meetings where school board members will not want to oppose any measures, especially if the legislation gives out money for more cops, guards and teachers with guns in the schools. As I said, I watched hours of these school board meetings and the false data got thrown up constantly. Now with Moms Demand Action in America there were occasionally people there to debunk the bad data. But the guns everywhere people have lots of SLOGANS. NEVER discount the power of slogans. 

(Speaking of slogans. What is OUR best slogan? Don’t give me a modified version of their slogans showing they are wrong. I teach people to NOT repeat the other sides’ taking points!

“Hopelessness is the gun industry’s killer accomplice.”- CKS

I constantly hear media people say “Nothing has changed.” meaning they aren’t seeing the changes that WE on the left want–like assault weapon bans at the national level. Sadly, the gun lobby did get the change they wanted, more guns in schools by allocating money to those programs. They also made it easier for people to GET guns with permitless carry in multiple states. (BTW, STOP calling it “Constitutional Carry. that’s the name they like!”)

So, if they will support legislations to get more guns in schools following the Uvalde shooting, EVEN IN THE FACE OF ITS INEFFECTIVENESS, we need to keep pushing against it, showing it’s a lie. AND, we also need to push for OUR gun safety programs that ARE effective, that HAVE passed.

I’m going to end this piece with the full 7 minute clip of David Hogg on the Reid Out with Joy Reid. You can see that while she is focusing on the, “nothing has been changed” part of the story, David talks about the good changes that were made. They passed age limits for assault weapons and Red Flag laws in Florida. Those laws work. Let’s make them happen nationwide.

Don’t give up hope. Organize.