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!
He won! Let’s talk about how great that is!
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.”
Gene J. Puskar AP
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.
On the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina
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.
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.
From The Center for Countering Digital Hate https://counterhate.com/research/star-framework/
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.
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?
Christian Cooper is a prominent bird-watcher and works in communications Credit Brittainy Newman The New York Times
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.
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…
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. )
United States Attorney Rachael Rollins announced the arrest of Catherine Leavy for willfully making a false bomb threat towards Children’s Hospital. She was joined by Joseph R. Bonavolonta, left, FBI special agent in charge of the Boston Field Office, and Michael Cox, Boston Police Commissioner.MATTHEW J. LEE/GLOBE STAFF
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.
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.
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.
Social Media Fakery!
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.
Are the bad guy security modeled on Proud Boys? Oath Keepers? Blackwater? You bet!
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
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? #IndictTrumpNowpic.twitter.com/zbHkn14q7Y
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
“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!
Beware of defeating a vengeful person with power.
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. “
There are multiple people who heard the Secret Service radio traffic. They also had access to real time other comms.
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
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.
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.
David Brooks, Unseen movie reviewer
“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.)
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.
Me for 18 months: It takes time & patience to build a case that will lead to a conviction. Me after tonight’s revelations: F*CK%NG SH*T DOJ! INDICT! INDICT! INDICT!
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.”
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.
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.
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!”
CAPTION: Brevard County School Board appears to be dedicated to a controversial program to arm school staff despite droves of residents protesting the program. Credit: Tim Shortt / FLORIDA TODAY
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 surrogatewho 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.#RedFlagLawspic.twitter.com/Y3AvJ5ZHWp
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.
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.
CAPTION: Jason Seaman, science teacher & school football coach swatted the boy’s cocked gun out of his hand before tackling him. Indiana,
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.
CAPTION: Jon Meis tackled the shooter in 2015 at Seattle Pacific University. The shooter 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.
After months of vicious harassment Freeman and Moss sued Giuliani and OAN, which “spent months airing grainy edited footage of the pair, and the network’s White House correspondent Chanel Rion for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Separately, the pair filed a similar suit against wingnut website Gateway Pundit in Missouri state court.”
In this third piece on threats I wanted to give an example of what to DO when threatened by the right. (Part 1 , Part 2)
This Freeman defamation case is a prime example of a successful action given our current justice system, media and social media environment. I’ve been looking into civil actions because criminal cases take a long time and you have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases can be won with a preponderance of evidence.
Too often financial settlements can turn into, “Just the cost of doing business” especially for people who have the resources to pay the fines. A financial settlement also can be used to shut down criminal cases, as we have seen with sexual harassment cases. So to get justice for the victims we need to also use the criminal justice system. This is why we still need to find the people who made the death threats against Ruby and Shay and put them in jail.
Ask your lawyer if a defamation case is right for you!
He explained the process of getting evidence, uncovering anonymous users, and how they work with social media companies. (I was so impressed by the depth & breath of the info I told him to pass on my praise to the research and writing staff. )
The right has increased the level of threats, harassment and defamation against the left in the last 5 years. We now have a model for a successful defamation case, let’s use it!
NACCHO does great work. I’ve talked to the CEO, Lori Tremmel Freeman many times, and learned what their members are facing with regard to threats on social media and other attacks. The lawyers at NPHL have been educating people on what laws apply to them in their states. But right now it’s not in either of their remits to help individual public health staff to find, and then sue, the people who have been harassing, threatening and defaming them.
I’m encouraging them and the folks within State Associations of County and City Health Officials (SACCHO) to help their members deal with the attacks. Based on the number of threats around the country, the odds are high that many of them have legitimate civil defamation cases.
For a current example look at this case St. Luke’s Health System filed against Ammon Bundy, Diego Rodriguez and their various political organizations for defamation and “sustained online attacks.” Bundy’s lawyers are incredibly smart and have evaded criminal charges for years, but assembling a preponderance of evidence against them is very doable. What most people don’t know is that Bundy’s group has backers with deep pockets.
St. Luke’s Hospital in Boise Idaho and Ammon Bundy (Thomas Boyd/Oregon Live Staff)
But if defamation becomes a profit center, won’t everyone do it?
When I say, “Turn defamation into a profit center!” I know there is are right-wing groups that will say, “We were defamed too! We’re going to file cases against the LEFT!” But here’s the deal, they aren’t looking for justice after being threatened and defamed. They’re filing lawsuits to scare people, shut them up and force them to use their resources to defend against frivolous cases. As a demonstration of this, with an instant example, OAN filed a defamation suit against Rachel Maddow. THEY LOST. BIG TIME OAN Ordered to Pay MSNBC $250,000 After Losing Defamation Suit)
We all know that the right loves to be the victim, even when they aren’t. Besides whining about what they’ll call defamation, they’ll start reporting dubious cases against us on social media, start filing bogus police reports about being attacked by chalk and start frivolous lawsuits. They’ll use the new Texas social media law to tie up the courts.
When the media starts reporting on this I worry they’ll get bogged down into the technicalities and miss how the right has been using he law to muddy it’s legitimate use.
We need to point out the MASSIVE DIFFERENCE between the left trying to get justice and compensation for harm inflicted on them vs the right using the legal system to inflict new harm based on bogus claims.
We need to be clear about the serious harm that is being done by the right to the left with their threats, harassment and defamation. We need to build a record of multiple successful criminal and civil cases against the right. But it won’t be easy. As Atrios so succinctly put it:
“…the job of Dem lawyers is to tell you why you can’t do things, and the job of Republican lawyers is to tell you (them) why they can. Also, too, Dems have a “if you can’t win, don’t try” approach, instead of “keep trying to show what you’re up against” attitude.”
I’m calling for the legitimate and totally appropriate use of the civil legal system. I’m also calling for clear messaging from the left on this like, “THIS IS A GOOD THING. DO MORE OF THIS.”
(MSNBC could, for example, compare Freeman’s successful case against OAN’s to OAN’s failed defamation case against Rachel Maddow. But they won’t. They hate being the subject of a story. )
The right will use the legal system to slow down, wear down and depress us. But they’ve been losing. Some are even getting disbarred in the process for their frivolous cases.
The court of public opinion matters too. We must cheer on the fact that Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Mosswon a big defamation case. OAN lost. Our case was legitimate. Their case wasn’t.
We Fight. We Win. We Do It Again.
The Trump strategy of using threats, intimidation and defamation to get what he wants has been working for him for decades. He’s encouraged others to do the same. He’ll never change his behavior. But not everyone has his resources. He’s not the target for these cases.
Civil cases are just one way change the behavior of the people on the right. They know that what they are doing is wrong, but it doesn’t become real to them until they have to pay a price. They are paying now. Make more of them pay.
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
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?
Karoli mostly posts cute doggy pics, like this.
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
