Elon Musk has signaled he would reverse Donald Trump’s permanent Twitter ban once his purchase of the platform is complete.
Trump was banned from Twitter because of his tweets around the January 6 insurrection. Trump’s tweets went against the company’s policies around promoting violence and misinformation. Elon Musk has voiced his support for free speech, saying he plans to undo Trump’s permanent ban.
According to International Business Times, Musk and co-founder Jack Dorsey are aligned in their thinking that permanent bans should be “extremely rare,” and should be largely be a measure to combat spam and bot accounts.
It remains to be seen if Trump would even rejoin Twitter, despite it being his favorite social media platform when he was active. He has since launched his own service, Truth Social, and said he has no plans to return to Twitter, even if it was an option.
Musk’s revelation is sure to thrill some and anger others, but it shows just how much Twitter will likely change under his ownership.
Former president Donald Trump is turning to the court system in a long-shot bid to regain access to his Twitter account.
Trump was banned from Twitter two days after the January 6 insurrection, with the social media platform citing “the risk of further incitement of violence.” According to The Washington Post Trump is asking for preliminary injunction that would restore his access while a broader lawsuit continues to play out.
“Plaintiff Donald J. Trump respectfully moves for a preliminary injunction directing, inter alia, Defendant Twitter, Inc. and all persons acting in concert with Defendant, to reinstate Plaintiff’s access to Defendant’s social media platform(s),” read the filing.
Trump’s efforts are a long shot, since the First Amendment applies to protecting individuals from government censorship. There is no provision in the First Amendment protecting individuals from censorship at the hands of other individuals or corporations. Therefore, there’s little legal precedent for forcing Twitter to reinstate Trump’s account.
Facebook’s Oversight Board has decided Donald Trump’s fate, upholding the ban imposed after the January 6 insurrection.
Then-President Donald Trump was banned by every major social media outlet in the aftermath of the January 6 insurrection, one that saw a violent mob attach the US Capitol. During the riot, Mr. Trump made two Facebook posts, both of which continued to claim the election had been stolen and was fraudulent. Since it was those false claims that had fired up the mob, and incited it to violence, Facebook removed both posts and suspended Mr. Trump’s account.
Mr. Trump’s case was one of many that Facebook’s Oversight Board was reviewing to either uphold or overturn. Ultimately, the board has decided to uphold the ban, although with the recommendation it be revisited in six months.
The Board has upheld Facebook’s decision on January 7, 2021, to restrict then-President Donald Trump’s access to posting content on his Facebook page and Instagram account.
However, it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension. Facebook’s normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account.
The Board insists that Facebook review this matter to determine and justify a proportionate response that is consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform. Facebook must complete its review of this matter within six months of the date of this decision. The Board also made policy recommendations for Facebook to implement in developing clear, necessary, and proportionate policies that promote public safety and respect freedom of expression.
It remains to be seen what the fallout of the board’s decision will be, although Mr. Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, has warned the decision could make Republicans more likely to sign off on antitrust action against Facebook and other tech giants.
The controversial Section 230, protecting social media companies, may be under threat even with the incoming Biden/Harris administration.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects online platforms from being legally responsible for the content their users post. This has, in some ways, given rise to the toxic culture often associated with social media, as there are not strong incentives for companies to crack down on hate speech, cyberbullying and the like.
While companies have slowly began to self-moderate, it has increasingly become a murky situation. On the one hand, some critics have praised Facebook, Twitter and others for beginning to crack down on some content, while others have decried their attempts as censorship. These accusations have come from the very heights of government, as President Trump has alternated between using Twitter as his preferred communication platform and blasting the company when it flags his posts containing misinformation. As a result, most recently, Trump has even threatened to veto a defense spending bill unless Section 230 is repealed.
The situation is further complicated by the very fact that social media companies have begun moderating content. Critics argue the companies no longer need, nor should have, the protections of Section 230 since they’ve already begun to self-moderate—the very thing they weren’t legally required to do.
While Trump has been clamoring for the repeal of Section 230, some had thought a new administration might take a different approach. It appears, however, that Section 230’s future may still be uncertain.
At a virtual book launch hosted by Georgetown Law, Bruce Reed—who served as a top tech advisor for President-elect Joe Biden during his campaign—made the case for changes to Section 230.
I think there’s an emerging consensus that it’s long past time to hold the big social media platforms accountable for what’s published on their platforms, the way we do newspaper publishers and broadcasters.
Needless to say, Reed’s comments are non-binding. In the interview he even goes so far as to say that he doesn’t speak for the new administration’s tech policy. Nonetheless, his observations come from years serving as a close associate of Biden, both as a campaign tech advisor and as his chief of staff during his time as vice-president.
Therefore, while non-binding, Reed’s comments may very well indicate change is on the horizon for Section 230.
Ajit Pai, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has announced he will step down on January 20.
Chairman Pai has presided over the FCC for the last four years, enacting a number of controversial changes. Most notably, Pai oversaw the repeal of the Obama-era net neutrality rules, as well as pursued efforts to block states from implementing their own. At the same time, under Pai’s oversight, the FCC focused on closing the digital divide and paving the way for faster 5G adoption.
Given the incoming Biden/Harris administration’s stand on net neutrality, and tech in general, it is not surprising that Chairman Pai is planning to resign. In is statement announcing his departure Pai highlighted his accomplishments, both personal and professional:
It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve at the Federal Communications Commission, including as Chairman of the FCC over the past four years. I am grateful to President Trump for giving me the opportunity to lead the agency in 2017, to President Obama for appointing me as a Commissioner in 2012, and to Senate Majority Leader McConnell and the Senate for twice confirming me. To be the first Asian-American to chair the FCC has been a particular privilege. As I often say: only in America.
I also deeply appreciate the chance to have worked alongside the FCC’s talented staff. They are the agency’s best assets, and they have performed heroically, especially during the pandemic. It’s also been an honor to work with my fellow Commissioners to execute a strong and broad agenda. Together, we’ve delivered for the American people over the past four years: closing the digital divide; promoting innovation and competition, from 5G on the ground to broadband from space; protecting consumers; and advancing public safety. And this FCC has not shied away from making tough choices. As a result, our nation’s communications networks are now faster, stronger, and more widely deployed than ever before.
Although it seems likely the incoming administration will reinstate net neutrality rules, it remains to be seen what other changes or rollbacks may be in store for current FCC policies.
In a major blow to the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and all internet companies that are platforms for user-generated content, the DOJ is proposing placing limits on their longstanding immunity. The Justice Department submitted draft legislation today that would require these internet platforms to take action against illicit conduct and to be fair and consistent to users who post content. The legislation also executes President Trump’s directive from the Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship.
If certain thresholds aren’t met they would then be subject to losing their immunity from lawsuits for user content that was granted to them as part of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
“For too long Section 230 has provided a shield for online platforms to operate with impunity,” said Attorney General William P. Barr. “Ensuring that the internet is a safe, but also vibrant, open and competitive environment is vitally important to America. We therefore urge Congress to make these necessary reforms to Section 230 and begin to hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online.”
“The Department’s proposal is an important step in reforming Section 230 to further its original goal: providing liability protection to encourage good behavior online,” said Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen. “The proposal makes clear that, when interactive computer services willfully distribute illegal material or moderate content in bad faith, Section 230 should not shield them from the consequences of their actions.”
In June, the DOJ released a review of Section 230 saying, “the combination of significant technological changes since 1996 and the expansive interpretation that courts have given Section 230, however, have left online platforms both immune for a wide array of illicit activity on their services and free to moderate content with little transparency or accountability.” In other words, the DOJ wants Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. to remove illegal content when they see it and to stop banning conservatives for being conservative.
Despite the general liberal bent of these internet platforms Democrats and Republicans have been in agreement that legislation is necessary. Democrats want caps on what they consider ‘hate speech’ and Republicans want conservative content and users to be left alone. Twitter, in particular, has been frequently called out for banning conservatives who have no recourse to be reinstated. Hopefully, both political parties are interested in removing illegal content that could be harmful to children or that promotes violence.
President Donald Trump once again attacked Amazon and the Washington Post in some of his recent tweets.
In his latest Twitter rant against the company, the President railed that the Washington Post “has gone crazy against me” since Amazon lost their Internet Tax Case in the Supreme Court. He also jibed that the Washington Post is losing a fortune and described it as “nothing more than an expensive lobbyist for Amazon.”
Trump alsoblasted Amazon for using the US Postal Service as a “delivery boy” for its packages at only “a fraction of real cost.”
The Amazon Washington Post has gone crazy against me ever since they lost the Internet Tax Case in the U.S. Supreme Court two months ago. Next up is the U.S. Post Office which they use, at a fraction of real cost, as their “delivery boy” for a BIG percentage of their packages….
….In my opinion the Washington Post is nothing more than an expensive (the paper loses a fortune) lobbyist for Amazon. Is it used as protection against antitrust claims which many feel should be brought?
Trump’s latest tirade came on the heels of a Washington Post’s report that was critical of how he handled North Korea. The paper claimed the president was frustrated with how long it was taking to see some progress after his talk with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Trump tweeted the country had not launched a rocket in 9 months and that “all of Asia is happy.” He also said what the “Fake News” is claiming is wrong and said that he was “very happy” with the way things with North Korea were proceeding.
Amazon’s shares dipped slightly after Trump’s tweets. However, the loss was minuscule when compared to the company’s 55 percent gains since the start of 2018. Trump’s tirade also did little to harm Jeff Bezos’ standing as the world’s richest man. The owner of Amazon and the Washington Post has a net worth amounting to about $150 billion.
This isn’t the first time that Trump attacked Bezos and Amazon regarding the e-retailer’s use of the USPS. In a tweet last December, Trump questioned why the USPS was charging the online store so little when they “Should be charging MUCH MORE!” He also tweeted in April that the Post Office was losing a fortune but that this will change.
It is true that the Post Office is losing money. The USPS reported a loss of $2.7 billion in 2017. Increasing the rates of shipping packages is one way to resolve the situation. However, the USPS’ main function is not to generate profit but to serve civilians. This is why the department’s shipping rates are very low.
Amazon also isn’t the only company using the US Postal Service. FedEx and UPS also drop off packages and utilizes the USPS as their “last mile” delivery. If the postal service does raise prices, it wouldaffect all companies that ships packages, including small businesses that may find it difficult to cover increased shipping costs.
Twitter has been aggressively suspending false accounts in a bid to curtail the spread of fake news. The company’s massive crackdown on trolls and bots have resulted in one million dubious accounts being deleted or suspended per day.
According to the Washington Post, Twitter has been coming down hard on fake accounts, trolls, and bots since late last year. The purge of these accounts was reportedly brought about when testimonies from Google and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter revealed that millions more Americans were exposed to fake news than previously estimated.
Fake Accounts But Real Damage
Fake accounts with links to Russia are said to have tweeted false information in an attempt to affect the 2016 US presidential elections. This disinformation campaign involved a troll factory based in St. Petersberg that used state-of-the-art technology to fool voters and exacerbate the tension in the already worsening political and social environment.
Data compiled by the Post revealed that Twitter got rid of more than a million accounts per day in the past several months. The company reportedly suspended 70 million or more accounts in May and June. The purge apparently continued until July.
Twitter suspended about 70 million accounts it deemed as fake or suspicious over the past 2 months https://t.co/2yyn78Kmhn
Twitter’s aggressive steps to shut down these malicious accounts could lead to a major backlash against the company as it could result in a decline in monthly users. But the company appears unfazed as it continues its campaign against the bots and trolls responsible for the propagation of false news.
Taking a Stand Against Fakes
Twitter has repeatedly garnered criticism for failing to control the spread of bots and trolls that were created with the sole purpose of spreading disinformation. But the social media platform’s new and harsher stand against fraudulent accounts shows a clear shift in the company’s ideology. Twitter had previously refrained from checking possible abuses with regards to tweets due to free speech.
The company’s Vice President for Trust and Safety, Del Harvey, revealed to the Washington Post that they are changing their stand on “balancing free expression versus the potential for free expression to chill someone else’s speech. Free expression doesn’t mean much if people don’t feel safe,” Harvey explained.
While a lot of Twitter users applaud the company’s move to delete fake accounts, President DonaldTrump has taken to the platform to tweet about getting rid of the accounts of news organizations like the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Twitter is getting rid of fake accounts at a record pace. Will that include the Failing New York Times and propaganda machine for Amazon, the Washington Post, who constantly quote anonymous sources that, in my opinion, don’t exist – They will both be out of business in 7 years!
While the two companies’ accounts are legitimate, Trump has been blaming them for the spread of fake news or at least news that paints him in a negative light.
Donald Trump once again used social media to attack Amazon. This time, Trump accused the online retailer of being a threat to small businesses as well as “paying little or no taxes.”
By now, everyone is probably aware that Trump is not really friends with Amazon as well as its CEO Jeff Bezos. So, it came as no surprise when the president decided to tweet his concern against the eCommerce giant last Thursday. Aside from accusing the company of not paying enough taxes, Trump also asserted that the government actually suffered losses duetoAmazon’s use of the US Postal Service in its deliveries.
I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business!
However, Trump’s statement aboutAmazon’s tax practice is a bit misleading. While the retailer previously collected sales taxes only in a few states, the company has since corrected its operations and is now collecting in 45 states or all states that impose the collection of sales taxes.
Trump is a known critic of Amazon and its CEO, Jeff Bezos. In fact, Trump had attacked both Bezos and his company via Twitter more than a dozen times since 2015. Some of his vitriol no doubt comes from unfavorable stories printed about him by The Washington Post, which is also owned by Bezos.
Regardless of his intentions, many business analysts agree with Trump’s view that Amazon’s size has strangled competitors, particularly thebrick and mortar retailers. This concern first surfaced way back in the 90s when the company started out as an online bookstore. These days as a retailer of all things, Amazon’s has a far bigger presence in the world of eCommerce, accounting for a staggering 40 percent of all online sales.
“The Trump administration should rein in giants like Amazon because they have an unfair stranglehold on the competition, not because the president has a personal feud with a company’s CEO,” Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison said in a statement, which echoed Trump’s concern.
Of course, Amazon is aware that its ballooning size is bound to raise some antitrust issues soon. Eyeing the storm that is yet to come, the company wants its bases covered and has reportedly hired numerous antitrust consultants over the past year.
Amazon’s tax history is not entirely blemish-free either. The company recently ran into problems in its international operations and settled a tax dispute with French authorities for an undisclosed amount. However, the EU ruled Amazon to have an “illegal tax advantage” and ordering the company to pay $294 million to Luxembourg.
With the renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) almost at hand, various groups within the three members of the trading block– Canada, Mexico, and the United States– are already busy lobbying their diverging positions on anticipated issues to be discussed. One potential flashpoint in the coming talks, which commences this August 16, 2017, is the Trump administration’s proposal to increase the cap on duty-free online purchases, a move that is viewed to have a tremendous impact not only on the eCommerce industry but the American economy as a whole.
Currently, Mexico imposes a duty for online shoppers who buy more than $50 worth of goods, according to CNN. Canada, on the other hand, set the duty-free cap to a mere $16 worth of purchases. Canadians who make online purchases past that mark will have to pay a tax.
But If President Trump gets his way, online shoppers could purchase a lot more before they have to pay any taxes for their purchases. Under his administration’s proposal, buyers in both countries will no longer be imposed import taxes for purchases up to $800, a move that is seen to benefit not only the buyers but also American online retailers that currently dominate the e-commerce scene. While both companies declined to comment on the issue, American retailer giants Amazon and eBay are seen to ultimately benefit should the proposal push through.
Raising the duty-free threshold to $800 will not only be an economic triumph but a political one as well for the Trump administration. This is seen as a potential remedy to the U.S.’ massive $64 billion trade deficit with Mexico, a problem that Trump promised to resolve during his campaign. Economists believe that more foreign buyers making purchases through American online retailers could ultimately mean more jobs being created.
However, not everyone agrees with the implication that the current NAFTA agreement should be blamed for the trade deficit when US companies relocated their manufacturing activities to Mexico. Congressional research done in 2015 concluded that the NAFTA agreement is not the cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs available in the U.S.
While Mexico and Canada have not yet revealed their formal responses, there are indications that the two trading partners will oppose the U.S.’ proposal for a $800 increase in the duty-free exemption, Reuters reported.
For instance, Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo fears that the proposed $800 limit could open a “completely unnecessary door” for goods manufactured outside the three-nation trading block. For instance, cheap shirts manufactured by a non-NAFTA country like Vietnam could be sourced through an American online retailer and compete with Mexico’ vulnerable textile industry.
Meanwhile, Canadian business groups offer the same sentiment. There are fears that raising the duty-free cap too high could ultimately be problematic for the nation’s manufacturers. For this reason, the Retail Council of Canada urged their government to fend off such proposal as it would most affect books, clothes, consumer electronics, sporting goods, and toys locally manufactured.
Whatever the outcome could be, the upcoming NAFTA renegotiations would invariably affect the ever-increasing eCommerce segment. The talks would finally set a formal guideline for eCommerce within the 23-year old trading block. When NAFTA was created in pre-internet 1994, there were no provisions for e-commerce made.
President Donald Trump hosted a White House event last Tuesday where he revealed a rosy future for American businesses and the nation’s economy in general. Attended by 100 small business owners from all over the country, the President praised those in attendance for their roles in powering up the nation’s economic recovery and also reiterated his administration’s commitment to their success.
“You are the dreamers and innovators who are powering us into the future — that’s exactly what you are — and my administration will be there with you every single step of the way,” Trump told his audience during the event.
President Trump also highlighted his administration’s efforts in loosening up certain business regulations that hurt America’s economic performance. This includes some reforms in the energy sector, which some analysts predicted could result in a ten percent growth in the industry, according to a CNBC report
“We’re ending job-killing legislation. We’re eliminating the massive restrictions on American energy.”
The President likewise stressed the improving unemployment situation in the nation. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal that the unemployment rate for June 2017 is only 4.4 percent, the lowest in 16 years.
Trump also touted the economic improvement under his administration as measured by GDP. Recently released first quarter figures show a rise of 2.6 percent, beating previous estimates.
But Trump believes that the U.S. economy can do more and expressed optimism that his previous promise of a 3 percent GDP growth is within reach. “Remember I was saying, ‘We’re going try and hit 3% sometime over the next period of two years’?” Trump told the small business owners during the event. “But don’t worry about the 3, we’re going to go higher than 3 in the not-too-distant future.”
Accompanying Trump in the event was his daughter Ivanka as well as Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Linda McMahon. The two led a discussion during the Q&A portion, offering business advice to some of the guests.
If Donald Trump can’t build his wall across the border to Mexico, Oculus founder Palmer Luckey will build him one—at least in the virtual sphere.
Luckey, who is a known Trump supporter, has been putting his genius and resources toward a Big Brother technology that will effectively shut down efforts by illegal immigrants from across the pond to enter U.S. territory.
“We need a new kind of defense company, one that will save taxpayer dollars while creating superior technology to keep our troops and citizens safer,” hesaid in an emailed statement.
Forbes magazine estimated Luckey’s net worth to be around $700 million. The company he founded, Oculus, was acquired by Facebook in March 2014 for $3 billion. Two years later, he left after admitting that he donated $10,000 to Nimble America, a pro-Trump organization accused of initiating underhanded tactics to defame Hillary Clinton.
Luckey founded a startup based in Southern California which utilizes LiDAR or Light Detection and Ranging for border security. The remote sensing technology is used in geographic mapping, hydrographic survey, coastal risk analysis, and disaster-mitigation efforts like storm surge modeling.
Apparently, Luckey and Steve Bannon, the political strategist for Trump, as well as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, reportedlydiscussed the idea of using accurate sensors and cameras for border security.
In a Reddit thread with the title Steve Wozniak says he’s disappointed in Palmer Luckey, the 24-year-old said that “founders” should not dissociate themselves from politics just to please everybody. In that particular article, Apple co-founder Wozniak said that the only reason Luckey donated to Nimble America anonymously was that he thought he was doing something wrong.
But Luckey said that anonymity doesn’t necessarily mean guilt.
“The idea that anonymity=wrongdoing is a dangerous one,” hewrote. “It is a significant factor in the ongoing erosion of our digital liberties and is used to justify things like mass data collection and encryption backdoors. Nothing to fear if you are not doing anything wrong, right?”
Luckey, who is apparently a “prepper”—a person who prepares for doomsday scenarios by shoring up defenses and stockpiling food—has shown his passion for missile silos, as his two properties in upstate New York and Chico, California are built on top of decommissioned Atlas and Titan 1 missile silos, respectively. He also reportedly owns several military vehicles, particularly vintage ones, as well as three helicopters. He has a license as a student pilot.
The tech titans of Silicon Valley (and a few other places) met with President Elect Donald Trump at his request today. Notably, Trump said that any of them could call him directly if their companies needed help. He said that there is no chain of command here.
“I’m super excited about the possibility that this could be the innovation Administration,” said Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg added, “I’m excited to talk about jobs.”
The complete transcript of Trump’s opening remarks to the group:
“Well, I just want to thank everybody. This is a truly amazing group of people. I won’t tell you the hundreds of calls we’ve had asking to come to this meeting (laughter). I will say Peter (Thiel) was sort of saying, no those companies are too small, and these are monster companies.
I want to start by thanking Peter because he saw something very early, maybe before we saw it, of course he’s known for that in a different way. He has been so terrific and so outstanding. He got just about the biggest applause at the Republican National Convention. He’s ahead of the curve and I want to thank him and (while shaking his hand) you’re a very special guy.
I want to add that I’m here to help you folks do well and you are doing well right now. I’m very honored by the bounce, everybody is talking about the bounce, so everybody in this room has to like me at least a little bit. We are going to have to try and have that bounce continue.
Perhaps even more importantly, we want you to keep going with the incredible innovation. There is nobody like you in the world. There is nobody like the people in this room. Anything we can do to help this go along, we are going to be there for you. You call my people, you call me, it doesn’t make any difference, we have no formal chain of command around here.
We are honored to have Gary, the President of Goldman Sacks, left Goldman Sacks to do this. And Wilbur, everybody knows Wilbur, they don’t call him Wilbur Ross on Wall Street, they just say oh it’s Wilbur (laughter). There’s nobody like him.
We are going to do fair trade deals, we’re going to make it a lot easier for you to trade. Across borders, there are a lot of restrictions and a lot of problems. If you have any ideas on that, that would be great because there are a lot of restrictions and a lot of problems. You probably have less of a problem than some companies because some companies have massive problems, but we are going to solve those problems.”
The Washington Post is reporting that Russian government hackers penetrated DNC computers over a year ago and have everything including all email and chat traffic. According to Washington Post sources their main purpose was to steal opposition research about Donald Trump.
The Post said that Russian spies were also targeting the networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and some GOP political action committees, but it is unknown if breaches were made at this time.
The DNC said that no financial, donor or personal information appears to have been accessed or taken, suggesting that the breach was traditional espionage, not the work of criminal hackers.
The intrusions are an example of Russia’s interest in the U.S. political system and its desire to understand the policies, strengths and weaknesses of a potential future president — much as American spies gather similar information on foreign candidates and leaders.
The depth of the penetration reflects the skill and determination of the United States’ top cyber adversary as Russia goes after strategic targets, from the White House and State Department to political campaign organizations.
Shawn Henry, the president of CrowdStrike and former F.B.I. agent, spoke to MSNBC: “We were able to identify with a very high degree of confidence a group that we have attributed back to the Russian government targeting that D.N.C. network. Foreign intelligence services are constantly interested in political processes.”
“We were actually called by the DNC through their Counsel when they saw that there were some irregularities,” stated Henry. “They were concerned about a potential breach within their environment. We came in and did our typical incident response, we deployed certain pieces of technology that we use to try to get some visibility into the extent, the depth and breadth of this particular breach. In the course of this working very closely with the staff of the DNC we were able to identify with a very high degree of confidence a group that we have attributed back to the Russian government.”
Henry added, “We know with certainty, my time in the Bureau, that foreign intelligence services are constantly interested in political processes, their interested in strategies, their interested in foreign policies, ect. The DNC and others have been targeted over the years by this very very sophisticated group with a high degree of capability and some very very sophisticated technology.”
“Typically on our network we’ve got corporate strategies, email communication, documents, spreadsheets, PDF, calendars, etc.,” commented Henry. “The foreign intelligence services understand and recognize that organizations maintain this information and they’re looking to get any type of advantage as the political process continues to help them better develop their political strategies and to have a deep understanding of candidates. In this particular case, this groups level of sophistication is very very high, very very difficult to detect and they are able to maintain persistence for long periods of time without being uncovered. Because of that ability to remain stealth in the environment they’re able to look at these communications and documents for a protracted period of time.”
According to POLITICO, Buzzfeed has decided to pull out of the $1.3 million ad deal it had with the Republican National Committee to promote Donald J. Trump for President. Apparently, Buzzfeed has decided to take the Huffington Post approach to politics by openly picking sides, which means presumably that it doesn’t have issues with Hillary Clinton.
BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti even compared Trump to cigarette ads, “We don’t run cigarette ads because they are hazardous to our health, and we won’t accept Trump ads for the exact same reason.”
What Trump has said is that the U.S. must secure its borders… like every other country in the world. Not a radical position according to millions of his voters. Many of his voters think that what is radical is not securing them! His voters also agree with Trump’s statement about Muslim travel following the terrorist attacks in Paris by ISIS operatives who had snuck (migrated) into Europe. Trump reacted to the crisis by saying that we should suspend foreign Muslim travel to the U.S. “until we can figure out what is going on” before a Paris like terrorist attack happens her in the U.S.
You can certainly disagree with his positions, but to act like they are extremely radical is simply hyperbole by Trump’s political opposition, which apparently includes Buzzfeed.
“Hello BuzzFeeders,
I wanted to share with you a business decision we have made regarding the Trump for President campaign and why we made it.
In April, the Republican National Committee signed an agreement with BuzzFeed to spend a significant amount on political advertisements slated to run during the Fall election cycle. As you know, we accept advertisements from both republican and democratic candidates and we were pleased to accept this advertising order from the RNC.
Since signing this advertising deal, Donald Trump, as you know, has become the presumptive nominee of his party. The tone and substance of his campaign are unique in the history of modern US politics. Trump advocates banning Muslims from traveling to the United States, he’s threatened to limit the free press, and made offensive statements toward women, immigrants, descendants of immigrants, and foreign nationals.
Earlier today Buzzfeed informed the RNC that we would not accept Trump for President ads and that we would be terminating our agreement with them. The Trump campaign is directly opposed to the freedoms of our employees in the United States and around the world and in some cases, such as his proposed ban on international travel for Muslims, would make it impossible for our employees to do their jobs.
We don’t need to and do not expect to agree with the positions or values of all our advertisers. And as you know, there is a wall between our business and editorial operations. This decision to cancel this ad buy will have no influence on our continuing coverage of the campaign.
We certainly don’t like to turn away revenue that funds all the important work we do across the company. However, in some cases we must make business exceptions: we don’t run cigarette ads because they are hazardous to our health, and we won’t accept Trump ads for the exact same reason.
Thanks,
Jonah “
John Legend has taken to Twitter to bash Donald Trump in response to Donald Trump, Jr.’s claim that protesters at Chicago rally were a joke.
A Trump rally had to be cancelled on Friday due to possible unsafe conditions after protests turned into brawling.
It seemed The Donald II felt that protesters were not to be taken seriously when he tweeted, “Ha 5 students when asked why they were protesting couldn’t even answer. The participation medal/micro aggression generation is pretty sad!”
However, John Legend couldn’t help himself when he saw that.
He tweeted back, “@DonaldJTrumpJr I think they were protesting your racist father. This isn’t complicated.”
Hundreds of protesters packed into and around the location of Trump’s Chicago rally, many of them toting signs with musings about Trump’s immigration stance and his assumed racist tendencies.
After Trump’s rally was canceled, many supporters reportedly still stayed to chant “We want Trump!”, while protesters yelled things like, “F**k Trump!”, “We shut sh*t down!” and “We stumped Trump!”
Later, Trump told CNN that he had no regrets about how things have been handled when it comes to protesters thus far.
He said, “Until today, we’ve never had much of a problem.”
He added, “I don’t have regrets. These were very, very bad protesters. These were bad dudes. They were rough, tough guys.”
Trump later indicated via Twitter that the protests and cancellation of the rally had actually boosted his campaign.
The organized group of people, many of them thugs, who shut down our First Amendment rights in Chicago, have totally energized America!
“He’s a really brilliant and talented person, without any doubt,” Putin said. Bill O’Reilly spent the first part of his show exposing some of the reasons Donald Trump’s campaign has been met with so much success–after which he mocked Putin.
“By the way,” Bill O’Reilly said, “Trump apparently has made Putin his friend. Because idiot Putin today is going, “I love Donald Trump,” he doesn’t speak English, but in a Russian accent, that’s what he was saying. He loves Trump.”
Meanwhile Geraldo Rivera was poking fun at Bill O’Reilly’s rather bad Russian accent–which, for some reason, is bleeped out in the video clip.
“That’s a pretty lame accent,” Geraldo said, as O’Reilly continued on with his comments.
“Donald Trump understands the anger sweeping America and is tapping into that,” Bill O’Reilly said in recent days. “He is not concerned that much with policy– he is running on emotion. His strategy has been brilliant, but if you take what he says literally, he can be a frightening guy.”
“I see many of his statements as over-the-top rhetoric, designed to get him votes, not necessarily written-in-stone policy pronouncements,” he added. “Talking Points does not endorse candidates, does not root, does not promote.”
The Miss Universe 2015 Pageant is set to air on December 20, with Steve Harvey as its host. Perez Hilton and Niecy Nash just signed on to the panel of judges, along with Olivia Culpo and Emmitt Smith. The three-hour show will also feature live commentary from Roselyn Sanchez.
Airing live on Fox from the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino in Las Vegas, this year’s Miss Universe Pageant will feature performances from Seal, Charlie Puth, and The Band Perry.
This will be the first Miss Universe Pageant since WME-IMG acquired the The Miss Universe Organization from Donald Trump in September, following his disparaging remarks about Mexican immigrants.
A new facet to this year’s Miss Universe Pageant is viewer participation. Those watching the pageant on TV will have a say in who gets crowned. The Hollywood Reporter says, “Viewers are encouraged to score each contestant on a scale of one to 10 in the swimsuit, evening gown, and interview categories by voting on their computer or phone during the telecast.
Will you be checking out this year’s Miss Universe Pageant contestants–along with judges Perez Hilton, Niecy Nash, Olivia Culpo, and Emmitt Smith on Sunday, December 20?
Might you take part in voting for your favorite contestant?
Brandi Glanville, formerly of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, may not be a reality TV star at the moment, but she can at least boast about having a kind of wine named after her.
During a recent interview with Entertainment Tonight, Brandi admitted that it wasn’t her idea to leave RHOBH.
“It wasn’t,” she confessed. “No–[Bravo] said, ‘We’ll have you back part time,’ and that was it. That said, I haven’t filmed ye…I’m actually seeing Yolanda today–we’re not filming it, but we are hanging out…honestly, I’m happier. I feel like I broke up with an abusive boyfriend. Like, ‘Oh my God, I love you, but you’re horrible for me.’”
Brandi Glanville also dished about the wine she brought along to enjoy during the interview.
“Well, I think everyone who knows me knows how much I love my wine,” she said. “A friend of mine was representing an athlete actually, and this winery came to the athlete and he said, ‘I don’t drink, but wait–I know somebody who drinks and likes white wine. So, he introduced us and this, a year and a half later, is Unfiltered Blonde Chardonnay.”
If ever there were the perfect moniker for wine named after Brandi Glanville, then ‘Unfiltered Blonde Chardonnay’ is the one. If you don’t believe it from having watched Brandi on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, then perhaps you saw her on Celebrity Apprentice with Donald Trump last season. She was rather unfiltered during her goings-on there as well.
Brandi Glanville still has plenty to do in spite of not filming for RHOBH. She is in the process of writing her third book. She has her own podcast, called Brandi Glanville Unfiltered.
Don’t forget about the wine. You can be sure that Brandi Glanville is helping advertise her Unfiltered Blonde Chardonnay, too.
Doesn’t the name make you want to run out and pick up a bottle?
Business mogul and Republican presidential front-runner, Donald Trump, made another racist remark in a speech he delivered during a campaign rally in Iowa on Tuesday. This time Trump made fun of the negotiating skills of Asian business negotiators in broken English.
“When these people walk into the room, they don’t say, ‘Oh hello, how’s the weather? It’s so beautiful outside. How are the Yankees doing? They’re doing wonderful, that’s great,” the presidential candidate said. “They say, ‘We want deal!’” which made the audience laugh at Trump’s offending joke. Trump who is known for his remarkable negotiating skills, is consistent on his stand on the economic relationship between China and the U.S. On his Twitter he said the Chinese market and the whole Asian market are “taking the U.S. market down.”
As I have long stated, we are so tied in with China and Asia that their markets are now taking the U.S. market down. Get smart U.S.A. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 24, 2015
Markets are crashing – all caused by poor planning and allowing China and Asia to dictate the agenda. This could get very messy! Vote Trump.
He also made insensitive remarks about Mexican immigrants at the beginning of his campaign. Besides Trump, another candidate made insensitive remark about Asians. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Trump’s rival, used “anchor babies” to refer to children of undocumented immigrants. “Frankly, it’s more Asian people,” Bush said. Trump picked on Bush’s failed effort to choose a more politically correct term to refer to Hispanics and linking “anchor babies” to Asians. He called his effort “a mess” on Twitter.
Asians are very offended that JEB said that anchor babies applies to them as a way to be more politically correct to hispanics. A mess! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 25, 2015
The Congressional Asia-Pacific American Caucus has already addressed Bush’s comments but has not yet given their comments on Trump’s racial remarks.
“All that is accomplished through talk of anchor-babies — be they from Latin America, Asia, Europe or Africa — is to use xenophobic fears to further isolate immigrants. It’s time for our country to return to a substantive discussion on immigration,” said U.S. Rep Judy Chu of Pasadena, California, leader of the caucus.
Chu believes that what the country needs is an actionable plan to “integrate” the illegal immigrants in the country.
Lara Flynn Boyle and David Spade were a thing for a while. Then Lara Flynn Boyle was suddenly with Jack Nicholson, a relationship that carried on for about two years.
In an interview with Details Magazine, David Spade now reveals how he found out that Lara Flynn Boyle and Jack Nicholson were dating. Pretty much the same way everyone else did: from The Enquirer.
When Spade was asked about Boyle, he replied, “When we dated, Lara Flynn was not bad at all. She was a blast. Then the Jack Nicholson thing happened.”
Early on, Spade says Lara Flynn Boyle was adamant that she was not interested in Nicholson. Like all great Hollywood love triangle tales, the whole thing hit the air between her and Spade while that air was thick with pot smoke.
“Nicholson asked Lara Flynn Boyle out in front of me while we were all smoking a doob somewhere. She got mad because I didn’t stick up for her. I said, ‘I’ve been in this town long enough to know when I’m outranked. You’re either gonna go out with him or you’re not.’”
Boyle’s response, not years in the past, rings with the clarity of today’s headlines.
But apparently Jack Nicholson had something Lara Flynn Boyle couldn’t resist sampling.
Spae continues, “The funniest part was, they got caught in a car crash, and she crawled out of the sunroof and yelled, ‘I have a boyfriend! I can’t be here!’ Like, ‘Oh, now I’m your boyfriend?’”
And finally, that insult to injury reveal that Boyle was no longer exclusively on Spade’s arm.
“I got a call from the National Enquirer. That’s how I found out. She and I didn’t talk too much after that.”
The real loser in that Jack Nicholson vs. David Spade story is Lara Flynn Boyle.
companies.
