BC POLITICS
Saved by @Jacobtldr

The Trump administration will be over on January 20, but officials like Attorney General William Barr — who has been involved in some of this administration’s most corrupt policies — must not be allowed to escape accountability.

Here’s what we’re still investigating:1/

 President Trump has sought to transform DOJ into a political weapon meant to serve his allies & punish his perceived enemies.

We've uncovered details on the extent to which Barr has aided those efforts, including the Durham investigation, Roger Stone’s sentencing & more. 2/
Our FOIA litigation revealed that Barr met frequently with federal prosecutor John Durham, who was tasked with looking into the origins of the Russia investigation — 18 times in the 7 months after the Mueller investigation ended. 3/
https://t.co/kBLMaY8Po1
On March 25, 2019 — just a day after Barr submitted his letter summarizing the Mueller report to Congress — Durham met with Barr, Barr’s then-Chief of Staff Brian Rabbitt and two career officials from the department’s Justice Management Division. 4/
https://t.co/iQAR0VHSJx
Despite Barr’s frequent public statements about the ongoing Durham investigation, DOJ has selectively chosen to invoke the “ongoing investigation” privilege to withhold documents the public needs in order to understand Durham’s work. 5/
https://t.co/hu1i5PG2Ur
In response to our FOIA requests, DOJ has acknowledged that it has 24 pages of directives and guidance regarding the Durham probe, as well as records regarding its related expenses. DOJ refuses to turn over the Durham-related records. 6/
“The whole point of tapping an outside prosecutor in a case like this is to avoid political interference from the attorney general and other top officials, but here we see just the opposite: Bill Barr had repeated meetings and calls with John Durham at critical moments....” 7/
”...linked to the Russia investigation, and that raises serious questions about the independence and credibility of whatever Durham produces,” our executive director Austin Evers said when we uncovered the documents. 8/
https://t.co/Ra1MY2UI15
In February 2020, the abrupt change in sentencing recommendations for Roger Stone was a shocking example of the lengths Barr’s Justice Department was willing to go to in order to intervene in the cases of associates of President Trump. 9/
In September, we obtained records that shed new light on the circumstances surrounding this controversial move. The records showed how quickly DOJ leadership’s intervention caused chaos. 10/
https://t.co/dLn8AfzRO9
On Feb. 10, DOJ prosecutors recommended Stone serve 7-9 years in prison for lying under oath and witness tampering. Trump tweeted his displeasure at Stone’s perceived ill-treatment. On Feb. 11, an amended sentencing memo was filed. 11/
The records we obtained show that on the night of Feb. 10, DOJ official J.P. Cooney signed off on filing the original sentencing memo. 12/
https://t.co/Lm0ir9Z1Gx
On the morning of Feb. 11, Fox News reported that DOJ’s sentencing position in Stone’s case was expected to change. Around noon that day, Cooney responded to a press inquiry asking whether the reports were accurate. “False,” Cooney said. 13/
https://t.co/wctEXHZWMA
We also obtained records that show Barr personally met with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani & former U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy in the summer and fall of 2019 — apparently regarding a Venezuelan client — just a month before the impeachment inquiry was announced. 14/
https://t.co/mR63Akk7WA
And visitor logs from 2019 and 2020 obtained by American Oversight indicate Barr also met with Tom Fitton, Fox News host Laura Ingraham, conservative judicial adviser Leonard Leo, and White House official Kash Patel, among others. 15/
https://t.co/hf0Uv38OM0
We're still investigating:

Did Barr aid efforts to discredit voting by mail? Barr cited false data to assert that elections relying on VBM have had substantial fraud, which DOJ claimed was due to an incorrect briefing memo. We requested that memo. 16/
What role did Barr play in the federal government’s authoritarian and aggressive response to nationwide racial justice protests this summer? In early June, Barr reportedly ordered the removal of peaceful protesters near the White House. 17/
We’ve filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department for any of Barr’s directives on this issue as well as information on all federal police forces deployed to cities across the country. 18/
https://t.co/xNbfXG1P7a
What do internal whistleblowers say about the attorney general’s conduct? Barr has inappropriately intervened in criminal cases against associates of the president, and has made public statements about the progress of ongoing politically sensitive investigations. 19/
We’re suing for any complaints lodged with the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General or its Office of Professional Responsibility regarding Barr’s conduct as attorney general. 20/
https://t.co/xKyl2PwfHW
Barr is just one of the administration officials we’re still investigating. Stay tuned for more info about our ongoing work—and check out our detailed blog about how we’re using records requests & litigation to ensure Barr and others are held accountable.
https://t.co/KF3IAJeN4m

More from Politics

Matt Fuller
Matt Fuller
@MEPFuller
They’re shooting into the chamber.
POLITICS
Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
@questauthority
Election Litigation Update - Gohmert.

Reply brief is in. Let's have a look. They are, mercifully, underlength. They had 50 pages available, the PDF is 43 and some of that is cover page, signatures,

Interesting table of contents. Looks like they're packing a lot in, until you realize that much of the material that's important - like their response to the "you sued the wrong person" material and "injury in fact" take up very little space.


Looks like they decided to skip the table of authorities. Presumably GoogleDocWord ate it too bad for them to fix. This will certainly further endear them to the judge.


This is going to be interesting - leading off a reply brief with a "here's what our cause is about" is certainly a strategy. It's even a bold strategy.

Shall we dig deeper, Cotton?


"We live in a democratic republic in which the Vice President, who will more often than not be a candidate in the election, has the sole and unchallengeable power to decide who wins the election" is a hellofa take.
POLITICS
Advertisement
Seth Abramson
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
(MAJOR NOTE) The reason Manafort took over Trump's campaign in just 3 weeks despite being hired as a mere delegate counter is that ROGER STONE initiated a whisper campaign against Corey Lewandowski. That campaign started...days after Manafort returned from meeting with WikiLeaks.

2/ Stone and Manafort are longtime business partners; we'd expect Manafort to tell Stone what Assange told him, and for him to expect Stone to then pressure the campaign not only to hire him but quickly elevate him.

And who was Stone in touch with at the campaign? Trump himself.

3/ I bet you Manafort's late March emails are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime business associate Roger Stone. And I bet Roger Stone's late March phone calls are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime friend Donald Trump.

4/ At the end of March 2016, Trump suddenly convenes a NatSec meeting. At that meeting he directs his NatSec team to change the RNC platform in July to benefit Putin. Who later takes credit for that change?

Paul Manafort's business associate, Kremlin agent Konstantin Kilimnick.

5/ Why did Donald Trump suddenly convene a NatSec meeting 3 days after he finally hired Manafort? Why did he issue a pro-Kremlin directive at that meeting that Manafort's camp would later take credit for? What did Manafort tell Trump in the days leading up to that NatSec meeting?
POLITICS
Jennifer Cohn \u270d\U0001f3fb \U0001f4e2
Jennifer Cohn ✍🏻 📢...
@jennycohn1
Rs made gains in state legislatures in 2020. Even where manual audits are conducted, they rarely include state races. 😢

“Ds spent big to take control of state legislatures but lost their key targets. Now they’ll be on the sidelines as new maps are drawn”

I reported on the sorry state of election auditing laws in the US in this pre-election piece for @NYRDaily. This must change. #RobustManualAuditsNOW
1/

2/ “Earlier this year, ... Republicans blocked federal legislation, the SAFE Act, which would have required such [manual] audits for most federal races.”

3/ “America’s preeminent election-auditing expert, Philip Stark, a professor of statistics at...UCB, told me a few weeks ago that “only a few jurisdictions currently audit elections in a way that has a good chance of catching and correcting wrong reported outcomes.” @philipbstark

4/ “That requires a trustworthy paper trail—primarily hand-marked paper ballots kept demonstrably secure throughout the election and the audit—and [what is known as] a risk-limiting audit using that paper trail.” #HandMarkedPaperBallots
POLITICS
Annika Brockschmidt
Annika Brockschmidt
@ardenthistorian
Here we go. Tag 4 des Impeachments. Trumps Verteidigung.


Es wird argumentiert, dass Trump nur habe sicherstellen wollen, dass die Wahl fair abgelaufen sei. Die Verteidigung zeigt Clips einzelner Demokraten, die der Zertifizierung von Trumps Stimmen 2016 widersprechen. (Dass es 2016 keinen von Obama gesandten Mob aufs Kapitol gab?Egal!)

Die intellektuelle Unehrlichkeit ist so unfassbar, ich weiß kaum, wo ich hier überhaupt anfangen soll; so viele fucking Strohmänner auf einmal.

Die Verteidigung spielt random Clips, in denen Demokraten “fight” sagen, fast zehn Minuten lang. Weil Trump 20mal am 6. Januar “fight” gesagt hat. Dies ist kein Witz. Komisch, dass sonst die Folge nie war, dass ein Mob das Kapitol gestürmt hat und Pence hängen wollte


“Dieser Fall geht um politischen Hass” Ich mein, ja. “Die House Managers hassen Donald Trump.”

So close.
POLITICS

You May Also Like

Jeannette Ng \u5433\u5fd7\u9e97
Jeannette Ng 吳志麗...
@jeannette_ng
So, you’re a writer and you’re worried about writing outside your immediate experiences and identities.

Here is the thread of practical advice for you.

EXAMINE YOUR MOTIVES. Why do you want to write this?

Are you trying to solve racism/sexism/colonialism with your work?

As writers we love stories about heroic writers whose work has changed the world. And as such we like to look to our own writing to solve societal problems.

And I understand this completely, not the least because I’ve felt the pull.

But if you’re looking to play saviour with your words, it is unlikely that you will do the marginalised people you are trying to save justice.

And I understand this very often comes from place of good intentions, but there is a reason that most of the moralising plays written by white abolitionists are deeply uncomfortable to read.

It is incredibly easy for works looking to play saviour to become patronising or traffic in simplistic stereotypes that ultimately hurt the people they are looking to rescue.
WRITING
Marc K\xf6hlbrugge
Marc Köhlbrugge
@marckohlbrugge
💬 I often get Q’s like these:

How did you get your first customers for WIP? How did you grow BetaList’s traffic? Etc.

Makers are looking to reverse-engineer success. I see it everywhere.

I don’t think it works that way and the answers to those questions are mostly useless. 💥

I have built dozens of different products over the last couple of years. The vast majority failed. 😭

Surely if I know the answers to these questions, but still fail over and over again, these answers aren’t that useful. 🤷‍♀️

So what’s a better question to ask? 🤔

99.9% of the questions I receive are about the products that did well. In a way that makes sense, because we quickly forget about those that didn’t succeed.

🧠 This is known as survivorship bias.

Focusing on what survived, while ignoring what made it survive in the first place.

The real question, what you really want to know, is this:

What makes @WIP, @BetaList, and to some extent @AllStartupJobs succeed where my countless other attempts failed?

What separates a failed product 👎 from a successful product 👍?

Honestly, I don’t know. I wish I did.

It’s like Steve Jobs said “I’ll know it when I see it.” 👀

Same is true when we make products. We don’t know upfront what will work. But once we see an inkling of a product that does have potential, it’s not that hard to spot.
STARTUPS
Advertisement
Justin Jackson
Justin Jackson
@mijustin
A lot of bootstrappers think they have a marketing problem:

"I need to get better at marketing."

But, it's more likely that you have a product problem:

"Do customers really want this? Do they care enough about this to switch to a new solution?"

☝️ this is why most of my book, @marketingdevs, is about:

1. Choosing the right market
2. Building something they want

"If your product is remarkable, getting noticed is a lot easier." – @peldi


I was reminded of this concept again this morning while reading @pjrvs' book (Company of One):

"Sales increase when you honestly evaluate what someone needs and then teach them the value of what you're selling."


To succeed, your product has to offer an outcome that is highly desirable to a large group of customers.

The number of sales your product receives is a multiple of these two variables:

1. How big is the target market?
2. How desirable is the outcome you're offering them?
STARTUPS
Will Buxton
Will Buxton
@wbuxtonofficial
The Haas / Force India argument is fascinating, and the decision of the stewards may still have consequences. The first key finding is that the stewards ruled Racing Point Force India to be a valid constructor. That means that it builds its own cars.

Haas had argued that the cars had been designed by Force India, but as Haas knows only too well, "outsourcing" is legal. The stewards decided that "there is no regulatory support for the argument that Outsourcing of Listed Parts cannot come from a former or excluded team."

In determining this, the stewards also came to the following conclusion: "In relation to the submission by the Racing Point Force India F1 Team that it is not a new team, the Stewards decide that the Racing Point Force India F1 Team is indeed a new team."

This will have a big knock on effect for Haas in its continued arguments over the rights of RPFI as relates to its eligibility and rights under the complex payments structure. Haas has argued all along that RPFI should be treated as a new team and tread the same path that it did.

TLDR? Haas lost the fight but may have won the war. In having its argument that Racing Point hadn't designed their own car thrown out, they gained clarification that RPFI was a new team.
SPORT
Brittany Packnett
Brittany Packnett
@MsPackyetti
We should stop confusing what someone was doing when we became aware of them with all they are capable of, interested in, or ever hope to be

Let folks have their many talents, interests and gifts. Life is far more fun with variety, loves.

A lot of folks have come to know me as an activist & I’m grateful that folks care to know me at all.

But I wasn’t born in 2014. I was a whole teacher, executive, policy person, speaker, arts and culture lover, reader, writer, woman of faith, fashion and more before 4 yrs ago 🤷🏾‍♀️

We rightfully complain that marginalized people are not allowed to be fully human.

But we internalize and transfer our oppression daily. It’s a smog. We all breathe it in & act it out.

And then tell WoC “girl ain’t you supposed to be a _______? Why you doing ____?”

Can I live?

And don’t go reading anything personal into this-this isn’t about me necessarily and it’s no subtweet (I try hard not to do that.)

I’ve just been observing that behavior more and more lately. Especially when it comes to marginalized folks.

Evolution should be our aspiration.

“Can’t knock the hustle” should be our anthem.

As long as someone isn’t bringing active and continual harm, why can’t they explore their many sides?
SOCIETY