My sincerest hope is that yesterday's abhorred invasion of white entitlement has taught the politicians who encouraged and enabled it that their political theatrics aren't a joke.

(THREAD) The Whitaker scandal is deepening, as it becomes clear that Sessions' Russia recusal was a coordinated sham and his firing an act of obstruction—and that his replacement is a White House plant inside the Mueller probe. I hope you'll retweet and read on for more details.

1/ From 2014-17 Whitaker worked for World Patent Marketing—which during his tenure defrauded consumers out of $26 million and was successfully prosecuted by the feds. His involvement in the scam confirmed he had loose morals and that the feds would never want to employ him again.

2/ Despite the seeming impossibility of a man with Whitaker's background getting a job at Justice ever again—he'd been found to have used his former title as a US attorney to fraudulently threaten consumers with valid complaints with criminal penalties—Whitaker found an opening.

3/ Within 60 days of parachuting out of World Patent Marketing as it was being fined $26 million by the feds, Whitaker was working for CNN and telling a fellow attorney panelist that his purpose in working for CNN was to get noticed by one man—Donald Trump—and thereby get a job.

4/ Whitaker spent his time at CNN making ludicrous statements about the Mueller probe: there was no obstruction or collusion, he said; Mueller had no authority to look into any aspect of Trump's finances or to subpoena him, he said. All the while, he hoped Trump was watching him.

- Jim
- Yes, Border
- What are you doing?
- Just standing here
- I see that. And I don’t mind, but it’s just that you said you were Leaving
- I am
- ... two years ago. And you’ve been standing there since then
- Doing nothing
- Doing, as you say, nothing
- I’m Leaving
- Ok, Jim

- Still here so, Jim?
- I am, Border
- But you’re still ...
- Leaving. 100%. Leaving.
- Do you not feel like a bit a prick, Jim, you know saying you’re Leaving but then
- Standing here for two years in the open air doing absolutely zilch?
- That’s it, Jim
- I’m Leaving
- Ok, Jim

- Jim
- Yes, Border
- Have you thought about how to Leave?
- In what way?
- Moving is not really my area of expertise, but just off the top of my head, you could go that way👉, or that way👈. You could 🚶‍♂️or🏃🏼‍♂️or even✈️
- You’re being difficult now. I’m Leaving
- Ok, Jim

- Border
- Jim
- This is quite boring, isn’t it?
- It is that
- Did you ever hear tell of a lad called Samuel Beckett, Border?
- Oh aye. Went to school round here. Quiet lad
- ...
- Still Leaving, Jim?
- Still Leaving, Border
- Ok, Jim

- Looking forward to Leaving, Jim?
- Oh yes
- Why?
- The weather
- The weather?
- It’s going to be sunny
- Sunny?
- Yes. And uphill
- Uplands is the word, I think, Jim
- Yes. Funny uphills
- Sunny uplands, Jim
- That’s it. I’m Leaving
- Ok, Jim

Met a Brazilian-American Lyft driver from San Diego who passionately attacked the racism of Republicans, then switched to passionately defending Bolsonaro.

If I were Thomas Friedman, I could tell you what this means.

Met a Haitian-American in a restaurant who said he'd always vote for Democrats because of the immigration issue, but that he has conservative beliefs too. "I don't want to pay for someone's abortion!", he declared.

Met a Latino Lyft driver from San Jose who said that while he was liberal, California was getting too liberal for him and he was considering moving to San Antonio.

Again, not being Tom Friedman, I am unable to offer any commentary on the political and policy implications of these conversations.

I guess my only thought is that political opinions are pretty complex and multidimensional, out there in the real world.

(end)

Thread. 1) Thirty or forty years ago, supporting free speech was understood to be a non-negotiable core value of the liberal left.

2) Pop culture endlessly celebrated liberalism’s uncompromising support of speech rights — from The People Vs. Larry Flynt to Field of Dreams to The American President.

3) Think of “President Shepard’s” speech in “The American President” about how “America isn’t easy” and citizenship requires we “acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil.”

4) That started to change long before Trump. As “The American President” came out, Bill Clinton was pushing the first Internet censorship laws.

When the PATRIOT Act passed, every Democrat but one in both houses voted yes. Russ Feingold, Independent Bernie Sanders, and three Republicans voted no.

We promised people that if we won the Senate, we would send out $2,000 survival checks. They delivered us to victory—and now we MUST deliver.

“Targeting” checks to a smaller group fails to do that. People need help like never before, and we must put money in their pockets.

“Targeting” checks isn’t just bad for people, it’s bad policy too! It’s not humane, it's not smart, it’s not effective, and it’s not even fiscally responsible. Not to mention that it doesn't meet the scale of this crisis.

Help me spread the word about 4 obvious reasons why:

1⃣The survival checks often use 2019 tax data to measure someone’s income.

Millions lost their jobs in 2020 due to COVID—that’s the whole point of this relief!—and therefore their income from 1 or 2 years ago is no longer accurate. They need help now and we must provide it.

Even if someone isn’t one of the nearly 1 million additional people losing their job EVERY single week, they likely lost hours and therefore had their overall income significantly reduced.

By “targeting,” we cut out people who are desperately in need of help.

2⃣The data from people who filed for unemployment shows that more than 20% of those earning between $50k and $70k were still food insecure.

That's up 16% from 2019—and it's why food banks have such long lines. We need to put money in their pockets so they can feed their family.