What if the internet was run by women? – BBC

They might also have the option of using a pseudonym on their accounts. Most other platforms already allow for this, but "at present, Facebook still needs to know your real name", says Anja Kovacs, director of the Internet Democracy Project, a Delhi-based NGO. However "there's plenty of evidence that this harms vulnerable people", she says. For example, a transgender woman who's in the middle of transitioning, or a person in India who might be targeted because of their caste. Some research indicates that anonymity can actually lead to better behaviour online.

In 2015 Facebook announced a compromise to its real-name policy to allow some members to request to use pseudonyms if they could show they have a "special circumstance", but they would still need to verify their true identity. Campaign groups have criticised the step as it requires people who are potentially vulnerable to reveal intimate details of their personal lives.

A spokesperson for Facebook says that a real name is required on its site to prevent impersonation and identify misrepresentation: "Ourauthenticity policiesare intended to create a safe environment where people can trust and hold one another accountable."

Webb, however, believes this position is short-sighted.

"If you're a white man in Silicon Valley or Silicon Roundabout in London, if you've never experienced anything from small microaggressions up to very severe violence throughout your life, then it's not your natural tendency to think about those things when designing technologies," she says.

But women and minorities bear the brunt of online abuse. Overall, nearly six in 10 women worldwide experience some form of online violence, as a 2020 survey of more than 14,000 young women from 22 countries found.

Another study of more than 1,600 revenge porn cases revealed that 90% of victims were women.

And in 2020, a Pew Research Center poll found that women in the US were three times more likely than men to face sexual harassment online. Seven in 10 lesbian, gay or bisexual adults experienced abuse, compared with four in 10 straight adults. And more than half (54%) of black or Hispanic targets believed race was a driving factor for their harassment, versus 17% of white targets.

Because of these disparities, women and minorities are more likely to "think of edge cases" where groups of people might be overlooked, "foresee problems, and predict the ways in which technologies might be misused", says Webb.

Had they been in charge of creating the internet, they may well have prioritised safety measures. And they might have done so from the start. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit, for example, now ban revenge porn on their sites. But they only did so in 2015 roughly a decade since their respective launches after facing pressure from leading female activists, says Chander. "That should have been the policy from the very start."

None of the platforms the BBC contacted were willing to explain why it had taken 10 years to implement the policies.

Link:

What if the internet was run by women? - BBC

January 6 testimony puts Donald Trump in even greater legal peril – The Guardian US

Donald Trump and his two closest advisers could face widening criminal exposure over the Capitol attack after ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified about their potentially unlawful conduct to the House January 6 select committee at a special hearing on Thursday.

The testimony revolved around the disclosure one of several major revelations from Hutchinson that the former president directed supporters to descend on the Capitol even though he knew they were armed and probably intended to cause harm.

Hutchinson testified under oath that Trump was deeply angered by the fact that some of his supporters who had gathered on the National Mall were not entering the secure perimeter for the Save America rally at the Ellipse where he was due to make remarks.

The supporters did not want to enter the secure perimeter, Hutchinson testified, because many were armed with knives, blades, pepper spray and, as it later turned out, guns, and did not want to surrender their weapons to the Secret Service to attend the rally.

I dont fucking care that they have weapons. Theyre not here to hurt me, Trump exclaimed in an extraordinary outburst of fury, according to Hutchinson. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away.

The response from the former president is significant for two main reasons: it makes clear that he had been informed that his supporters were carrying weapons, and that he knew those armed people intended to make a non-permitted march to the Capitol.

Trump then took the stage at the Save America rally and told his supporters both there at the Ellipse and around the Washington monument that he would march to the Capitol with them giving them the strongest incentive to descend on the joint session of Congress.

The former president additionally made the comments, Hutchinson said, despite the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, desperately trying to stop Trump and Trumps chief of staff, Mark Meadows, going to the Capitol for fear of potential legal exposure.

Were going to get charged with every crime imaginable, if Trump went to the Capitol, Hutchinson said Cipollone told her the morning of January 6, alluding to obstruction of an official proceeding and defrauding the United States.

The legal analysis from Cipollone was prescient: the select committee, even before hearing from Hutchinson for the first time earlier this year in closed-door depositions, has argued Trump and his top advisers violated multiple federal laws over January 6.

At the special hearing, Hutchinson also revealed that Trumps then attorney Rudy Giuliani and Meadows expressed an interest in receiving pre-emptive presidential pardons in the immediate aftermath of the Capitol attack.

The disclosure from Hutchinson marked a new degree of apparent consciousness of guilt among Trumps closest advisers in addition to that of at least half a dozen Republican congressmen and the Trump lawyer John Eastman or fear that they might have committed a crime.

In raising Giulianis interest in a pardon, Hutchinson also testified that Trumps former attorney may have also been central to a crime with respect to his seeming knowledge of what the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups were planning for January 6.

Oath Keepers and Proud Boys were words heard at the White House when Giuliani was around the complex in the days before the Capitol attack, Hutchinson testified at the hearing.

The new connection between Giuliani and the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys raised the spectre that the former presidents then attorney was broadly aware of the intentions of two far-right groups whose senior members have since been indicted for seditious conspiracy.

Meanwhile, on the eve of the Capitol attack, Trump asked Meadows to speak to the far-right political operative Roger Stone and Trumps former national security adviser Michael Flynn, which Meadows did, according to Hutchinsons testimony.

The former presidents chief of staff then repeatedly raised the prospect of travelling to the Trump war room at the Willard hotel in Washington DC, though Meadows ultimately demurred and ended up calling the Trump war room instead, Hutchinson testified.

The Guardian first reported last year that from the White House, Trump then called Giuliani and a cadre of lawyers working at the Trump war room at the Willard and discussed ways to stop the certification of Joe Bidens election win.

Meadowss connection to the Trump war room appears to be as significant as Giuliani discussing the far-right groups, not least because the Willard was also the base for both Stone, who has ties to the Proud Boys, and Flynn, who previously worked with the Oath Keepers.

The select committees vice-chair, Liz Cheney, ended the special hearing with evidence of potential attempted witness tampering by people apparently close to the former president. In one mafia-style call, one witness was warned that Trump knew they would remain loyal.

Continued here:

January 6 testimony puts Donald Trump in even greater legal peril - The Guardian US

Donald Trump: A President Untethered – The New York Times

WASHINGTON He flung his lunch across the room, smashing the plate in a fit of anger as ketchup dripped down the wall. He appeared to endorse supporters who wanted to hang his own vice president. And in a scene laid out by a former aide that seemed more out of a movie than real life, he tried to wrestle away the steering wheel of his presidential vehicle and lunged at his own Secret Service agent.

Former President Donald J. Trump has never been seen as the most stable occupant of the Oval Office by almost anyone other than himself, but the breathtaking testimony presented by his former aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, at Tuesdays House select committee hearing portrayed an unhinged commander in chief veering wildly out of control as he desperately sought to cling to power and egged on armed supporters to help make it happen.

The president that emerged from her account was volatile, violent and vicious, single-minded in his quest to overturn an election he lost no matter what anyone told him, anxious to head to the Capitol to personally disrupt the constitutional process that would finalize his defeat, dismissive of warnings that his actions could lead to disaster and thoroughly unbothered by the prospect of sending to Congress a mob of supporters that he knew included people armed with deadly weapons.

A president who liked to describe himself as a very stable genius was anything but that as Ms. Hutchinson observed in those final, frenzied days of his time in office. Hers was not a description that surprised many of those who worked for Mr. Trump and had seen him up close in the preceding four years, or for that matter, many who had known him in the decades that preceded his life in politics. But hearing her recount it all under oath, on live television, brought home how much Mr. Trump and his White House spiraled in its perilous last chapter.

This is f-ing crazy, Pat A. Cipollone, his White House counsel, declared at one point on Jan. 6, 2021, as Ms. Hutchinson recalled it, when Mr. Trump was busy castigating Vice President Mike Pence rather than trying to call off the attack on the Capitol.

Mr. Cipollone was not the only one who thought so. By Ms. Hutchinsons account, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other members of the Cabinet were so concerned about Mr. Trumps behavior that they discussed invoking the 25th Amendment, used to remove a president deemed unable to discharge his duties.

Mr. Trump, who regularly accuses his critics of being crazy and psycho, bombarded his new social media site during the hearing on Tuesday with posts assailing Ms. Hutchinson and denying the most sensational anecdote she provided to the committee.

Her Fake story that I tried to grab the steering wheel of the White House Limousine in order to steer it to the Capitol Building is sick and fraudulent, very much like the Unselect Committee itself, Mr. Trump wrote on his Truth Social website. Her story of me throwing food is also false.

A Secret Service spokesman said in a statement that the agency would respond on the record to the House committee about Ms. Hutchinsons account of what happened in the armored car.

Secret Service officials who requested anonymity to discuss the potential testimony said that both Robert Engel, the head of Mr. Trumps protective detail, and the driver of Mr. Trumps sport utility vehicle were prepared to state under oath that neither man was assaulted by the former president and that he did not reach for the wheel. The officials said the two men would not dispute the allegation that Mr. Trump wanted to go to the Capitol.

Ms. Hutchinson did not witness the scene in the vehicle herself but said she was informed about it moments later by Anthony Ornato, the presidents deputy chief of staff and a former Secret Service agent, with Mr. Engel present in the room and not disputing it.

Either way, other veterans of the Trump White House who have broken with the former president said Ms. Hutchinsons testimony resonated with their own experiences. Mr. Trump was prone to temper tantrums, slamming his hands down on his desk and screaming at advisers he considered insufficiently loyal. As Ms. Hutchinson said, his destruction of dishware during an outburst following the election was hardly the first time he had taken his wrath out on the White House china.

His temper was scary. And swift, Stephanie Grisham, who served as his White House press secretary and communications director and as Melania Trumps chief of staff, said after the hearing on Tuesday. Hed snap and almost lose control.

She related a number of examples in her tell-all book published after she left office, and noted that when Mr. Trump descended into rage, his staff resorted to summoning an aide, nicknamed the Music Man, to play favorite show tunes they knew would soothe him, including Memory from the Broadway musical Cats.

June 28, 2022, 8:20 p.m. ET

Other presidents have exhibited erratic behavior behind the scenes, from Andrew Jackson to Lyndon B. Johnson. Richard M. Nixon threw an ashtray across the room upon learning of the Watergate break-in, and on another occasion was seen shoving his own press secretary. In the days of scandal that led up to his resignation, Nixon drank, talked to the paintings of past presidents and seemed so unstable that his defense secretary ordered generals not to carry out any orders he issued without checking with him or the secretary of state first.

Even so, its hard to imagine any other president accosting his own Secret Service agent, in a vain attempt to turn his vehicle toward the Capitol, so that he could march into the House chamber to object to his own election defeat.

We never know everything that goes on behind closed doors at the White House, and presidential history is replete with boorish behavior, said Jeffrey A. Engel, founding director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. But Im hard pressed to think of any previous instance when a president physically assaulted, or even threatened, someone charged with keeping them safe.

Mark K. Updegrove, president of the L.B.J. Foundation and author of Incomparable Grace, a new book about John F. Kennedy, said he was unable to come up with a historical comparison. Johnson and Nixon could be volatile emotionally, but nothing approaching physical violence, he said. Like almost everything else with Trump, this is utterly unprecedented.

One who might know would be John Dean, the White House counsel whose own testimony during the Watergate era helped bring down Nixon. Cassidys testimony makes clear that Trump is prone to tantrums, like an undisciplined child, he said after the hearing. I cant tell from her testimony if theyre controlled or uncontrolled. I suspect at his age theyre controlled tantrums.

Mr. Trumps mental state was a regular issue throughout his four years in office and the notion of declaring him unfit to serve through the application of the 25th Amendment came up inside his own administration even in its early months.

Bookshelves were filled with volumes speculating about his psychological health. His speech patterns were analyzed for signs of dementia. His own niece, Mary L. Trump, a clinical psychologist, declared that he had so many pathologies and demonstrates sociopathic tendencies. At one point during the 2020 campaign, he took a cognitive test to prove his mental acuity, reciting in order, Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.

Some advisers came to the conclusion that Mr. Trump deteriorated after losing the election to Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Nov. 3. Former Attorney General William P. Barr, whose public statement on Dec. 1 that there was no evidence the election was stolen prompted Mr. Trump to attack his lunch, told the House committee that the president seemed increasingly unbalanced.

I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has lost contact with hes become detached from reality, Mr. Barr testified.

The reality conveyed by Ms. Hutchinson, a top aide to Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, became more disturbing on the day that Congress convened to count the Electoral College votes confirming Mr. Trumps defeat. He lashed out and gave every indication that he knew the crowd of supporters he had gathered on the Ellipse included some bent on violence. Told that some trying to attend his rally were armed, he snapped that the Secret Service should remove its magnetometers and let them in.

You know, I dont f-ing care that they have weapons, Mr. Trump said in Ms. Hutchinsons telling of the episode. Theyre not here to hurt me. Take the f-ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the f-ing mags away.

The fact that he then told them to march to the Capitol, knowing they were armed, did not daunt him in the least, as far as she could tell.

He wanted to go with them and told the crowd that he would, even though advisers had pronounced it a phenomenally bad idea. Were going to get charged with every crime imaginable if he headed to the Capitol, Mr. Cipollone had warned a few days earlier.

When Mr. Trump climbed into the armored presidential sport utility vehicle after his speech on the Ellipse, the Secret Service began to take him back to the White House, prompting him to erupt. Im the f-ing president. Take me up to the Capitol now, he ordered.

Robert Engel, the lead agent, told him he had to go back to the West Wing. At that point, according to the account Ms. Hutchinson later heard, the president reached up toward the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm. Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel, the agent reportedly said. Were going back to the West Wing. Were not going to the Capitol.

According to the version relayed to Ms. Hutchinson, Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge toward the agent at his clavicle. But it did not make a difference.

The president was taken back to the White House, where he watched the action of the rest of the day on television upset not at the violence unleashed in his name but at its failure to change the election outcome.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.

Read more here:

Donald Trump: A President Untethered - The New York Times

Donald Trump extends victory lap over Roe – Washington Times

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday extended his victory lap following the Supreme Courts decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which he said was made possible by the three conservative justices he nominated.

Mr. Trump called the ruling a victory for the rule of law and, above all, a victory for life.

I promised to nominate judges and justices who would stand up for the original meaning of the Constitution and who would honestly and faithfully interpret the law as written, the former president said at a campaign-style rally in Illinois. We got almost 300 federal judges and three great Supreme Court justices confirmed to do exactly that.

Mr. Trump nominated three of the six justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett who joined the majority in Fridays 6-3 ruling.

His remarks Saturday follow a similar sentiment conveyed in a statement by Mr. Trump through his political action committee soon after the ruling.

I did not cave to the Radical Left Democrats, their partners in the Fake News Media, or the RINOs who are likewise the true, but silent, enemy of the people, he said.

Democrats have turned the decision into a campaign rallying cry, urging voters to flood the polls and give Congress the needed votes to restore the protections from the Roe ruling.

Voters need to make their voices heard. This fall we must elect more senators and representatives who can codify the womans right to choose into federal law, President Biden said from the White House on Friday. Congress must act. With your vote, you can have the final word.

Mr. Biden lamented the ruling that overturned the 1973 Roe decision as an ideological remnant of his predecessor.

It was three justices, named by one president, Donald Trump, who was at the core of todays decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate the fundamental rights of women in this country, he said.

Make no mistake, this decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law, he said. Its a realization of extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Trump on Saturday was unmoved by the threats of an energized Democratic base.

As for the Republican Party, we are today the party of life and we are the party of everyone, he said. Were the party of everyone.

Read the original post:

Donald Trump extends victory lap over Roe - Washington Times

Trump chief of staff said the president thought Pence ‘deserves’ chants of ‘hang Mike Pence’ on Jan. 6, ex-aide testifies – CNBC

A noose is seen on makeshift gallows as supporters of US President Donald Trump gather on the West side of the US Capitol in Washington DC on January 6, 2021.

Andrew Caballero-Reynolds | AFP | Getty Images

When former President Donald Trump heard his supporters chanting "hang Mike Pence" during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, White House aides said he told them the vice president "deserves" it, according to a former White House aide who testified Tuesday to what she saw and heard during the weeks surrounding the attack.

The jaw-dropping remarks came during the sixth public hearing by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol by a violent pro-Trump mob.

Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to then-chief of staff Mark Meadows, in sworn testimony recounted her experience witnessing Meadows and another top official, White House counsel Pat Cipollone, discussing Trump's reaction as the riot unfolded.

At the White House, Cipollone told Meadows, "The rioters have gotten to the capitol, Mark. We need to go down and see the president now," Hutchinson testified.

Meadows replied, "He doesn't want to do anything, Pat," Hutchinson said.

Cipollone shot back, essentially saying that something must be done or "people are going to die and the blood's going to be on your effing hands," Hutchinson said.

Meadows and Cipollone both walked toward the Oval Office dining room. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, then called asking for Meadows, Hutchinson testified. She said she went to the dining room to give the phone to Meadows, who took the call with the door ajar. Hutchinson said that in the background, she could hear conversations about the chants of "hang Mike Pence" that had sprung up among some of the rioters.

Hutchinson said she returned to her desk and Meadows and Cipollone appeared minutes later.

"I remember Pat saying something to the effect of, 'Mark, we need to do something more. They're literally calling for the vice president to be effing hung,'" Hutchinson testified.

"Mark had responded something to the effect of, 'You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn't think they're doing anything wrong,'" Hutchinson said.

She told the committee, "I understood 'they're' to bethe rioters in the Capitol that were chantingfor the vice president to be hung."

Trump, who was responding to Hutchinson's testimony in real time on his social media platform Truth Social, angrily lashed out following her recollections from inside the White House.

"I NEVER SAID, 'MIKE PENCE DESERVES IT (to be hung)," Trump wrote. "Another made up statement by a third rate social climber!"

Hutchinson's counsel said in a statement to NBC News that while the former White House aide "did not seek out the attention accompanying her testimony today, she believes that it was her duty and responsibility to provide the Committee with her truthful and candid observations of the events surrounding January 6."

"Ms. Hutchinson believes that January 6 was a horrific day for the country, and it is vital to the future of our democracy that it not be repeated," read the statement from her counsel Jody HuntandWilliam Jordan of law firm Alston and Bird.

Read the rest here:

Trump chief of staff said the president thought Pence 'deserves' chants of 'hang Mike Pence' on Jan. 6, ex-aide testifies - CNBC

Who Was Willing to Stand with Donald Trump? – The New Yorker

The chair of the January 6th committee, Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, was born into segregation in the Delta town of Bolton, Mississippi, population five hundred and twenty-one, a part of the country where people justify the actions of slavery, Ku Klux Klan, and lynching, as he said during the first hearing. The vice-chair, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, is twenty years younger and the daughter of Vice-President Dick Cheney; she had spent most of the Trump years occupying the third-ranking position in the Republican House leadership, until she was forced to step down in May, 2021, having repeatedly criticized Trump and voted for his impeachment. The scene is straight out of a John Grisham thriller: the slow-speaking Southern judge with a long historical memory, the sharp female prosecutor who is turning against her former political patrons. This is what justicesimple, crowd-pleasing justiceis supposed to look like.

In its focus on the period between the Presidential election on November 3, 2020, and the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the committee has built an account in which successive advisers to the Presidenteach of them representing a portion of his partyturn away from him in disgust, as he tries to sell the badly organized fiction of a stolen election. Those with him on November 3, 2020 were already a self-selecting group of loyalists, given how much of the Party refused to work for Trump in the first place, and how many of his early aides burned out and left. In November, most of the Trump White House lawyers and campaign staff, who saw no major fraud in the election, had consolidated around Team Normal, as the political aide Bill Stepien termed it in his testimony; the Trump camp was arranged around Team Rudy, a few lawyers allied with the former New York mayor Giuliani, who were searching for evidence of fraud that never turned out to be there. In every scene recreated in the hearing room, every heated Oval Office session recounted by a lawyer, every memo highlighted and projected on a screen above the dais, the central question is: Who was with Trump, and who was against him?

But this alignment had a political valence as well. In December, as Trump continued to pursue his election-fraud claims, his Attorney General, Bill Barr, the embodiment of the conservative legal establishments truce with the President, resigned. In Congress, the Republicans clearly with Trump were the members of the right-wing House Freedom Caucusmost prominently, Rep. Jim Jordan, of Ohio, Rep. Paul Gosar, of Arizona, Rep. Louie Gohmert, of Texas, and Rep. Scott Perry, of Pennsylvaniawhose line to the President ran through the White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, formerly the chair of the House Freedom Caucus. The Committee etched another dividing line: among the lawyers, it was Team Normal versus Team Rudy, but among the politicians it was Team Republican Party versus Team Freedom Caucus.

Thursdays hearing centered on a dramatic Oval Office meeting on January 3rd, three days before the insurrection. One attendee was a lawyer at the D.O.J. named Jeff Clark, who helped lead the departments environmental division. Clark had met Trump through Rep. Perry, of the Freedom Caucus, and made clear that he would back the Presidents claimsClark had gone so far as to draft a D.O.J. letter, at Trumps urging, asking the Georgia state legislature to adopt a fake set of electors rather than those fairly won by President Biden. Also at the meeting were acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, who had been running the D.O.J. since Barrs departure, and had refused to send Clarks letter. According to the testimony that Rosen and Donoghue gave on Thursday, the President asked why he should not replace Rosen with Clark, given that Rosen would not do what his Commander-in-Chief wanted. Donoghue told the committee that he had said that Clark was not qualified to either run the Department of Justice or investigate an election-fraud claimhe had never even tried a case. Clark protested that he had led very complicated environmental appeals. In one of the all-time Oval Office disses (assuming it really happened; we only have Donoghues word here), Donoghue said, Thats right. Youre an environmental lawyer. Go back to your office and well call you when theres an oil spill. Trump did not make Clark acting Attorney General; Donoghue advised him that if he did all of his Assistant Attorneys General would resign en masse. Trumps own Department of Justice was against him. What he still had were the Freedom Caucus andseventy-two hours latera mob.

Trumps instincts are not especially sharp these days, and he seemed to recognize very belatedly that the events of January 6th not only put him in legal jeopardy but political peril, too. For a half decade, part of his pitch has been that, however reluctant the Republican establishment seemed, however disgusted it pretended to be with him, it would always come home to him in the end. But, the same week that the January 6th committee emphasized how even the Trump diehards in the White House, in the days before the riot, were fed up with him, a poll of Republican primary voters in New Hampshire put him behind Ron DeSantis. Brit Hume of Fox News emphasized on air that, if the hearings mean Trump does not run in 2024, then the committee will have done the Republican Party a great service, because many Republicans think they cannot win with Trump at the head of the ticket. Speaking with a conservative talk-radio host last week, the former President said that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthys decision to boycott the January 6th committee was very, very foolish since that step had allowed Trumps opponents to pick the members of the committee by themselves, and to shape the story as they saw fit. McCarthy did not respond. He has long bowed to Trump, but he has also been an antagonist of the Freedom Caucus, not a member. Is he still on the former Presidents side?

At some points during the hearings, a slight suspension of narrative disbelief has been required. Among the many former Trump staffers who have been obviously disgusted by him, none has been so disgusted as the White House lawyer Eric Herschmann, who often appears by Zoom with a black baseball bat mounted on the wall behind him, emblazoned with the word JUSTICE. (Next to the baseball bat is a large painting of a panda.) Thursdays committee hearing featured Herschmanns description of a conversation with Jeff Clark, the environmental lawyer with dreams of fake electors from Georgia. Herschmann said, When he finished discussing what he planned on doing, I said, Good, fuckingexcuse meeffing A-hole, congratulations. You just admitted that your first step or act youd take as Attorney General would be committing a felony and violating Rule 6C. Some suppressed inner lawyer in me rebelled: Was that a word-for-word renactment, complete with subsectional citation? Was it not just a little self-aggrandizing? But the Mississippi judge and the Washington prosecutor let it slide. They have allowed the Republicans who broke with Trump to tell the story, and have praised them as heroes. Their bravery is a high moment in the sordid story of what led to January 6, Rep. Adam Kinzinger said, on Thursday, speaking of Rosen and Donoghue. As Grisham might have recognized, justice is not the only process under way.

Toward the end of Thursdays hearing, Herschmann and several other White House aides (among them, Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Meadows, and John McEntee, the head of the Office of Presidential Personnel) testified that several members of Congress had contacted the Presidents advisers to see whether he might premptively pardon them, to protect them from any prosecution for their role in January 6th. Rep. Mo Brooks wrote a letter to the White House not only formally requesting a pardon but asking for an all-purpose pardon for the hundred and forty-seven members of the House of Representatives who objected to the certification of the election. But, for the most part, the committee has cast ordinary Republicans as the heroes. The villains were the sixjust sixmembers of Congress who had reportedly requested pardons for themselves: Brooks (who lost a primary for Senate in Alabama); Rep. Matt Gaetz, of Florida (who is facing a federal probe for sex trafficking); Rep. Andy Biggs, of Arizona; Rep. Perry, of Pennsylvania; Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, of Georgia; and Rep. Louie Gohmert, of Texas. It was a sign of just how small the caucus of dead-enders was, and of what political line the hearings have offered to draw for Republicans: civil society on one side, and on the other, the former President, a few lawyers, a half-dozen members of Congress, the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, the mob.

View post:

Who Was Willing to Stand with Donald Trump? - The New Yorker

January 6 committee focuses on phone calls among Trumps children and aides – The Guardian US

The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack is closely focused on phone calls and conversations among Donald Trumps children and top aides captured by a documentary film-maker weeks before the 2020 election, say sources familiar with the matter.

The calls among Trumps children and top aides took place at an invitation-only event at the Trump International hotel in Washington that took place the night of the first presidential debate on 29 September 2020, the sources said.

The select committee is interested in the calls, the sources said, since the footage is understood to show the former presidents children, including Donald Jr and Eric Trump, privately discussing strategies about the election at a crucial time in the presidential campaign.

House investigators first learned about the event, hosted by the Trump campaign, and the existence of the footage through British film-maker Alex Holder, who testified about what he and his crew recorded during a two-hour interview last week, the sources said.

The film-maker testified that he had recorded around seven hours of one-to-one interviews with Trump, then-vice president Mike Pence, Trumps adult children and Trumps son-in-law Jared Kushner, the sources said, as well as around 110 hours of footage from the campaign.

But one part of Holders testimony that particularly piqued the interest of the members of the select committee and chief investigative counsel Tim Heaphy was when he disclosed that he had managed to record discussions at the 29 September event.

The select committee is closely focused on the footage of the event in addition to the content of the one-on-one interviews with Trump and Ivanka because the discussions about strategies mirror similar conversations at that time by top Trump advisors.

On the night of the first presidential debate, Trumps top former strategist Steve Bannon said in an interview with The Circus on Showtime that the outcome of the election would be decided at the state level and eventually at the congressional certification on January 6.

Theyre going to try and overturn this election with uncertified votes, Bannon said. Asked how he expects the election to end, Bannon said: Right before noon on the 20th, in a vote in the House, Trump will win the presidency.

The select committee believes that ideas such as Bannons were communicated to advisers to Donald Jr and his fiancee, Kimberly Guilfoyle, even before the 2020 election had taken place, the sources said leading House investigators to want to review the Trump hotel footage.

What appears to interest the panel is whether Trump and his children had planned to somehow stop the certification of the election on January 6 a potential violation of federal law and to force a contingent election if Trump lost as early as September.

The event was not open to the public, Holder is said to have testified, and the documentary film-maker was waved into the Trump hotel by Eric Trump. At some point after Holder caught the calls on tape, he is said to have been asked to leave by Donald Jr.

Among the conversations captured on film was Eric Trump on the phone to an unidentified person saying, according to one source familiar: Hopefully youre voting in Florida as opposed to the other state youve mentioned.

The phone call a clip of which was reviewed by the Guardian was one of several by some of the people closest to Trump that Holder memorialized in his film, titled Unprecedented, which is due to be released in a three-part series later this year on Discovery+.

Holder also testified to the select committee, the sources said, about the content of the interviews. Holder interviewed Trump in early December 2020 at the White House, and then twice a few months after the Capitol attack both at Mar-a-Lago and his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey.

The select committee found Holders testimony and material more explosive than they had expected, the sources said. Holder, for instance, showed the panel a discrepancy between Ivanka Trumps testimony to the panel and Holders camera.

In her interview in December 2020, the New York Times earlier reported, Ivanka said her father should continue to fight until every legal remedy is exhausted because people were questioning the sanctity of our elections.

That interview was recorded nine days after former attorney general William Barr told Trump there was no evidence of election fraud. But in her interview with the select committee, Ivanka said she had accepted what Barr had said.

Read this article:

January 6 committee focuses on phone calls among Trumps children and aides - The Guardian US

Trump’s circle urged him to stop violence at Capitol on Jan. 6 – Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON

Members of then-President Trumps circle of supporters, including his son Donald Trump Jr., pleaded with him to stop the violence on Jan. 6, 2021, indicating that they knew the former president had a key role in inciting the insurrection, according to evidence presented Tuesday by the House select panel investigating the Capitol insurrection.

Fox News host and conservative commentator Laura Ingraham texted Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Jan. 6 that the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home.

This is hurting all of us, Ingraham said in a series of text messages that day lambasting Trumps actions. He is destroying his legacy and playing into every stereotype... we lose all credibility against the BLM/Antifa crowd if things go south.

Donald Trump Jr. also texted Meadows, telling him that his father needed to [condemn] this st. Asap. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough.

In addition, Fox News host Sean Hannity texted Meadows, asking him if Trump could make a statement...Ask people to peacefully leave the Capitol.

Many Republican representatives including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California made public statements statements condemning the violence and asked Trump to put an end to it.

He did not do so, until later, much later, Jan. 6 committee Vice Chair Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said at Tuesdays hearing. At 4:17 p.m., Trump finally told rioters to go home, and that he loved them.

The House panel played a clip of Trump, addressing the rioters.

We love you, youre very special, he said. I know how you feel but go home and go home in peace.

Read the original:

Trump's circle urged him to stop violence at Capitol on Jan. 6 - Los Angeles Times

Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and the standard double standard – The Boston Globe

And it has delivered. The testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, the aide to Donald Trumps chief of staff Mark Meadows, was bombshell after bombshell.

It showed that Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani knew the Jan. 6 rally would lead to violence at the Capitol. Giuliani crowed about it four days before the rally. Trump knew the crowd was carrying weapons, but wanted security removed so more of those armed rubes could crowd around the stage and adore him.

In a scene right out of a movie, Trump tried to wrest control of the steering wheel in his limo so he could join the armed, jacked-up mob marching toward the Capitol.

Get Metro Headlines

The 10 top local news stories from metro Boston and around New England delivered daily.

Given what the House committee has established, based almost entirely on the testimony of Republicans such as Hutchinson, how can Trump and Giuliani and others in that administration avoid criminal charges at this point?

But then, given what theyve gotten away with so far, why would they worry?

On Sunday, the erstwhile presidents erstwhile lawyer Rudy Giuliani was holding court in a supermarket on Staten Island, campaigning for his son, who is running for governor in New York, when a supermarket employee named Daniel Gill walked up, slapped Giuliani on the back, and said, Whats up, scumbag?

Now, the back slap was uncalled for, the language unnecessarily profane. Gill apparently was upset with the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and held Giuliani somewhat responsible for working for an administration that has cemented a conservative bloc on the court.

But what followed, in a country where justice isnt blind so much as its arbitrary, was revealing. Giuliani insisted Gill be arrested and the NYPD duly charged him with assault with intent to cause physical injury, harassment in the second degree, and menacing in the third degree. Gills lawyers said he was held in custody for more than 24 hours.

Giuliani went on Curtis Sliwas radio show and said the back slap felt like somebody shot me.

He could have killed me, Giuliani said.

A video of the incident shows something considerably less serious than that. But thats beside the point.

The point is, some guy making minimum wage at a supermarket in New York is facing the full weight of the law for giving Rudy Giuliani a slap on the back and calling him a name while to date, Giuliani has not faced any consequences for participating in a conspiracy to overthrow a presidential election and ruining the lives of a couple of election workers in Georgia.

At the Jan. 6 committee hearing last week, Georgia election worker Shaye Moss testified that she and her mother were subjected to death threats and widespread harassment after Donald Trump and Giuliani falsely accused them of costing Trump the presidential election by engaging in a plot to count phony ballots for Joe Biden.

Mosss mother, Ruby Freeman, said shes afraid to go to the supermarket. I doubt Rudy is despite his near-death experience at the ShopRite on Staten Island.

Gills lawyers at the Legal Aid Society say one of Giulianis entourage followed and threatened Gill after the confrontation, poking him forcefully in the chest, telling him he was going to be locked up. The chest poke was approximately the same as the back slap, unwanted but did not cause physical injury. One gets charged, the other gets bupkis.

Daniel Gill was wrong. He shouldnt have put his hands on Rudy Giuliani. But hes being held accountable for his actions.

When will Rudy Giuliani be held accountable for his? When will Donald Trump?

If this country didnt have double standards, it wouldnt have any standards at all.

Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at kevin.cullen@globe.com.

Link:

Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and the standard double standard - The Boston Globe

The Man Helping Drive the Investigation Into Trumps Push to Keep Power – The New York Times

WASHINGTON As the Justice Department expands its criminal investigation into the efforts to keep President Donald J. Trump in office after his 2020 election loss, the critical job of pulling together some of its disparate strands has been given to an aggressive, if little-known, federal prosecutor named Thomas P. Windom.

Since late last year, when he was detailed to the U.S. attorneys office in Washington, Mr. Windom, 44, has emerged as a key leader in one of the most complex, consequential and sensitive inquiries to have been taken on by the Justice Department in recent memory, and one that has kicked into higher gear over the past week with a raft of new subpoenas and other steps.

It is Mr. Windom, working under the close supervision of Attorney General Merrick B. Garlands top aides, who is executing the departments time-tested, if slow-moving, strategy of working from the periphery of the events inward, according to interviews with defense lawyers, department officials and the recipients of subpoenas.

He has been leading investigators who have been methodically seeking information, for example, about the roles played by some of Mr. Trumps top advisers, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and John Eastman, with a mandate to go as high up the chain of command as the evidence warrants.

That element of the inquiry is focused in large part on the so-called fake electors scheme, in which allies of Mr. Trump assembled slates of purported electors pledged to Mr. Trump in swing states won by Joseph R. Biden Jr.

In recent weeks, the focus has shifted from collecting emails and texts from would-be electors in Georgia, Arizona and Michigan to the lawyers who sought to overturn Mr. Bidens victory, and pro-Trump political figures like the head of Arizonas Republican Party, Kelli Ward.

Mr. Windom has also overseen grand jury appearances like the one on Friday by Ali Alexander, a prominent Stop the Steal organizer who testified for nearly three hours. And Mr. Windom, in conjunction with Matthew M. Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been pushing the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack to turn over transcripts of its interviews with hundreds of witnesses in the case spurred on by an increasingly impatient Lisa O. Monaco, Mr. Garlands top deputy, according to people familiar with the matter.

The raid last week on the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who played a key role in Mr. Trumps effort to pressure the department to pursue and back his baseless claims of widespread election fraud, was initiated separately by the departments independent inspector general, since Mr. Clark had been an employee at the time of the actions under scrutiny. So was the apparently related seizure last week of a cellphone from Mr. Eastman, who has been linked by the House committee to Mr. Clarks push to help Mr. Trump remain in office.

But Mr. Windom has been involved in almost all the departments other key decisions regarding the wide-ranging inquiry into Mr. Trumps multilayered effort to remain in office, officials said.

For all of this activity, Mr. Windom remains largely unknown even within the Justice Department, outside of two high-profile cases he successfully brought against white supremacists when he worked out of the departments office in Washingtons Maryland suburbs.

Mr. Windoms bosses appear to be intent on preserving his obscurity: The departments top brass and its press team did not announce his shift to the case from a supervisory role in the U.S. attorneys office in Maryland late last year, and they still refuse to discuss his appointment, even in private.

That might not be a bad thing for Mr. Windom, the latest federal official assigned to investigate the former president and his inner circle, a hazardous job that turned many of his predecessors into targets of the right, forcing some to exit public service with deflated reputations and inflated legal bills.

Dont underestimate how every single aspect of your life will be picked over, looked at, investigated, examined you, your family, everything, said Peter Strzok, who was the lead agent on the F.B.I.s investigation into Mr. Trumps ties to Russia until it was discovered he had sent text messages disparaging Mr. Trump.

You think: Im doing the right thing and that will protect you, added Mr. Strzok, who is still bombarded with threats and online attacks more than three years after being fired. I didnt appreciate that there were going to be people out there whose sole goal is to totally destroy you.

Any investigator scrutinizing Mr. Trump, former prosecutors said, is liable to be marked as an enemy, regardless of the nature of their inquiry. They were out to destroy Trump, and they were members of our, you know, Central Intelligence or our F.B.I., Doug Jensen, 42, a QAnon follower from Iowa who stormed the Capitol, said in an interview with federal authorities, reflecting the views of many right-wing conspiracy theorists about Mr. Strzok and other investigators.

Mr. Windom is overseeing at least two key parts of the Justice Departments sprawling investigation of the Capitol attack, according to grand jury subpoenas obtained by The New York Times and interviews with current and former prosecutors and defense attorneys.

June 28, 2022, 8:20 p.m. ET

One prong of the inquiry is focused on a wide array of speakers, organizers, security guards and so-called V.I.P.s who took part in Mr. Trumps rally at the Ellipse near the White House on Jan. 6. which directly preceded the storming of the Capitol. According to subpoenas, this part of the investigation is also seeking information on any members of the executive or legislative branch who helped to plan or execute the rally, or who tried to obstruct the certification of the election that was taking place inside the Capitol that day a broad net that could include top Trump aides and the former presidents allies in Congress.

Mr. Windoms second objective mirroring one focus of the Jan. 6 committee is a widening investigation into the group of lawyers close to Mr. Trump who helped to devise and promote the plan to create alternate slates of electors. Subpoenas related to this part of the inquiry have sought information about Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Eastman as well as state officials connected to the fake-elector scheme.

One of the witnesses he subpoenaed is Patrick Gartland, a small business coach active in Georgia Republican politics, who turned aside efforts by Trump supporters to recruit him as a Trump elector in late 2020.

On May 5, Mr. Gartland, who was grieving the recent death of his wife, answered his front door to find two F.B.I. agents, who handed him an eight-page subpoena, signed by Mr. Windom. The subpoena, which he shared with The New York Times, asked him to provide emails, other correspondence or any document purporting to to be a certificate certifying elector votes in favor of Donald J. Trump and Michael R. Pence.

Mr. Windoms subpoena sought information about all of Mr. Gartlands interactions and appended a list of 29 names, which represents a road map, of sorts, to his wider investigation in Georgia and beyond.

It included Mr. Giuliani; Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner; Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump White House aide; other staff members and outside legal advisers to Mr. Trump, including Mr. Eastman, Ms. Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro; and a handful of Georgia Republicans whose names were listed on potential elector slates.

At least three of the people listed on the subpoena to Mr. Gartland including David Shafer, the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and Brad Carver, another party official were served similar documents by Mr. Windoms team last week, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

At least seven others not on the list among them Thomas Lane, an official who worked on behalf of Mr. Trumps campaign in Arizona, and Shawn Flynn, a Trump campaign aide in Michigan also received subpoenas, they said.

Mr. Windom, a Harvard alumnus who graduated from the University of Virginias law school in 2005, comes from a well-connected political family in Alabama. His father, Stephen R. Windom, served as the states lieutenant governor from 1999 to 2003, after switching from the Democratic to the Republican Party.

The elder Mr. Windom, who retired from politics after a failed bid to become governor, was known for his earthy sense of humor: In 1999, he admitted to urinating in a jug while presiding over the State Senate chamber during a round-the-clock session, fearful that Democrats would replace him as presiding officer if he took a bathroom break.

His son has a similarly irreverent side, reflected in humor columns he wrote for student publications when he was younger.

In one of them, a brief essay for The Harvard Crimson that ran on Presidents Day in 1998, he professed to be uninterested in the front-page presidential investigation of that era, and oblivious to current events.

I know little about President Clintons current sex scandal or our countrys troubles with Iraq, and I really do not care that much, Mr. Windom wrote. I place much more importance on what I am doing this weekend, why I have not asked that girl out yet or when I am going to have time to exercise tomorrow.

Mr. Windoms later career beginning with his clerkship with Edith Brown Clement, a conservative judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans belied that flippancy. From the start, even as a clerk, he adopted the mind-set of an aggressive prosecutor, writing a law journal article proposing a moderate loosening of a criminal defendants Miranda rights.

Tom was always the go-to guy in the department for the big, important national security cases in and around the Beltway, said Jamie McCall, a former federal prosecutor who worked with Mr. Windom to bring down a white supremacist group known as The Base out of the U.S. attorneys office in Greenbelt, Md., in 2019.

Mr. Windoms exhaustive work on two particular cases brought him to the attention of Mr. Garlands team. One was the trial of The Base in 2020, in which he creatively leveraged federal sentencing guidelines to secure uncommonly lengthy prison terms for the group of white supremacists. The other was the case one year before of Christopher Hasson, a former Coast Guard lieutenant who had plotted to kill Democratic politicians.

But his blunt, uncompromising approach has, at times, chafed his courtroom opponents.

During Mr. Hassons post-trial hearing, Mr. Windom persuaded a federal judge to give Mr. Hasson a stiff 13-year sentence beyond what would typically be given to a defendant pleading guilty to drug and weapons charges as punishment for the violence he had intended to inflict.

During the hearing, Mr. Windom attacked a witness for the defense who argued for leniency; Mr. Hassons court-appointed lawyer at the time who is now the Justice Departments senior pardons attorney said Mr. Windoms behavior was one of the most alarming things that I have heard in my practice in federal court.

Mirriam Seddiq, a criminal defense lawyer in Maryland who opposed Mr. Windom in two fraud cases, said he was a personable but inflexible adversary who sought sentences that, in her view, were unduly harsh and punitive. But Ms. Seddiq said she thought he was well suited to his new job.

If you are going to be a bastard, be a bastard in defense of democracy, she said in an interview.

Adam Goldman and Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.

Continue reading here:

The Man Helping Drive the Investigation Into Trumps Push to Keep Power - The New York Times

Donald Trump Supporters Call on Gay Marriage to Be Overturned Next – Newsweek

A video showing supporters of former President Donald Trump calling on the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States has gone viral on social media.

The comments came after Justice Clarence Thomas said in a concurring opinion to the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last week that the court has "a duty to 'correct the error' established" in rulings like Obergefell.

In the video, Jason Selvig, a member of the comedy duo the Good Liars, speaks to a man and woman wearing Trump apparel. It is not clear where the video was taken but the caption states that Selvig spoke to the pair over the weekend. The footage has so far been viewed over 400,000 times and shows Selvig trying to find out their opinions on the historic overturning of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that secured the right to abortion in the United States.

After the woman said she was against abortion, Selvig asked: "There's been some talk with some people saying we need to protect life, sperm is the seed of life. Would you be in favor of all males who are not married getting vasectomies?"

The man responded "no" to the question, while the woman said: "to each their own."

The video then skipped to when Selvig highlighted Thomas' comments about Obergefell v. Hodges. Selvig asked in the video: "Clarence Thomas, said yesterday, maybe we should take a look at the same-sex marriage ruling. Is that something you think we should look at as well?"

The pair said they did not believe that same-sex couples should be able to get married. Selvig then confirmed whether they would like to see this decision reversed, and the pair agreed. When asked why the female Trump supporter said: "[It is] just how I was brought up and how I believe...It is to each their own, but everyone should have respect in their own biblical sense."

"So, to each their own, but you don't want gay people getting married, and you don't want women choosing what to do with their body?" Selvig said, to which the woman replied "right."

Newsweek reached out to the Good Liars for comment.

See the original post here:

Donald Trump Supporters Call on Gay Marriage to Be Overturned Next - Newsweek

Republican Officials Spent the Weekend Going Full White Supremacist – Vanity Fair

Outright racism has long been a major plank of the Republican Party. But it appears that the Supreme Courts decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and take away a constitutional right of millions of Americansa move that will disproportionately affect Black and brown womenhas emboldened GOP officials to drop whatever lingering apprehension they had about going full white supremacist and just go for it.

At a Saturday rally held by Donald Trumpi.e., a guy who kicked off his first bid for the White House by calling Mexicans rapists and criminals and whose entire brand is racismRep. Mary Miller said into the microphone: President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday. Then she clapped her hands as the audience cheered.

After an onslaught of condemnation, Millers spokesman insisted to the Associated Press that the congresswoman from Illinois had misread her remarks and meant to say the ruling was a victory for the right to life. Yet that explanation would be a lot more believable if Miller didnt have a history of embracing the views of people who are famously about white life. At a Moms for America event last year, the lawmaker told the crowd that Hitler was right on one thing. He said, Whoever has the youth has the future. (She later issued a statement claiming she was sincerely sorry for any harm her words caused.) So youll have to forgive us if we find it hard to believe this was simply a slip of the tongue.

Whats more, Miller undoubtedly knew she was speaking before a group of people who would be receptive to such a point of view, given that Trump was headlining the event. While examples of the ex-president being an unabashed racist could fill several books (or Twitter timelines), a small representative sampling includes starting an entire movement around the lie that the countrys first Black presidentwasnt born here; calling for theexecutionof five Black and Latino teenagers; telling four congresswomen of color to go back to the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came, despite the fact that three quarters of those women came from the U.S.; banningtravelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the U.S.; pardoning a guy who the Justice Department saidoversaw theworst pattern of racial profilingby a law enforcement agency in U.S. history; throwing atotal shit fitover the removal of a statue of a Confederate general who thought Black people should be white peoples property; and reportedly calling white supremacists my people. As Ahmed Baba, a columnist for The Independent, tweeted on Saturday, Whether it was a slip or not, the audience heard white life and didnt flinch. They applauded.

Meanwhile, Miller wasnt the only Republican lawmaker to put racism on full display this weekend. Also on Saturday, Republican Texas senator John Cornynin the view of manycalled for the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling deeming racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. After Barack Obama tweeted that the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologuesattacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans, Cornyn quote-tweeted him and wrote: Now do Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education. (Cornyn has since suggested he was merely noting the importance of long-standing precedent being overturned.)

Read the original post:

Republican Officials Spent the Weekend Going Full White Supremacist - Vanity Fair

Here are all the people who sought preemptive pardons from Donald Trump after the Capitol riot, per January 6 committee witnesses – Yahoo News

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., joined from left by Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., speaks at a news conference on Dec. 7, 2021.J. Scott Applewhite/AP

At least nine people close to Donald Trump reportedly requested preemptive pardons following Jan. 6.

Former Trump aides named six GOP lawmakers while testifying before the Jan. 6 panel this month.

A former aide also said Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani asked the then-president for pardons.

At least six Republican members of Congress requested preemptive pardons from former President Donald Trump in the wake of the Capitol insurrection, according to testimony from former Trump aides last Thursday.

The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, riot has hosted six public hearings so far revealing their findings, which also included public damning testimony from former staffers in the Trump administration.

GOP Reps. Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene were among the six GOP lawmakers also asked Trump to pardon them for their efforts in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

During a surprise hearing on Tuesday, June 28, Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, also testified that former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows were among those who asked the former president for a preemptive pardon after the pro-Trump mob descended upon the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Hutchinson also previously testified that former Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio had discussed pardons with the White House but never asked for one.

On Sunday, Jordan responded to his mention during the hearing, accusing the January 6 House panel of "misrepresenting" a video clip of him saying "the ultimate date of significance is Jan. 6 in a presidential election in determining the winner."

"This committee, I think the country understands, is purely partisan," Jordan said. "And they're frankly not paying much attention to what's being said."

Here are all of the people who sought a pardon from Trump following the Capitol riot, per testimony:

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Hutchinson, who served as a top aide to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows at the time of the insurrection, testified on Tuesday that her former boss asked the president for a preemptive pardon in the wake of the Capitol siege.

Story continues

Rudy Giuliani

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.Spencer Platt/Getty Images

In the surprise public hearing on Tuesday, Hutchinson also alleged that Giuliani asked Trump for a pardon over the January 6 attack.

Media outlets previously reported that Giuliani had also requested a preemptive pardon ahead of the siege in December 2020 related to a criminal probe into whether the former New York City mayor violated foreign lobbying laws through his business dealings in Ukraine.

Giuliani did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona

Rep. Andy Biggs.US House of Representatives

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified in a previous video deposition that Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona was among six GOP lawmakers who requested a pardon from Trump for any connection to the January 6 Capitol attack.

The select committee in May requested that Biggs testify about any communications he'd had with Trump, Trump administration officials, and Stop the Steal rally organizers regarding efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The lawmaker refused to cooperate with the probe and accused the committee of engaging in a "baseless witch hunt."

Following Hutchinson's public allegation that he sought a presidential pardon for January 6, Biggs denied the accusation in a Twitter statement and said the former aide was "mistaken" in her testimony. He accused the panel of "deceptively" editing Hutchinson's words to "make it appear as if I personally asked her" for the pardon.

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama.AP Photo/Vasha Hunt

In the days following the insurrection, Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama requested a blanket pardon not only for himself, but for all 146 GOP members of Congress who objected to the certification of President Joe Biden's 2020 win, per the January 6 committee.

In an email to Molly Michaels, Trump's former White House executive assistant, Brooks asked for "all purpose pardons" for the lawmakers. The January 6 panel earlier this month shared an image of the email with a subject line reading "Pardons."

In the correspondence, Brooks specifically said he was writing on behalf of Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, as well.

In a statement to Insider last week, Brooks confirmed the legitimacy of the email and said he had made the request because there was "concern" that Democrats would prosecute and jail Republicans following January 6.

"Fortunately, with time passage, more rational forces took over and no one was persecuted for performing their lawful duties, which means a pardon was unnecessary after all," he said.

Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida at the White House on May 8, 2020.Anna Moneymaker-Pool/Getty Images

Former Trump aides also named Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida as one of the lawmakers who sought a preemptive pardon related to the Capitol siege and efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election.

Former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann said Gaetz's pardon request covered "from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things," asking for a pardon similar to the one received by President Richard Nixon following the Watergate scandal.

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson also testified that Gaetz's requests for a pardon dated back as early as December 2020 weeks before a mob of Trump supporters laid siege to the US Capitol.

Following the aides' testimony, Gaetz did not deny having asked for a pardon. Instead, he attacked the select committee as "an unconstitutional political sideshow" in a Twitter statement.

Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, listens during a news conference at the Capitol Building on December 07, 2021 in Washington, DC.Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

After former Trump aides testified last Thursday that Gohmert sought a pardon from Trump, the Texas lawmaker denied doing so and accused the January 6 committee of spreading "propaganda."

"I have never sought a pardon for myself and anybody who says otherwise is a liar and possibly a lot worse," Gohmert tweeted last Friday.

Ahead of the Capitol riot in January 2021, GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert attempted to overturn the 2020 election by filing a suit maintaining that former Vice President Mike Pence, not US voters, had the power to decide the presidency.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from GeorgiaTom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Cassidy Hutchinson, the former White House aide, testified that she heard that Greene had asked for a pardon from the White House Counsel's Office following the Capitol riot.

In response, Greene tweeted a clip of Hutchinson's testimony, writing "Saying 'I heard' means you don't know."

"Spreading gossip and lies is exactly what the January 6th Witch Hunt Committee is all about," she wrote in the tweet.

Greene, a staunch Trump ally, has been vocal about disputed claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election, though in July 2021 she was among those who rejected the conspiracy theory that Trump will be reinstated as president in August.

Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania

Republican Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania outside the Capitol on December 3, 2020.Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images

GOP Rep. Liz Cheney, who serves on the January 6 House panel, said during a hearing that Perry had requested a pardon for his role in seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Perry, along with several other Republican lawmakers, has refused to testify before the committee.

According to the January 6 committee, the Pennsylvania Republican played a significant role in the then-president's efforts to stay in power by introducing Trump to sympathetic DOJ official Jeffrey Clark and pushing then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to set in motion a plan to keep Trump in power.

In response, to the allegation, Perry tweeted: "The notion that I ever sought a Presidential pardon for myself or other Members of Congress is an absolute, shameless, and soulless lie."

Lawyer John Eastman

John Eastman testifies before the House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 4, 2013.Charles Dharapak/AP

Conservative lawyer John Eastman, who pushed a plan to overturn the 2020 election results, asked Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to put him on a pardon list following the insurrection, the House Select Committee revealed earlier this month.

"I've decided I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works," Eastman wrote in an email to Giuliani. The committee read the email out loud during a June 16 hearing.

When Eastman was deposed by the committee, he ultimately pleaded the Fifth Amendment 100 times, the panel said.

Eastman did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Read more here:

Here are all the people who sought preemptive pardons from Donald Trump after the Capitol riot, per January 6 committee witnesses - Yahoo News

Jack White blames Donald Trump for the overturn of Roe v. Wade – Business Insider

Musician Jack White blasted former President Donald Trump on Friday, blaming him directly for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

In a lengthy Instagram post, White called Trump an "unchecked egomaniac" who took the US down "the worst, regressive path to the point of an insurrection in our capital building threatening the lives of the vice president and congress members, and in turn made our govt. an embarrassment to the entire world."

He also lashed out at Trump for appointing three conservative justices to the Supreme Court during his single-term presidency.

"The two party system by proxy puts this clown in a position to pick THREE conservative supreme court justices, THREE," White wrote. "And now these three judges, completely disinterested and unaffected by what the actual majority wants and needs, have just taken the country back to the 1970's to start all over again fighting for women's rights."

White's remarks come after the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The ruling was feared since May when Politico published a leaked draft opinion in which Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito called the decision "egregiously wrong from the start."

Abortion, however, remained legal in the United States until the court handed down the final verdict. But the draft itself was enough to put reproductive rights activists and doctors who perform abortions on edge.

By overturning Roe, the Supreme Court has put the question of the legality of abortion in the hands of individual state legislatures and has essentially made it illegal in at least 22 states to obtain an abortion. There are expected to be added restrictions in several others.

"Well trump, you took the country backwards 50 years," White said. "I hope your dad is smiling and waving down on you from heaven, while his other hand holds a record of all the abortions you secretly paid for behind closed doors."

Others have also credited Trump directly for Roe v. Wade's demise, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

"Thank you President Trump," Greene said. "God bless you. This got overturned today because of your great work as president, and we want him back."

White with his remarks joins a slew of other prominent individuals who've blasted the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Read the original here:

Jack White blames Donald Trump for the overturn of Roe v. Wade - Business Insider

Trump Planned To Be At The Capitol The Day Of The Insurrection – MSNBC

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Democratic Messaging Matters08:54

The Possible Loss of Physicians in Abortion Care08:01

Now Playing

Trump Planned To Be At The Capitol The Day Of The Insurrection09:55

UP NEXT

Voicing an Opinion in the Culture Corner07:35

Interpreting the Constitution06:40

Public Prayer in Schools03:31

What Some Women Currently Face on Abortion Access06:16

Abortion Access Rights in Peril08:19

The Aftermath Of Roe V Wade Supreme Court Decision01:50

The Fourth January Sixth Committee Hearing11:10

The Newest Group to Qualify for the Covid Vaccine06:09

The Case Building Against Donald Trump10:57

Remembering and Celebrating Juneteenth08:14

Displaced by Force The Alarmingly Increasing Number04:12

January 6 Committee Hearings: Brad Raffensperger06:48

Analyzing Week Two of The January six Committee Hearings07:40

Ginni Thomas Invited By 1/6 Committee To Testify05:26

January 6th Committee Focuses On Mike Pence's Role06:47

Unmasked: Revealing the Identities of Hate Group Members05:55

Symone Sanders is joined by a political panel to discuss the January 6th hearings and the new bombshell testimony by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson about the actions of former President Donald Trump on the day of the insurrection.June 28, 2022

Democratic Messaging Matters08:54

The Possible Loss of Physicians in Abortion Care08:01

Now Playing

Trump Planned To Be At The Capitol The Day Of The Insurrection09:55

UP NEXT

Voicing an Opinion in the Culture Corner07:35

Interpreting the Constitution06:40

Public Prayer in Schools03:31

Read this article:

Trump Planned To Be At The Capitol The Day Of The Insurrection - MSNBC

The Importance of Freedom of Speech – Center for Global Justice

Post by: Katrina Sumner

The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights notes that disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

The truth of this statement regarding barbarous acts was demonstrated again last week by the beheading of a beloved history teacher in Paris. The teacher was killed in broad daylight near his school in what appears to be retaliation for a lesson he taught on freedom of speech. French President Macron said the teacher was murdered, for teaching students freedom of expression, the freedom to believe or not believe. His murder has shocked and outraged thousands who took to the streets all across France to express their support for the slain educator.

The teachers murder is yet another example of why the freedom of speech is to be cherished and protected. While it is important for nations to safeguard freedom of speech, it is also important that individuals recognize that others have the right to speak freely without being subjected to violence or death.

Sometimes people speak disparagingly about freedom of speech as if it is no longer to be cherished. This liberty is as precious today as it ever has been. It is encouraging to see nations take steps to secure liberties like the freedom of expression and the freedom of belief to their people. For example, in July 2020, Sudan repealed its apostasy laws making the changing of ones religion no longer a death penalty offense in that country.

Freedom of speech is an important human right. People should not have to live in fear of death for exercising it. Our goal as individuals should be to embrace our own right to freedom of expression while respecting that others have this right, as well.

This post was written by a Center for Global JusticeStudent Staff member. The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.

View original post here:

The Importance of Freedom of Speech - Center for Global Justice

G7, India and 4 other countries pledge to protect free speech – The Hindu

The joint statement came amidst allegations that the Indian Government was stifling the freedom of speech and the civil society actors

The joint statement came amidst allegations that the Indian Government was stifling the freedom of speech and the civil society actors

Leaders of the powerful G7 grouping and its five partner countries, including India, have said that they are committed to open public debate and the free flow of information online and offline while guarding the freedom, independence and diversity of civil society actors.

In a joint statement titled 2022 Resilient Democracies Statement issued in Elamu on June 27 during the G7 Summit, the leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said they are prepared to defend these principles and are resolved to protect the freedom of expression.

The joint statement came amidst allegations that the Indian Government was stifling the freedom of speech and the civil society actors.

The leaders said democracies enable open public debate, independent and pluralistic media and the free flow of information online and offline, fostering legitimacy, transparency, responsibility and accountability for citizens and elected representatives alike.

The leaders said they resolved to protecting the freedom of expression and opinion online and offline and ensuring a free and independent media landscape through our work with relevant international initiatives. They promised to guard the freedom, independence and diversity of civil society actors, speak out against threats to civic space, and respect freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

The leaders pledged to ensure an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable and secure internet; increase the cyber resilience of digital infrastructure, including by improving and sharing awareness of cyber threats and expanding cyber response cooperation and counter hybrid threats, in particular, information manipulation and interference, including disinformation.

They also resolved to cooperate to counter information manipulation, promote accurate information and advocate for shared democratic values worldwide.

They vowed to promote affordable access to diverse sources of reliable and trustworthy information and data, online and offline, including through a multi-stakeholder approach, and by strengthening digital skills and digital literacy.

They also pledged to enhance transparency about the actions of online platforms to combat violent, extremist and inciting content online in line with the Christchurch Call to Action.

The Christchurch Call is a commitment by governments and tech companies to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.

They said democracies lay and protect the foundations for free and vibrant civic spaces, enabling and encouraging civic engagement and political participation, which in turn stimulate meaningful legitimacy, creativity, innovation, social accountability, and responsibility. The leaders said they are committed to building resilience against malign foreign interference and acts of transnational repression that seek to undermine trust in government, society and media, reduce civic space and silence critical voices.

The leaders pledged to advance programmes for the protection of human rights defenders and all those exposing corruption; promote academic freedom and strengthen the role of scientific evidence and research in democratic debate; protect civic space, and uphold transparent, accountable, inclusive and participatory governance, including by advancing womens full, equal and meaningful participation and leadership in civic and political life.

The Group of Seven (G7) is an inter-governmental political grouping consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S.

Besides India, Germany, the host of the G7 Summit, had also invited Argentina, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa as guests for the summit to recognise the democracies of the global south as its partners.

Read the original post:

G7, India and 4 other countries pledge to protect free speech - The Hindu

‘What’s the point inviting me on!’ Piers Morgan and student erupt in free speech row – Express

Piers Morgan invited Larissa Kennedy onto Thursday's instalment of Piers Morgan Uncensored to debate a report which revealed students want more restrictions on free speech. The broadcaster and student clashed over the report and Larissa became frustrated she could not finish her points as she kept being challenged by Piers.

A new report by the Higher Education Policy Institute has revealed the dramatic surge in support for censorship by students.

The report revealed nearly 60 percent of those who were surveyed were opposed to unlimited free speech.

It also revealed almost 40 percent believed the Student Union should ban all speakers who might cause offence, and 76 percent want universities to get rid of any historical figures which might be deemed offensive.

Before the interview with Larissa got underway, Piers told viewers he believed the report was "absolutely nuts".

READ MORE:'Unspeakable' Prince Andrew savaged over 'cruel' treatment to Queen

Piers asked Larissa: "What's going on at universities and why have you all become the enemies of free speech?

"Why do you all get triggered by everything and why have you all become such snowflakes?

The student replied: "Yes we need to uphold freedom of speech but we also need protection so we can ensure our campuses are a safe space for evolving people.

"And if you want to ask what that means, it means if you have got someone with views which are obviously going to spark outrage, that you give a heads up to the people coming."

The TalkTV host explained he was allowed to challenge Larissa on her views before he branded the student "ageist" after she told him he had not been in education since he was 19 years old.

"You're the snowflake here, you're the snowflake here," she said. "All I am saying is how can you know what is going on at universities?"

Piers clapped back and said he understood what is going on from the report by the Higher Education Policy Institute.

"Can I ask you a question without you getting offended?" Piers asked Larissa as she rolled her eyes at him.

"I'm not offended, you could not offend me if you tried," Larissa added.

Piers asked Larissa what her idea of free speech was and she replied: "My idea of free speech is people being able to express themselves whether that is through speakers on campus or through protests."

The pair left on a sour note after they clashed over whether Larissa would want Harry Potter author JK Rowling to be a guest speaker at a university.

Piers Morgan Uncensored continues on weeknights at 8pm on TalkTV.

Follow this link:

'What's the point inviting me on!' Piers Morgan and student erupt in free speech row - Express

Amber Heard, the ACLU, and the Future of Free Speech – Reason

Because of the social media circus surrounding the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard defamation trial, it was easy to overlook one of the principalyet least likelyactors in the courtroom drama: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which ghostwrote and placed the 2018 Washington Post op-ed by Heard about surviving domestic abuse that was the basis of the trial.

It's only the latest example of how the group has in recent years strayed from its original mission of defending speech, no matter how vile.Awash with money after former President Donald Trump was elected, the ACLU transformed into an organization that championed progressive causes, undermining the principled neutrality that helped make it a powerful advocate for the rights of clients ranging from Nazis to socialists.

It questioned the due process rights of college students accused of sexual assault and harassment under Title IX rules. It ran partisan ads against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and for Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, a move that current Executive Director Anthony Romero told The New York Times was a mistake. The ACLU also called for the federal government to forgive $50,000 per borrower in student loans.

As the ACLU recedes from its mission, enter another free speech organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE. Founded in 1999 to combat speech codes on college campuses, FIRE is expanding to go well beyond the university and changing its name to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The group has raised $29 million toward a three-year "litigation, opinion research and public education campaign aimed at boosting and solidifying support for free-speech values."

"I think there have been better moments for freedom of speech when it comes to the culture," says FIRE's president, Greg Lukianoff. "When it comes to the law, the law is about as good as it's ever been. But when it comes to the culture, our argument is that it's gotten a lot worse and that we don't have to accept it."

Lukianoff tells Reason that FIRE's new initiatives have been in the works for years, but gained urgency during the COVID lockdowns. "Pretty much from day one, people have been asking us to take our advocacy off campus to an extent nationally," he says. "But 2020 was such a scarily bad year for freedom of speech on campus and off, we decided to accelerate that process." Despite 80 percent of campuses being closed and doing instruction remotely, Lukianoff says that FIRE received 50 percent more requests for help from college students and faculty. He also points to The New York Times' editorial page editor, James Bennet, getting squeezed out after running an article by Sen. Tom Cotton (RArk.) and high-profile journalists such as Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan, and Matt Yglesias "stepping away from [their publications], saying that the environment was too intolerant."

FIRE is also expanding its efforts beyond legal advocacy and into promoting what Lukianoff calls "the culture of free speech." As Politico reports, it will spend $10 million "in planned national cable and billboard advertising featuring activists on both ends of the political spectrum extolling the virtues of free speech."

He says that people in their 40s and 50s grew up in a country where the culture of free speech was embedded in colloquial sayings and common attitudes. "Things like everyone's entitled to their opinion, which is something you heard all the time when we were kids. It's a free country, to each their own, statements of deep pluralism, like the idea that [you should] walk a mile in a man's shoes," he explains. "All of these things are great principles for taking advantage of pluralism, but they've largely sort of fallen out of usage due to a growing skepticism about freedom of speech, particularly on campus, that's been about 40 years in the making."

Lukianoff has nothing negative to say about the ACLU (in fact, he used to work there) and stresses that FIRE has worked with the organization since "day one" and continues to do so. But unlike the ACLU, FIRE isn't at risk of turning into a progressive advocacy organization, partly because its staff is truly bipartisan.

"This is the first nonprofit I ever worked for where you had people who actually voted for different major-party candidates. When I worked at the ACLU in 1999, people voted for the Democrats or the Green Party," he says, noting that he is himself a liberal. But at FIRE, he continues, "My executive director is a Republican and an evangelical, a fact of which I am extremely proud."

That pluralistic pride extends to the groups funding FIRE, too. He says that critics, especially on Twitter, point to support his organization receives from "conservative and libertarian foundations" as if that invalidates its work. Yes, they give FIRE money, he says. "And you should be very proud of them, because we routinely defend people who hate their guts and we never get any foundation saying that they're taking back our funding."

Lukianoff thinks that despite the rise of cancel culture, most Americans still understand the value of free speech, but they need to be encouraged to stand up for it. FIRE's polling, he says, reveals that "it's really a pretty small minority, particularly pronounced on Twitter, that is anti-free-speech philosophically and thinks that people should shut up and conform."

For that reason, he's upbeat that FIRE will succeed in helping to restore belief in the value and function of free speech. "I think that once you start giving people permission to believe in small d democratic norms again, a lot of people are going to reveal their actual preferences. You know: 'I don't want you to fire Larry for who he voted for or a dumb joke [he] made on Twitter,'" he says. "Part of our job isreminding younger people about some of these principles because they haven't heard them before. But for most Americans, I think reminding them and giving them permission to believe what most Americans believeis a reason to be optimistic about it."

This video is based on a longer conversation I had with Lukianoff for The Reason Interview podcast. Listen to that here.

Photo Credits: Tim Evanson, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; tedeytan, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Ludwig von Mises Institute, via Wikimedia Commons; LvMI, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Stefani Reynolds/CNP / Polaris/Newscom.

Music Credits: "End To End," by Jonny Hughes via Artlist.

Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Regan Taylor.

Originally posted here:

Amber Heard, the ACLU, and the Future of Free Speech - Reason

Binance CEO says ‘free speech is very hard to define’ – Business Insider

Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao has weighed in on the heated free speech debate that has consumed social media.

The company is one of a handful that pledged funds to "free speech absolutist" Elon Musk's bid to take Twitter private, promising $500 million. Zhao told Bloomberg in a lengthy interview published this week that he's all for the cause.

"We want to support free speech," Zhao said, before Bloomberg asked if that sentiment applies to his company's decision to sue Forbes in 2020 for defamation over a report saying Binance was dodging regulation. (The suit was later dropped).

To bring the suit, Binance hired lawyer Charles Harder, who's best known for teaming up with billionaire investor Peter Thiel in his fight against Gawker Media that eventually bankrupted the outlet.

"Free speech is very hard to define," Zhao said in the interview, maintaining that the article is inaccurate. "I've never talked to Charles Harder. Our team handled it."

Free speech has been a key driver in Musk's acquisition of Twitter. The Tesla and SpaceX billionaire has been vocal about his desire to ease Twitter's policies on harmful content. The platform and its moderation decisions have been thrust into a culture war as conservative figures claim Big Tech is stifling their freedom of speech by flagging and removing posts that break their rules.

Zhao also said the suit had with Binance's decision to invest $200 million in Forbes' plans to go public via a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC . The deal may be scrapped, however, as The New York Times reported in late May, after investors showed a decline in interest in the deals.

Zhao, who is worth $18.5 billion, also discussed with Bloomberg his company's mission and his stance on money. The outlet spoke to former Binance employees and investors who described the iron grip that Zhao has over his company.

See the original post here:

Binance CEO says 'free speech is very hard to define' - Business Insider