If you haven't read this series yet, you should. It's disturbing as hell and raises so many important issues. I can't do them all justice. I'm just going to pull on one thread about Donald Trump and his Labor Secretary. miamiherald.com/news/local/art…
Brief background: When Secretary Acosta was a US attorney in Miami, he took on a case against serial molestor/billionaire Jeff Epstein. Palm Breach police had uncovered dozens and dozens of teenage girls Epstein was molesting. At the last minute, Acosta cut Epstein a deal.
The deal was unusual in a lot of ways. And by unusual I mean a completely f'd up travesty. Almost complete deference to the billionaire criminal, and zero respect or concern for his underage victims.
Here's the part I want to focus on. I can't put into words how infuriating this is.
It's even worse than that. It didn't just shut down the investigation into to whether there were more accomplices - it granted any such people immunity. Along with immunity for his 4 known accomplices.
This worry that other accomplices were let off the hook isn't just hypothetical. Epstein was said to have "lent out" his victims to other men. One victim states he collected blackmail on these men.
As you probably know, Trump is a longtime friend of Epstein's. Good chance you've seen this quote. I'm going to suspend any willful naiveté and say Trump clearly knew Epstein was into underage girls.
Trump obviously has a record of saying *and doing* creepy things about underage girls himself. Walking into teenagers' dressing rooms. Hitting on his daughter. WTF. If you're not feeling queasy yet, just read this. vox.com/identities/201…
Then there's the fact he and Epstein were accused of rape by a woman (girl at the time) who withdrew the case due to death threats. She had a corroborating witness, by the way. newsweek.com/donald-trump-r…
All of this is to say there's a very non-zero chance Trump was an accomplice, and personally benefitted from the immunity provision in Acosta's deal.
I have no proof, but I'm not going to say it sounds remotely out of character for him.
And this means there's a very non-zero chance Trump picked Acosta because Acosta kept him out of jail and protected his reputation. That he felt some sort of bond with Acosta over it, or knew Acosta was corrupt.
It's true, that's just speculation. This isn't: Acosta wasn't just a random DC-connected lawyer to Trump. He was the guy who let Trump's friend escape justice. His appointment is inextricably linked with letting Epstein skate.
I urge you to read the whole series. It shines a lot of light on who our legal system works for and who it doesn’t. Its a must-read even without its connections to the serial sexual predator in the White House. miamiherald.com/news/local/art…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’m thinking one way white people could show our gratitude is, we could all stop being the reason we came so close to (at least) four more years of total fascism.
No knock on giving credit where it’s due. I just need to hear the logic expressed in the other direction too. Vote like black women, yeah, but also, don’t vote like white guys because that demographic has an affinity for fascist con artists.
We can’t use our displays of gratitude to let ourselves off the hook from explicitly holding ourselves and the white people around us accountable.
Seems like it should be a bigger story that the current occupant of the White House has been illegally running a covert propaganda effort against the American public and is now doing so to help his campaign.
Republicans keep being massive hypocrites, and the press keeps letting them get away with it, because neither wants to admit the GOP’s real motivation is to maintain rich, straight, white Christian male supremacy.
If they actually cared about religious freedom, law and order, small government, or the Merrick Garland “rule”, they wouldn’t support the Muslim Ban, a serially criminal president*, concentration camps or ACB.
But they can’t openly say what they really want is a rigged system.
Lucky for them, the press doesn’t really want to talk about their hypocrisy. The press has almost as little interest in honest talk about rich, straight white Christian male supremacy as the GOP does.
If you're going to complain about "cancel culture", how do you define it?
Does it apply to online criticism? Losing a gig after a racist rant or ten? Getting ostracized for sexual harassment? Getting arrested for rape?
Does it distinguish between punching up and punching down?
Looking at these discussions through the lens of punching up vs punching down is clarifying. Most arguments against "political correctness", "incivility" and "cancel culture" are just attempts to stop punching up and defend punching down. Defending abuse from a high horse.
The phrase "punching up" is really suboptimal here.
Punching down has real consequences for the target. Punching up usually has few consequences. That's how power dynamics work. It's usually just complaining about abuse. In rare cases, it means consequences for abuse.
I'm sure people will accuse Princeton of "erasing history". That's backwards. Keeping Wilson's name meant ignoring the facts that disqualified him from the honor. Acknowledging history is the opposite of erasing it.
What they call erasing history is always really just people removing the whitewash. And it's striking how many public monuments and history books this applies to. Wilson, Columbus, Confederate generals, Jefferson, Washington...
The "erasing history" argument has a lot of problems, not least of which is that it's stupid. It's not like this erases Wilson from history textbooks. If monuments were simply how we learn about history, we'd need a hell of a lot more statues. With placards. Long placards.