If you haven’t looked at the whole document, the (majority Republican) Maricopa County Board of Supervisors letter on the AZ Senate “audit” is just absolutely blistering. maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter…
“[T]he Arizona Senate is not acting in good faith, has no intention of learning anything about the November 2020 General Election, but is only interested in feeding the various festering conspiracy theories that fuel the fundraising schemes of those pulling your strings."
"You have rented out the once good name of the Arizona State Senate to grifters and con-artists, who are fundraising hard-earned money from our fellow citizens…"
You can’t blame them. The hugely damaging endgame seems easy enough to foresee from here: The “Cyber Ninjas” claim to have found the fraud they were determined to find. The claims will be debunked, but most people will not be able to directly evaluate who is correct.
In a lot of ways this feels like an echo of the “Spyder affidavit” used in the Sidney Powell lawsuits. Pure nonsense from a Walter Mitty haxx0r full of screenshots from forensic software he doesn’t know how to use, but impressive looking if you don’t understand it either.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
That the word “insurance” does not appear in this article is at least minor journalistic malpractice. wsj.com/articles/colon…
As ProPublica documented in 2019, insurers routinely nudge companies to pay ransoms, because the ransom demand is usually calibrated to be cheaper than mitigation. propublica.org/article/the-ex…
That might be a defensible choice for the company in some cases, but it seems like necessary context if you’re going to run the CEO’s “for the good of the country” line.
Wow. Unless there’s an extraordinarily clear threat justifying an investigation, this is outrageous. Bad enough Nunes abuses the civil courts to mount frivolous lawsuits against online critics—now it seems he had DOJ doing his dirty work as well.
There really need to be hearings about this, and if it is indeed what it looks like, heads should roll at DOJ.
It also seems telling that DOJ was unwilling to show Twitter the supposed threatening communication, which presumably would have induced them to comply if it were real.
As many folks have said, the striking thing here is less the initial misperception than the dogged refusal to acknowledge a pretty clear-cut mistake. Beyond the general aversion to admitting error, I think part of what’s going on here is specific cases take on symbolic weight.
You see this in a bunch of situations where a particular incident gets cast as a stand in for a bigger Social Problem. Starting from the perception the guy was making white power shadow puppets, any counterargument is Minimizing the Problem of White Supremacy in American Culture.
I’m thinking, e.g., of that Rolling Stone story from a few years back about the confabulated frat house gang rape at UVA. The first folks pointing out problems with the story took a ton of heat, because in some sense it wasn’t really about whether the particular event happened.
Totally bizarre. Apparently people are positively enthusiastic about the idea of compelling people to get vaccinated, but super opposed to any sort of immunization credentialing.
So it’s an unconscionable infringement on liberty if a business wants to see a vaccine card… but if the government just compels everyone to get a shot, that’s cool? I want a follow-up study on that combination of views.
The level of across-the-board support for compulsion here is genuinely a little scary, especially compared with the high opposition even to explicitly voluntary credentials.
A cynical explanation occurs to me: If you make your money providing expensive trainings that generate little or no real value for an organization, what would it be useful to make people believe so you nevertheless keep getting paid? slowboring.com/p/tema-okun
You can extend the life of the grift via the old Emperor’s New Clothes con. Any attempt to quantify the value of the trainings, or demand arguments for their broad & confident claims, is itself a symptom of white supremacy. The glorious raiments are invisible to the unqualified.
I mean, it’s sort of genius. Any attempt within the organization to say “hey, are these trainings maybe BS and a waste of time and money?” is itself going to be condemned by the trainings. Yikes! Better shut up and keep paying that consulting fee.
This has the makings of a legal sorîtes problem where the legal rule we converge on ends up being a semi-arbitrary function of the case details & whether we’re approaching from the heap-side or the grain-side.
When a legal sorîtes problem involves constitutional questions, btw, there’s a sort of structural bias in favor of governments, because they can sequence their appeals strategically in a way that’s unrealistic for dispersed criminal defendants.
There are, of course, activist litigation shops like EFF and ACLU that can be a little strategic in the selection of test cases, but on net I’m betting states have the advantage.