The Washington Post has a new, comprehensive timeline with new details on the before, during and after of January 6. washingtonpost.com/politics/inter…
These details suggest multiple social media firms had sent posts warning of Jan 6 violence (publicly only Parler is known so far to have sent warnings direct to the FBI.)
This is consistent with what Wray and others have said but the details on Dataminr are new.
I am skeptical of the idea the FBI missed any warning about Jan 6 because ... it didn't have Dataminr.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Good morning. Yesterday the Washington Post published a very important report on January 6- before, during, and after. I reckon it's one of the most important accounts published anywhere to date. It is full of new reporting and detail. washingtonpost.com/politics/inter…
2/ The article opens with the incredible account of Donell Harvin, a homeland security official who convened the nation's fusion centers which- for the first time since 9/11- were blinking red "coast to coast". He even told DC to prepare for mass casualties ~48 hours in advance.
3/ Based on interviews with more than 230 people and thousands of documents and multimedia assets, the report finds the "red flags were everywhere" and were compounding even weeks before the attack.
As Mike Pence hid from a marauding mob during the Jan. 6 invasion of the Capitol, John Eastman, an attorney for Donald Trump, emailed a top Pence aide to say that Pence had caused the violence by refusing to block certification of Trump’s election loss. washingtonpost.com/investigations…
WaPo:
“The ‘siege’ is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so that the American people can see for themselves what happened,” Eastman wrote to Jacob, referring to Trump’s claims of voter fraud. washingtonpost.com/investigations…
This is incredible: Eastman- Trump’s lawyer- was still pushing Pence not to certify the electoral college vote AFTER the insurrection:
"Reasonable people" would acknowledge your position is a scarecrow. Hardly anyone believes social media is the prime cause for society's issues. What "reasonable people" object to is your company knowingly making things worse and making billions while at it.
The worst part of this is that Facebook's own researchers are "Reasonable people." "Reasonable people" produced this insight into how your platform makes things worse. wsj.com/articles/faceb…
"Reasonable people" produced this insight into how your platform makes things worse. apnews.com/article/the-fa…
It's time to build new connections across the social sciences and prepare to dig into the Facebook Papers in depth using qual and quant methods: techpolicy.press/journalists-ar…
"Understanding how social media impacts society is about as difficult as it is important. We somehow have to make sense of what happens when billions of remarkably complex brains are networked via smartphone to giant server farms leveraging PBs of data..." techpolicy.press/journalists-ar…
"Hey everyone and thanks for joining today. We made good progress this quarter across a number of product priorities, and our community continues to grow. There are now almost 3.6 billion people who actively use one or more of our services..." politico.com/news/2021/10/2…
"...and I'm excited about our roadmap to keep building great new experiences for them. As expected, we did experience revenue headwinds this quarter, including from Apple's changes that are not only negatively affecting our business..." apnews.com/article/the-fa…
"...but millions of small businesses in what is already a difficult time for them in the economy. Sheryl and Dave will talk about this more later, but the bottom line is we expect we'll be able to navigate these headwinds over time..." cnn.com/2021/10/25/tec…
1/ Seeing some tweets calling on specific Reps. to be "expelled" or "arrested" for their role in January 6.
A couple of thoughts.
First- it is right to say that any Rep. who played any role in planning violence should be expelled. I am unaware of hard evidence so far.
2/ Second- it may be right to call for anyone that planned to send protestors to the Capitol, with knowledge of the potential for violence, to be expelled. There is some evidence this happened.
3/ Third- calling on anyone to be expelled for participating in the objection is a non-starter. And frankly, counterproductive. Despite the fact that the objection was based on a lie, there was nothing illegal about it.