I spent several hours in December watching "Bob Saget's Here For You" when I needed a break. One evening, I was drawn into Bob Saget's charm as he called fans. He was so warm and kind. I watched over an hour of Bob joking & talking with them about life in our pandemic normal.
Then there was this episode of Bob Saget's podcast with one of his best friends, Gilbert Gottfried. In between stories, Bob and Gilbert kept going back to this unusual problem Gilbert has with birds and damn, it's funny.
And thanks to Bob Saget's show I heard George Lopez tell story of the Secret Service coming to his house while Donald Trump was president after he tweeted, "We'll do it for half"—a response to a report of an Iranian legislator putting out a bounty against Trump. #RipBobSaget
When Norm Macdonald died, I fell down a Normhole, watching hours of videos. And now when I'm not writing, I'll probably let myself periodically get lost in a Sagethole throughout January.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
CPJ (@pressfreedom) is deeply concerned about Assange's extradition but not enough to defy US government's decade-plus campaign to redefine Assange as someone who is not a journalist—which officials have done to justify the criminalization of his journalistic work.
CPJ may dislike pushback they're receiving for excluding Julian Assange from annual journalists index. That's why they posted this thread on December 21. But CPJ is increasingly an outlier.
The European Federation of Journalists recognizes Assange as a jailed journalist.
For more background, including their inadequate response to my question about why Assange remains excluded from CPJ's jailed journalists index: thedissenter.org/cpj-still-excl…
British High Court of Justice will announce their ruling on the US government's effort to overturn a district judge's decision, which blocked the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. I'm covering.
Thread for following proceedings at the High Court.
If you are not familiar with the grounds of appeal in the Julian Assange case submitted by the US government, which the High Court will rule for or against today, here is the guide I assembled outlining each aspect:
Programming Note: I've reported on every stage of the case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange pursued by the US government. thedissenter.org/tag/julian-ass…
Reality Winner didn’t commit espionage. She was found guilty of violating the Espionage Act. That’s an important distinction that responsible broadcast journalists should make for viewers. #60Minutes
Rather condescending opening as #60Minutes dwells on her name and says that may not be the most baffling aspect of her story
At the British High Court of Justice, Julian Assange's defense present their response(s) to the United States government's effort to overturn a district court decision, which blocked extradition.
Thread for updates on the second day of the appeal hearing.
To recap: On Day 1, Crown prosecutors, led by James Lewis QC, attacked the work done by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, who weighed facts to determine if it would be "oppressive" to Assange's mental health to grant US government's extradition request.
The Crown Prosecution Service goes before the British High Court of Justice to present the United States government's appeal in extradition case against Julian Assange. Proceedings start around 10:30 am London Time.
Thread for updates on the first day of the appeal hearing.
This lays out each of the US government's "grounds for appeal" that will be argued at the High Court of Justice.
(If at any moment you have trouble understanding what is being argued, here's a guide for the appeal hearing: thedissenter.org/a-guide-to-the…)
Prosecutors will talk quite a lot about "assurances," which were offered by the US government AFTER the extradition request was blocked by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser on January 4 and AFTER the extradition hearing in September 2020.
Police stories are all around. They dominate network TV. They drive news coverage. They determine city budgets, with outsized portion going to cops instead of programs that can address basic human needs.
I don't think this takes us "someplace you might not expect to go," NYT.
Viewed alongside recurring copaganda in the New York Times, it's not so exceptional. It's establishment journalism following a blueprint for Lifetime movie. The author likely believes it should unite those divided over police cause it gives us the feels.
Just a few weeks ago, the New York Times published a report that promoted police views on crime without disclosing a major conflict of interest by the author, Jeff Asher, who has a background with CIA/Palantir/police/prosecutors, etc.