Well, it seems that Rosenstein will not be leaving as planned, but Zainab Ahmad has left Mueller's team, as has Weissman. The combination suggests that Mueller is not yet done with his report (because Rosenstein is staying), and thus the departure of Weissman and Ahmad may be prompted by direction from Barr (newly confirmed as Attorney General). Both Weissman and Ahmad were heavily conflicted, as they were involved in the Trump-Russia investigation personally. Weissman in particular has an ugly reputation for unethical tactics even aside from that. Both were the subject of a recent letter and demand for documents from Republican Congressmen.
I'm not sure Nunes is going to get very far suing individual users, except those cases that are incitement to violence. But Twitter's shadowbanning and censorship may be easier targets under fraud statutes. And discovery may be scary.
Like most other internet services, Twitter operates under a provision of the Communications Decency Act -- which I opposed at the time, and still do, except for this provision -- which exempts service providers from liability for what their users post so long as they do not exercise editorial control. Nunes is arguing that Twitter's shadowbanning and similar "algorithmic" processes are editorial control. And I think he's right.
New Jersey and Washington state are trying to make releasing tax returns a prerequisite for being on the ballot as president. It is, obviously, intended to target Trump. Luckily, even if it passes, he doesn't need either state to win. But it would set a horrible precedent of states deliberately changing their election rules to remove candidates they don't like.
This seems to be political indoctrination masquerading as education -- and not even masquerading very hard. 1984's "Newspeak" was a warning, not a how-to guide, but apparently that little nuance is too subtle for today's professors of English literature.
Google admits to tracking phones even if you turned off tracking
And that is their privacy executive, specifically hired to make people feel better about their personal data in Google's hands.
Remember that a lot of google's apps, which their executive just admitted do not respect user's privacy requests, are installed on gazillions of android phones by default at the factory. Consent here is effectively meaningless. Google will collect the information they want and use it however they want. No one reads the privacy policies -- not even the companies that are presenting them to you.
This is the second terrorist attack since Fridays's attack on the New Zealand mosques. The last one, in Nigeria, was done by Muslims. This one probably is too. Neither type of terrorism is anything other than horrific and evil. Murdering innocent people is evil.
The people who commit these murders, on both sides, expect to get killed in the act; even if they plan to escape, they know there's a possibility they won't and are ok with that. You can stop, or slow down, the current attack by shooting back. But that doesn't stop the next one, because someone ELSE is doing the next one. There's always someone else when your religion makes dying in combat against the infidel a sacrament and a guarantee of heaven. Western cultures prefer to response with soldiers against terrorists directly... but at some point, when that seems to no longer be an effective deterrent, some people will start trying other options.
I don't think those other options will do anything to de-escalate the situation. No one is going to back down here.
The ONLY thing that is going to work is reducing the influx of new radical Islamic individuals as much as possible -- whether by individualized interviews, ending "refugee" programs, or broad bans on countries with a terror problem -- and then identifying and removing those already here with similar extreme views. We can do this for those not yet citizens under a reasonable legal standard for determining suitability of immigrants. Those who remain after passing the vetting will hopefully be capable of peaceful coexistence with other religions and cultures.
But we need to make that vetting a priority. The problem, of course, is that it's really hard to look at a specific individual and know whether they are prone to violence. So the other thing we need to do is reduce the inflow, overall. until it is small enough to properly vet individuals seeking entry. We need to stop approving massive groups of "refugees" and transplanting their whole communities by the tens of thousands to the same little towns in, say, Minnesota for example. We're individualists -- let's treat people as individuals, and let refugees find refuge in their neighboring countries where they may actually be able to assimilate or one day return to their native country.
And to do that, we need to close the border -- because the people getting in that way aren't vetted at all.
Basically, in her testimony, Lisa Page admitted that both investigations were heavily political, that the Clinton investigation was swept under the rug (she says by DOJ's rules), and that the Trump-Russia investigation was started with no evidence and never managed to actually find any.
Page says DOJ drove decision not to indict Clinton
They drove it by excluding "gross negligence" as a factor, despite that being in the law as written. Page's testimony here contradicts Comey's dramatic speech clearing Clinton, as well as AG Lynch's claim she would let the FBI make the decision after her improper meeting with William Clinton. A little more detail here.
It seems they have taken a cue from Stalin and airbrushed out an inconvenient figure who now opposes the organization he founded. If Google is willing to do this -- an act of revisionist history clearly based on ideology -- how can we trust them as a source of information at all?
Again, the fact that a "friendly" DOJ has to be sued to get answers means they are simply trying to cover up as much as possible. And it calls into question how "friendly" DOJ really is. Hopefully, Barr will change things.