I knew they never caught anyone for sure, that they chased after two Americans for the crime, and that at least one of them successfully sued. But the connections to the 9-11 hijackers and other links to islamic terror were successfully papered over.
Apparently, his girlfriend wasn't involved even though she helped him load the magazines. And police also believe he was sending emails to himself about firearms and accessories with phrases like "Try an ar before u buy. We have a huge selection. Located in the Las Vegas area." That's an email he sent to himself? That's nonsense; he didn't control both accounts. Or, if he claims he did, someone else also did and he was communicating with them.
The New York Times reports he had burner phones which suggests he was communicating with someone, if the email exchanges above weren't enough. (Hat tip to SayUncle).
Why do these people feel like making up these attacks is beneficial to their cause? Don't worry, that's a rhetorical question. The real question is why they think they won't get caught, and damage their own cause.
About the privacy you don't have on social media...
I remember when Congress managed to pass a law requiring video rental stores to respect the privacy of their customers. It's long past time for some Congressional action to enforce basic privacy norms of the social media giants.
Is the GOPe about to betray their base on the budget?
If the GOP abandons one of the few tools they have and allows the filibuster to stop them from passing any policy initiatives at all while they hold all three necessary elements of government, it would be utterly pathetic and effective surrender. And so, probably only to be expected. The Democrats would never be so weak.
Fighting a political war where you only ever lose ground and never gain any back, much less advance into enemy territory, is a recipe for losing it.
Well now, that puts a slightly different spin on those Russian sources, doesn't it? If those two were both Russian agents, reporting "information" from Russian intelligence officials to influence an American election..
We still don't know the full story of the Vegas murderer
I don't know what Paddock's story is, but I'm pretty sure we're not being told the truth about it. I'm pretty sure he was not the only person in the room and I'm not even sure he was actually doing the shooting. His "suicide" was very convenient, and if you are going to kill yourself, putting the gun in your mouth does not seem like the way to do it.
So read Coulter's column and then run this scenario by your internal fact-checker: two Al Qaeada terrorists decide they want to buy some guns. They contact a guy who deals in black market firearms for criminals; lots of rifles intended for gang enforcers and the like, and who launders money through a video poker habit for tax purposes. They arrange a meet in Vegas on the day of the concert. They all show up in that specific suite of rooms and go over his inventory... and then the two terrorists shoot Paddock (one shot is easy to miss in a noisy environment). Maybe they think the security guard heard the shot, and so they shot up the hallway to keep him back, and then the concert to create chaos to escape in. Or maybe they planned all of it, except the guard, and had to rush things.
Doesn't that make a hell of a lot more sense than a man who was independently wealthy, had a girlfriend, and wasn't showing any particular signs of insanity or sudden religious conversion to islam just deciding to shoot up a concert?
So, a professor holds a class he titled white racism, and when people predictably respond by complaining about being called racists, he gets campus police to stand guard outside the class. Pretty much business as usual. But when CNN writes an article about it, and includes a sampling of the alleged "racist threats" he received, they come up ... just a little short.
From all of the presumably normal and sane objections to his class, which is itself obviously an exercise in racism against white people, CNN pulled out the following examples:
I count exactly one "racial slur" from those examples, which are presumably the most offensive CNN could find. Calling the professor a "subhuman mongrel" is pretty racist. You could maybe stretch the use of "boy" into something racist. But the rest? They are just points of view he disagrees with. Mostly, they are calling him a racist and accusing him of inciting racism. Accurately.
The professor, and his explicitly racist hate speech, is disgusting. To the limited extent his critics offered racism in return, it is also disgusting... but far from unexpected. I see no threats of violence whatsoever ("I hope you get cancer" is not a threat), but perhaps those were withheld pending police investigation. (Given that the police posted armed guards outside the classroom rather than investigating the threats and arresting those who made them suggests that, perhaps, the police are part of the PR stunt).
I was hoping that Trump, as a personal victim of this practice, might push for changes. And for a moment, he did. And then someone got to him.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
UPDATE: More details on the issue. The way these renewals seem to pop up by surprise make it hard to mobilize opposition. Maybe I can figure out when the next one is due and set a calendar reminder or something...
UPDATE: Upon further reflection, it strikes me that this is dangerously close to fraud. It's not financial fraud, since people don't pay to use basic twitter, but it's fraud in that people are being enticed to interact with twitter and spend time on the site. The return people expect for that is attention to the content they produce. If twitter has instead shadowbanned you, you're still interacting with their site since you don't know any better. But no one can see your content, so you're not getting your part of the deal.
Not even if you are the President. Of course, you should have known that already -- so this is more about confirming the bias of the major social media platforms. When they are both biased and play such a large role in our lives, that's dangerous.
Also, there's this little tidbit:
This was a Project Veritas sting, which means someone probably called up Twitter and pretended to be law enforcement or part of Meuller's team to see what Twitter would do in response. They got someone who joined Twitter right before the election (so, hasn't been there very long). Not necessarily much of a story, it might just be him speaking off the cuff. Except... "we had internal reviews about that."
So people at Twitter, not just this guy, are thinking seriously about acting on this anti-Trump viewpoint.
So Twitter's response is as predicted, claiming the man is speaking only for himself. But we had internal reviews about that. And, frankly, even if Haynes was just sharing his internal dialog about what he would be willing to do to look at President Trump's DMs... does Twitter have any internal safeguards to prevent Haynes from indulging his curiousity and abusing his authority as an admin and looking it up himself?
I have to assume Trump is smart enough to know this and treat his use of Twitter with the utter lack of seriousness it deserves, unlike, say, Anthony Weiner.
How Trump should deliver his state of the union speech
I saw a suggestion that Trump should deliver it via Twitter.
That would be fine, but he should also deliver a huge IMAX screen to the joint session of Congress, which will display Trump larger-than-life while he live-tweets his speech. During all the pomp and circumstance while the Democrats plan their disruptive activities, the pre-show should consist of The Gorilla Channel as reported by Michael Wolf.
As predicted, it's not a useful way to identify actual fake sites trying to promote actual fake news. Instead, it's an attempt to discredit and disqualify sites that point out facts that liberals don't like. Given that Google has recently been revealed as employing a "plural being" who sexually identifies as a "yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin" and (non-sexually?) "an expansive ornate building", Google's relationship to facts outside the context of their search algorithm seems... iffy. Still, I'm sure they do a very good job in human resources, or some other job that I sincerely hope has no connection to objective reality.
The report makes interesting distinction between the "surface web" (normal websites) where all their attempts to obtain firearms were unsuccessful, and the "dark web" (presumably tor-anonymized websites already known for illegal content like drugs). All their attempts to obtain a firearm illegally through normal websites failed. In other words, normal fireamrs owners follow the law and sell legally, even when using the various internet sites available for buying and selling firearms online.
And criminals, who know they are criminals, set up their storefronts elsewhere and do not follow the law.