Twitter is keeping itself in front of the political firing line by inconsistently applying policy to a series of unconfirmed reports by the New York Post about Joe Biden’s son Hunter — moves Republicans have slammed as censorship and election interference.
The social network initially banned the Post’s story Wednesday about Hunter Biden’s alleged attempts to influence his father, Joe Biden, to try to shut down a probe into Ukrainian energy company Burisma and another claiming Hunter tried to leverage his father’s status as VP in the Obama administration to boost his compensation from Burisma. Originally, Twitter said the Post’s stories — based on info furnished by Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer — violated its “hacked materials” policy, as they included information purportedly harvested from a laptop of uncertain origin. Twitter did an about-face Friday to allow users to tweet them.
Yesterday, CEO Jack Dorsey admitted blocking URLs without context was “wrong,” and the company said it was revising its policies on sharing hacked materials. A Twitter spokesperson said it was allowing the NY Post’s Hunter Biden-Burisma story to be shared “because the information had spread across the internet and could no longer be considered private,” per the New York Times.
However, as of Saturday, Twitter was still blocking tweets to another Post piece about Hunter’s alleged attempts to secure deals with Shanghai-based CEFC China Energy Co. — including reportedly getting his dad a cut of the action — based on the same “massive trove” of material from the laptop that someone had abandoned in a Delaware computer-repair store. (The Post said it was unable to confirm the laptop actually belonged to Hunter Biden.)
Why are we letting Twitter get away with this?
It has no right to censor journalism. This is a published report by a US newspaper that has been around since 1801. And Twitter thinks it can censor it?
That's outrageous. Twitter needs to be shut down. It is not supposed to decide what media can and cannot be linked to.
Is the story in THE POST true? I have no idea. But it is a published story and every American has the right to access it and evaluate it for themselves -- especially when we are weeks away from an election.
This is outrageous.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Friday, October 16, 2020. Friday. We take a look at some of the candidates for US president.
In an appearance on the “Pod Save America” podcast, Mr Obama discussed how a Biden administration would be able to implement “actual policy that works”, and that lived-up to his “good instincts”, having learned lessons from almost five decades in politics.
On the Iraq war, the Democrat argued that Mr Biden “learned a lesson from that”, having later admitted that his vote for the Iraq War as a senator "was a mistake".
Here's what actually happened. Barack Obama went on a podcast run by his former flunkies who worship him and, even there, he stumbled and lied. Joe does not have "good instincts." The record does not beat that out. Someone with "good instincts" does not violate women and girls' space to the point that Jon Stewart has to mock you on THE DAILY SHOW as happened when Joe was vice president. Someone with "good instincts" would immediately stop that behavior after being mocked by both THE DAILY SHOW and THE WASHINGTON POST. Not Joe. When called out in 2019, "good instincts" would not result in you, two days after your video 'apology,' making jokes at an assembly of union workers. Joe Biden is an ass. That's what Joe Biden is.
Good instincts? That would not allow your brothers and your son Hunter and now your son-in-law to all be accused of profiting from you, of corruption, of profiting on your public office. Does any living person in your family know how to apply for a job that they are qualified for? Do any of them know how to actually work for a living?
Good instincts do not lead you to make the votes Joe has made throughout his long, long, long political career. Good instincts do not allow you to pretend to support Anita Hill -- while offering her no supporting in the confirmation hearing and while you were telling Republicans that she was lying.
Joe Biden learned his lesson from Iraq?
I guess Barack wasn't a very involved parent before the White House. Or maybe he just wasn't a good parent period. Maybe his own lack of skills was why he was forever trashing African-American fathers?
Here's the basic on parenting. You teach your child to learn from a mistake. Learning from a mistake means admitting you were wrong, yes. That is step one. If that's all you've taught your children, you're a failure as a parent. Words are empty without action. Step two, when you make a mistake is making a real effort to improve anyone you have harmed by your mistake. Joe did nothing to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. In fact, he steered the US effort in 2010 to overturn the votes of the Iraqi people who, in March 2010, voted thug Nouri al-Maliki out after one term. Joe led the US effort to overturn that vote -- despite the fact that we already knew Nouri was running secret prisons and torture chambers. Joe led the US effort to negotiate The Erbil Agreement -- the legal contract that overturned the votes of the Iraqi people.
Liars like Patrick Cockburn have never written one word about The Erbil Agreement. Liars like Patrick Cockburn have blamed Nouri's second term on the government of Iran. The government of Iran did back Nouri. But it was only after the US, working months on The Erbil Agreement, got the agreement signed that the Iraqi political process finally began moving again. In March of 2010, Nouri lost the election. He refused to step down. His refusal, for eight months and several days, brought the Iraqi government to a standstill. This period was called a "political stalemate" (we used the term, the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, many press accounts used the term). Did it end in October with Iran's blessing of Nouri?
March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August,
"These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but
everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a
cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive
government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single
slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but
the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they
may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form
the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with
other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament
seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent
various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of
Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat
holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the
current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show
of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the
certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing
coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this
coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th
a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second
time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on
the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains,
"The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as
members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of
Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by
Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the
compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather
than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted
President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime
minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article
76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council
and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163
votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty
days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another
prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate.
It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime
minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty
day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced
his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister
of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl
Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times),
only with "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri
declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily
lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm,
when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim
al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000
troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very
different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful
his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the
other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes,
"With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to
distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the
potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government
formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out,
"Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which
will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His
governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of
hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe
that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when
the country has a prime minister. It is now eight months, thirteen days
November 10th The Erbil Agreement was signed and November 11th the Parliament was finally in session after eight months of nothing. November 11th, the KRG website announces:
Baghdad, Iraq (KRP.org) - Iraq's political leaders yesterday agreed to hold the parliamentary session as scheduled on Thursday and to name an individual for the post of Speaker of the the parliament (Council of Representatives). The Speaker post will go to the Al-Iraqiya bloc, which is headed by former prime minister Ayad Allawi.
During the meeting, which was attended by the leaders of all the winning blocs at President Masoud Barzani's Baghdad headquarters, agreement was reached on two other points: to create a council for strategic policy and to address issues regarding national reconciliation.
President Barzani, who sponsored the three days' round of meetings, stated that today's agreement was a big achievement for Iraqis. He expressed optimism that the next government will be formed soon and that it will be inclusive and representative of all of Iraq's communities.
The agreement that they are discussing is The Erbil Agreement. If you can't address that agreement, you aren't an honest broker. Patrick Cockburn has never written of it. Never admitted to it. Emma Sky's spoken of it, written of it, even included it a book. If the 'expert' on Iraq can't get honest about The Erbil Agreement, you should wonder what else they're lying about.
Joe was obligated, in 2010, to do what was best for the Iraqi people if he truly realized he made a mistake. In no world is overturning election results a good thing. Joe doesn't think overturning the results are a good thing here in the US. He can't stop pushing the fantasy that Donald Trump won't honor the election results from this upcoming November. And yet it is Joe who overturned an election. The Iraqi people voted out thug Nouri al-Maliki and they risked their lives to do so. Instead of backing the Iraqi people, instead of fostering trust in the ballot box and in the notions of democracy, Joe pushed for the votes of Iraqi people to be overturned.
That was bad enough. But no one has held Joe accountable for what happened.
Yes, Iraqi voting went down as a result. Yes, trust in democracy was not fostered. But I'm referring to the rise of ISIS. That's what resulted from the US government giving Nouri a second term. ISIS rises in Iraq during Nouri's second term and does so in response to Nouri's continued targeting of the Iraqi people. No second term for Nouri, no rise of ISIS. Let's deal with that option and wonder why Joe gets a pass from the press. On that? On everything.
Again, basic parenting is teaching children that words are not enough. "I made a mistake" or "I'm sorry" is not enough. You have to make an effort to make it right. Joe did nothing for the Iraqi people. So his 'mistake' isn't a real admission.
More to the point, he doesn't believe it was a "mistake" to vote for the Iraq War. He believes it was a "mistake" to trust Bully Boy Bush. He was so stupid that he trusted Bully Boy Bush. If, in the fall of 2002, you'd asked most Democrats: Should we trust Bully Boy Bush? The response would have been a loud "Hell no!" But idiot Joe wants to tell you he wasn't as smart as every other Democrat in the country and that he trusted Bully Boy Bush at that point.
Joe Biden said his vote for the Iraq War "was a mistake"? Barack, I believe you've confused him with many of your own voters in 2008 who supported you because you promised -- at campaign event after campaign event and in campaign ad after campaign ad -- to end the Iraq War. They voted for you. You ended up with two terms in the White House, two terms as president. You left after two terms and US forces were still in Iraq and the Iraq War continued. I think it's the deluded from 2008 who now feel that their votes for you were "a mistake."'
Barack left the White House after two terms as president with US troops still in Iraq, still dying in Iraq, with the war still dragging on.
Are Donald Trump and Joe Biden the only candidates you can choose from?
Howie Hawkins is running for president on the Green Party's ticket and he reminds you of some realities about Joe Biden.
Jo Jorgensen is running for president on the Libertarian Party's ticket
"Vote for what you really want," Jo Jorgensen offers.
Howie participated in a debate with other presidential candidates, including Gloria La Riva of the Party For Socialism and Liberation, last week. Though it went off without a hitch on FACEBOOK, there were streaming issues at YOUTUBE.
The organization which sponsored the debate has posted a full version of it to YOUTUBE.
Stream that if you have a candidate in the mix, if you like to be informed or if you're just curious what alternatives exist. Grasp that when Donald said no to a debate, the corporate media did not reach out to Howie or Jo or Gloria or anyone to try to put together a debate or to give them a townhall. If you want to know about the other candidates, you're going to have to do some of the work yourself because the corporate media -- and Amy Goodman of Beggar Media ('send us money, I've bilked PACIFICA out of millions and I still need more!') -- will not cover them. Credit to MORNING JOE on MSNBC for having Howie on last week. We noted that last week. But that's one show and that's one appearance.
Here's Angela Rodriquez on YOUTUBE doing what the corporate media should be doing, explaining the basics.
She can do it from her own home with no budget but the wealthy corporate media can't? No, they won't. This is not a new development. This was part of the corruption that inspired the rage of the film BULWORTH.
Here's Jo Jorgensen taking her message directly to the voters.
Are we noticing the reality that Jo, in her media under-covered campaign, still attracts larger turnout at her events than Joe Biden does?
The following sites updated: