Politico
THREAD: The Twitter Files. THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP. Part One: October 2020-January 6th
Arizona Central
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema: Why I’m registering as an independent
PJ Media
FBI Bigwig Quietly Steps Down Just Before New Congress Probes Begin
Photo by Alexi Rosenfeld
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
What is my want from time to time I. I think we’re going to take a little turn here and get into something that I also think will be somewhat intriguing if not compelling. If you stick with me for the first hour, I would like to get into a little philosophy, like to get a little deep with you. There’ll be plenty time for the other stuff, cinema and so forth. It’s not that complicated. I don’t know how people talk about it for an hour or two hour, but I don’t. So let us begin. With an idea. Ludwig von Mises. Who’s Ludwig von Mises? He’s from what they call the the Austrian School of Economics. What’s that? It’s essentially libertarianism. He was a genius. Frederick Hayek. And he were close friends. Milton Friedman and the other two were very good friends. So forth. And they had an enormous influence on Walter Williams and Tom Soul and Bill Buckley, among others. And one of the things he wrote in his book Marxism on Mass From Delusion to Destruction in 2006. He said The philosophy of today is that of Karl Marx. He is the most powerful personality of our age. Karl Marx And the idea of Karl Marx ideas, which he did not invent, develop or improve, but which he combined into a system, are widely accepted today, even by many who emphatically declare that they are anti-communist. In our time Marxist. Even by many who emphatically declare that they are anti-communist in their time. Marxists took considerable extent without knowing it. Many people are philosophical Marxists, although they use different names for their philosophical ideas. What is he talking about there? He’s talking about people who embrace various degrees of classism. Of centralism. A redistribution. And ultimately in the end are not pure Marxists, but people who embrace the fundamental ideas of Marxism. Now not to be provocative, but this is one of my great problems with populism. Because populism abandons. Abandons conservatism. And condemns it and dismisses it. An embrace has aspects of the far left. And the idea of the the expert administrators. And the masterminds Reagan in 1977 at CPAC, I think. Address this in a very smart way. Am I? My stepson, David, reminded me of this. The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience, and not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. Well, we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs and that we know what we know can be stated as principles. We’re saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found through experience be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities, and for nations found through the often bitter testing of pain or sacrifice and sorrow. And so in many ways, some of the younger, quote unquote, conservatives of our day. They’re looking for a new. New models. They’re looking for new philosophies, new ideologies. They don’t want to quite abandon conservatism completely. And in virtually every case, they borrow from one degree or another. The idea of centralization and that government should in fact be a referee. Not now and then, but most of the time. And they’ll use phrases like middle class. Marx used that phrase, invented that phrase. And yet, as Macy’s has said, Marks never define class, not once. You’re going to define the middle class. What is it exactly? And then. The modern day American Marxism, whatever form they want to take, they they turn to government to fight it. Usually it’s the Internal Revenue Code or something of that nature. Because it takes away from the notion of individualism or even family. When you talk about classes and groups. Classes and groups raises the specter. Of discrimination for or against certain individuals based on, among other things, their income, their age, their race, their faith, you name it. Marx would be proud. The founders would be appalled. There is a new legal theory. It’s not a widely accepted legal theory that’s now starting to spread among the Federalist Society and some of the more conservative lawyers and legal groups out there. And of all places, you can learn about it at Politico to some extent. In a piece written by Ian Ward, and this goes back really to December 9th. Critics call it theocratic and authoritarian. Young conservatives call it an exciting new legal theory. What are they talking about? Common good conservatism is what they self-identify as ideas. Common good conservatism to replace originalism. Now, originalism broadly understood, is the idea. And it was pressed by Attorney General Meese and he and Justice Brennan went at it for several years. That the way to interpret the Constitution is to look at the text. And if the text isn’t clear, to try and understand the wording, the verbiage as it was understood when the Constitution was written and adopted and ratified, to try and stick as closely to that as possible and leave it to the political branches, federal, state and local to fill in the gaps on the political side and leave it to the individuals to fill in the gaps in their own life. And so this gentleman, a Politico contributing writer, talks about this meeting of all places, Cambridge, Massachusetts. With our dear friend, Georgetown University law professor Randy Baird and others now. And I know if he endorses this or not, I doubt it. But nonetheless, he decided to have as part of this. Seminar, a discussion about common good constitutionalism. Now, let’s step back a sec. When you hear phrases like common good. Or the public good. Or the public interest. What does that spark in your mind? What does that trigger? An incredibly ambiguous, indeed nebulous phraseology that the left in their various iterations that the left use. To drive a hole through the Constitution or limited government. Kind of language that was used by Rousseau. Or a haggle. But even Mark. And now you understand what Mrs. was talking about. So what is this thing? He writes, At the center of this debate was Harvard law professor Adrian Wermiel, whose latest book served as the ostensible subject of the symposium in conservative legal circles. Professor Vemula has become the most prominent proponent of common good constitutionalism, a controversial new theory that challenges many of the fundamental premises and principles of the conservative legal movement. The cornerstone of his theory is the claim that, quote, The central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to protect liberty as an end in itself. Or, in layman’s terms, that the Constitution empowers the government to pursue conservative political ends, even when those ends conflict with individual rights as most Americans understand them. In practice, for most theory, lends support to an idiosyncratic but far reaching set out. And this is the writer, not me of far right objectives outright bans on abortion and same sex marriage, sweeping limits on freedom of expression and expanded authorities for the government to do everything from protecting the natural environment to prohibiting the sale of porn. But if these symposiums Nominal subject was Romeo’s new book, which shares the name of a theory, its real concerns were much broader since it was published in February this year. Common good constitutionalism has become a flashpoint in a broader intra conservative debate about the future of the conservative legal movement. This debate is unfolding in the shadow of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dobbs versus Jackson women’s Health. That abortion case. But its scope extends far beyond constitutional debates over abortion. This conflict hinges on a more fundamental philosophical question Does originalism the theory of constitutional interpretation that conservatives have championed for the past 40 years provide the conservative movement with the sort of intellectual ammunition that it needs to tear down half a century of liberal jurisprudence and rebuild American law on more conservative foundations? Or is it time now that conservatives have secured a decisive majority on the Supreme Court for the right to embrace a more aggressive and illogical, assertive legal theory? Now? I don’t know, Professor Muir, but I think there’s a lot of. Complication and complexity here that I will have to read his book, but I’m reading the article. And let me start this way. Judicial activism is judicial activism. How do you draw lines around it? How do you criticize the left? How do you challenge? The left who are dressed up, many of them as federal judges, state judges, Supreme Court justices. For judicial activism to advance their. I’ll say it, their Marxist agenda, their agenda of centralized government, activist government. When in fact your position is essentially the same. But for a different aim and a different end. You may try and wrap yourself in the Constitution, but you’ve abandoned originalism. So what is your theory? Well, your theory is for good rule. Good role. What does that mean? What is the common good mean? It’s this kind of abuse of the constitutional order. That leads to tyranny. I don’t care who’s doing it because it creates no basic principles. You’re not Maude. You’re not Maude on principle. Now, it’s one thing for two justices to approach the Constitution the same way in terms of interpretation and come up with different results. That’s perfectly fine. Thomas and Scalia did that. From time to time. Rehnquist, Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia. They did it from time to time. That’s great. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. So stick with me. I know it’s a little complicated, but we can get through this. It’s very important. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
In the one side of the debate are defenders of the conservative legal status quo who made up the majority of the speakers at the symposium. They continue to champion the time honored legal principles of the right, the sanctity of individual rights, the importance of judicial restraint and the wisdom of limited government. Practically all of them continue to identify as originalists. On the other side of the debate are those who like VRAM, You want to push the conservative legal move into a more radical direction. Partisans of this camp hail from different sectors of the American right and they go by different names. Some skew the label a conservative for the edgier post liberal or Integra list two terms that are variously applied over a mule. But they have cohered around a shared desire for a more muscular judiciary, one that sheds the guise of judicial neutrality in favor of the more assertive, right leaning posture. Now, that’s interesting, their critics of originalism. I’ve done a lot of studying of Woodrow Wilson and his ilk over 100 years ago and more. And they believed in a very activist judiciary to. Very activists, and they believe that’s where the revolution would come from. So let’s continue to dig into this, if you will, because that’s this debate can spread. It’s going on. I’ll be back.
Hour 1 Segment 3
You know, there’s nothing cutting edge or profound about this idea that Professor William Mueller is promoting. Thrilling. Just activism. Activism from a different political perspective. Premier coined the term common good constitutionalism to describes alternative theory, and he was not coy about what it would entail. Unlike originalists and legal liberals can be good. Constitutionalists would not suffer from a horror of political domination and hierarchy, he writes, And they would display a candid willingness to legislate morality. In sharp contrast to libertarian conservatives, common good constitutionalists would favorite quote, a powerful presidency ruling over a powerful bureaucracy on the constitutional front. The court’s jaws, prudence on free speech, abortion, sexual liberties and related matters were proved vulnerable to new challenges. The country freshly locked down by the pandemic. His article went viral, or at least as viral as 2500 word essay on academic jurisprudence can go. The right conservatives objected to his claim that originalism was nothing more than an instrument for advancing their political agenda. And on the left, liberals seized on his critique as proof of a political agenda they long claimed that was behind originalism. For Mueller’s vision of a more muscular conservative jurisprudence. It’s not a conservative jurisprudence. It’s an activist jurisprudence. From a political conservative. It did strike a chord with certain sectors of the right in the American mind. An online journal published by the Claremont Institute Where I went. One summer, fantastic place, the conservative legal scholar, prominent anti-abortion activists Hadley Arkes applauded Bermejo for having the gall to say that there were principles in existence before the text of the Constitution was drafted. I don’t know what that means. Of course, there were principles in existence before the Constitution was drafted. A few months later, an anonymous conservative lawyer launched a blog called I’m Not Going to Give It Out to serve as a platform for debates over the theory, and it goes on. And it goes on. Now, here we have, at least in some instances, a court that is originalist, at least three originalists on the court. It took decades to get to this point. And part of the problem we have in academia and part of the problem we have, and not exclusively, but among young conservatives and some of them are very good. Some of them are just not some of them are flailing around is they want to come up with quote unquote, new ideas given the tyranny that we we face. But they often abandoned, if not by word, by practice. The old ideas and the old ideas are not political ideas. The old ideas are the principles. Based on hundreds, if not thousands of years of human experience. I have a book here. I’ve got literally dozens and dozens of books here. Given the project, I’m working on the Second Bill of Rights. Written by Cass Sunstein, a leftist who worked for Obama. His wife worked for Obama, and now she works for Biden. The second Bella writes, This was the title. For socialism that FDR came up with. Here’s another one. The New Freedom. This is the title for Early American Marxism, 1913, the Woodrow Wilson came up with. Or how about compassionate conservatism? Remember that one? That’s the one the Bushes came up with. Hyphenated conservatism. The only hyphen that I support on conservatism is constitutional conservatism. So it’s this is a very treacherous idea. It is not based on constitutionalism at all. It’s the idea that you take the Constitution and try and twist it and spin it in a way that gets you the ends that you want. Now, if you’re serious about what I will coin a word tonight reconstitute, analyzing. Our country, our society. Then you embrace a movement that is constitutionally authorized like constitute like convention of states. Which is why I get very frustrated with Republicans and conservatives who I don’t know about that, really. And they’re coming up with new models and new models to get in front of us. It’s right in front of us. And I don’t remember this professor getting involved in the convention of states. If he did, he’s been very quiet about it. And one of the Liberty Amendments that I proposed and it appears to be taking off in Israel right now. Is that? In our form of government if 3/5. Of the Congress, both houses, within 24 months of a decision. Vote to hold a decision of the Supreme Court null and void, not rewrite it, not replace it null and void. Then that decision is null and void. But even better, if 3/5 of the state legislatures. Not the states, the state legislatures. Determined that a Supreme Court decision should be held null and void. They vote. And if that’s the case, it’s null and void. Why? Because I’m of the belief not in mob ocracy that is pure democracy. Not in Central City. What are we being too powerful of a president or a monarch or what have you? I believe in embracing. And using representative government. But if a simple majority can overturn a Supreme Court decision. That’s less representative majority than it is a sort of representative mob ocracy. So I agree with the framers. And they created a Senate. They created a house. And the only body that’s directly elected as their House of Representatives. But that said, it’s not written in the Constitution that. The Supreme Court has the final word on anything. Remember, we talked about this judicial review as an implied power. It’s a very powerful, implied power. But the Supreme Court goes one way because of the lack of the appointees by one party or the other, and the nation is in a completely different direction. That is destructive and the body politic as a whole. Should have the final say. Not by electing judges and justices. Not by plebiscites or referenda. But through the representative system. That’s my view. Professor Vermillion, as far as I know, has not commented on or participated in this and studies basically saying, you know what, his philosophy comes down to Mister Producer in America, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. They have activists. So now we’ll have activists, but our activists are better. Until, of course, you disagree with them. And then you have to ask yourselves. Well, if they’re just going to go on the court, take the Constitution, and rather than try and apply the original intent, but are going to, in clever legalese, push for an agenda and then they wind up with an agenda you may not support. Then the whole country’s going to oppose the Supreme Court. I don’t think this is wise. And the reason why they don’t want to be called conservatives anymore is because it’s not conservative. I suspect they don’t want to be called constitutionalists either. Because it’s not constitutionalist constitutionalism. Now I have to move on or I would spend more time on this. I just enjoy it. I hope you folks do, too. But as it turns out today, and much to my surprise, we’ve got some tweeting going on over there by Matt Talib Taibbi. Hey, pull it up. So new string of tweets here, right, Mr. Producer? And before the break, let me let me get into some of this thread that Twitter files the removal of Donald Trump. Part one October 20, 22. January 6th. The world knows much of the story of what happened, writes Taibbi. Between riots at the Capitol on January 6th and removal of Donald Trump from Twitter on January 8th. We will show you what hasn’t been revealed, the erosion of standards within the company. And months before January six, decisions by high ranking executives to violate their own policies and more. Against the backdrop of ongoing documented interaction with federal agencies. This first installment covers the period before the election, before the election through January 6th. Tomorrow, Dr. Shellenberger will detail the chaos inside Twitter on January 7th. On Sunday, Barry Weiss will reveal the secret internal communications from the key date of January 8th. Whatever your opinion on the decision to remove Trump that day, the internal communications at Twitter between January 6th and January 8th have clear historical import. Even Twitter’s employees understood in the moment it was a landmark moment in the annals of speech. As soon as they finished banning Trump, Twitter executives started processing new power. They prepared to ban future presidents and White House, perhaps even Biden. The new administration says one executive. Will not be suspended by Twitter unless absolutely necessary. Twitter executives removed Trump in part over what one executive called the context surrounding that is actions by Trump and supporters over the course of the election. And I’m quoting and frankly, the last four plus years. In other words, they removed him because he’s Trump. Not simply because of January six. In the end, they looked at a broad picture. But that approach can cut both ways, writes Taibbi. The bulk of the internal debate leading to Trump’s ban took place in those three January days, but the intellectual framework was laid in the months preceding the Capitol riots. Before January six. Twitter was a unique mix of automated rules based enforcement and more subjective moderation by senior executives. This is on Twitter now. As reported, the firm had a vast array of tools for manipulating visibility, most of which were thrown at Trump and others pre January six. As the election approached, senior executives, perhaps under pressure from federal agencies with whom they met more as time progressed, with whom they met more. As time progressed, federal agencies increasingly struggled with rules and began to speak of virus as pretext to do what they’d likely have done anyway. After January six, internal Slack show Twitter executives getting a kick a kick out of intensified relationships with federal agencies. Here’s trust and safety head y’all wrath. Remember him lamenting a lack of generic enough calendar descriptions to concealing his very interesting meeting partners? They were concerned that they didn’t have enough cover demonstrating that they were working with the federal government. These initial reports are based on searches for documents linked to prominent executives whose names are already public. They include Wrath, former trust and policy chief Vijaya Aghadi and recently Plank Walk Deputy General Counsel, former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker. What particular Slack channel offers a unique window into the evolving thinking of top officials in late 2020 and early 2021. On October eight, 2020, executives opened a channel called U.S. 2020 Enforcement. Through January six. This would be home for discussions about election related removals, especially ones that involved, quote, high profile unquote accounts. Often called visits are very important tweeters. There was at least some tension between safety operations, a larger department whose staffers use a more rules based process for addressing issues like porn scams and threats. And a smaller, more powerful cadre of senior policy. Exactly like Roth and. That’s where we are right now. And I’ll pick it up soon when we return. Lots going on on this Friday. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4 Here’s more. We ended at 15. Let me repeat it. There was at least some tension between safety operations, a larger department whose staffers used a more rules based process for addressing issues like porn scams and threats, and a smaller, more powerful cadre of senior policy execs like Roth and JD. The latter group or a high speed Supreme Court of moderation issuing content rulings on the fly that these executives often in minutes based on guesses, gut calls, even Google searches, even in the cases involving the president, President Trump. During this time, executives were also clearly leaders liaison. With federal enforcement, federal enforcement and intelligence agencies about moderation of election related content. The FBI got that. While we’re still at the start of reviewing the Twitter files, we’re finding out more about these interactions every day. Now, I want to continue this when we return. So I continue to give this national attention. We are here as we are late afternoon and evening all weekdays. So we catch this stuff to inform you about it. Do not watch the Sunday shows. They are corrupt. Do not watch the Sunday shows. They are corrupt. Except mine, of course. I’ll be right back.