Connect with us

TWITTER

The viral Twitter thread that explains right-wing conspiracy theorizing — if only inadvertently

Published

on

Tucker Carlson did something unusual in his program Friday evening. The Fox News host, who generally spends an extended period of time in his show opining in aggressive terms on the news of the day, added a second voice to the mix: a lengthy Twitter thread written by a podcaster named Darrell Cooper. The “really smart” thread, Carlson declared, “crystallized” why supporters of former president Donald Trump believe that the 2020 election was rigged.

In broad strokes, Cooper’s argument is that the inherent trust Trump supporters had in institutions like the federal government collapsed in the wake of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. This was a group that, in his words, “encourage their sons to enlist in the Army, and hate ppl who don’t stand for the Anthem,” now seeing how what many on the right refer to as the Deep State could array their power against an outsider.

“This is profoundly disorienting,” Cooper wrote. “Many of them don’t know for certain whether ballots were faked in November 2020, but they know for absolute certain that the press, the FBI, etc would lie to them if there was. They have every reason to believe that, and it’s probably true.”

It is indisputably the case that Trump supporters accept claims about election fraud in part because of their diminished confidence in institutions such as government and the media. What is subject to dispute, though, is the cause of that lack of confidence. While Cooper suggests that it’s emergent, it isn’t. While Cooper argues that it’s a function of investigations into Trump, it’s actually a function of partisan responses — largely but not entirely on the right — driven by Trump himself. And, most importantly, what Cooper presents as the indisputable facts undergirding his argument are often misleading or false and a function of partisan defenses of Trump that are common in conservative media.

Advertisement
free widgets for website

That last point is the most important one since it’s the thread’s linchpin. Everything follows from the “actual, confirmed facts” that Cooper argues are the spur for the distrust in the government.

“The FBI/etc spied on the 2016 Trump campaign using evidence manufactured by the Clinton campaign,” he writes at one point. “We now know that all involved knew it was fake from Day 1 (see: Brennan’s July 2016 memo, etc).” He later makes clear that he’s referring in large part to the dossier of reports written by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele on behalf of a firm hired by a law firm working for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

“We know as fact: a) The Steele dossier was the sole evidence used to justify spying on the Trump campaign,” Cooper adds later, “b) The FBI knew the Steele dossier was a DNC op, c) Steele’s source told the FBI the info was unserious, d) they did not inform the court of any of this and kept spying.”

See also  Twitter bot shares hot takes Texans will love to hate

You’re probably familiar with this version of events. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant obtained against former Trump campaign official Carter Page in October 2016 plays a central role in the overlapping ideas that the campaign was under close scrutiny and that the scrutiny was a function of false information from Steele. But this is obviously not true, for a lot of reasons. For one, Page had left the campaign by the time the warrant was obtained, which wouldn’t prevent investigators from looking at his interactions with campaign officials but does seem to undercut the idea that the campaign, not Page, was the target. Page was an adviser not known to have been particularly close to central figures. The feds had already identified red flags around a number of other campaign officials, including the one-time campaign manager; they targeted an ancillary unpaid adviser instead? For another, the warrant did depend on the Steele dossier, information that has not held up as substantiated. It was not the only information included in the warrant application, however, nor was there no other reason to scrutinize Page. He’d already been on the FBI’s radar after a suspected Russian spy identified him as a possible target for recruitment and Page had in fact traveled to Moscow that July, where he came into contact, however briefly, with a senior official in the Russian government.

Advertisement
free widgets for website

The reason that the Page warrant is being presented as the point of genesis for all of this is not because it was. It’s because, as Cooper makes clear, it’s useful to pretend that it was. If everything flowed from this one FISA warrant using dodgy information, the entire probe is legitimately smelly. But the reality is that several others linked to the campaign — including campaign manager Paul Manafort, another adviser named George Papadopoulos and eventual national security adviser Michael Flynn — all had ties of their own to Russia. The central investigation reportedly began when the FBI learned that Papadopoulos had informed an Australian diplomat that Russia had material incriminating Clinton, something he’d learned from a source he was hoping might connect Trump with Russian President Vladimir Putin. When stolen material began being published in July 2016, Australia tipped off the U.S. government.

The contemporaneous memo from former CIA director John Brennan to which Cooper refers is part of a relatively new effort to retrofit everything to drop it in Hillary Clinton’s lap but it, too, needs to be placed into context. Brennan took notes on a briefing with then-President Barack Obama in which he wrote that “[w]e’re getting additional insight into Russian activities” and which mentions “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on 28 July of a proposal … to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.” A separate CIA memo sent to the FBI in September (before the Page warrant) mentions a surveilled exchange in which such a plan from Clinton’s team was mentioned.

See also  Jay Valai confirms move to Alabama on Twitter

The implication has often been that Clinton was trying to engineer this scandal to harm Trump and the Obama administration played along. But there’s no evidence of that. Clinton’s team was already publicly trying to link Trump to Russia, using that same document dump of stolen material, material that The Post and others had already linked to Russian hacking. If the government wasn’t already examining how Russia was stealing and releasing material in an effort to influence the election, it was derelict. What’s more, there were links between Trump’s campaign and Russian actors, which Cooper doesn’t mention. Manafort gave internal polling information to a man that the federal government and his own second-in-command believed to be linked to Russian intelligence. What does that have to do with Carter Page, exactly?

Cooper is certainly correct that there was a lot of chatter about explicit collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russian actors that has remained unproven, chatter that was often a function of Trump opponents making claims that weren’t supportable with the then- or currently available evidence. But it is not true that the Steele dossier was the genesis for all of this and to claim that it was reveals either obvious dishonesty or a deeply blinkered understanding of what happened.

Advertisement
free widgets for website

Over and over, the stated facts that Cooper argues necessarily led freedom-loving patriots to new skepticism of the government is, instead, warmed-over conservative framing that elides nuance in favor of certainty. There’s plenty of “everyone knows” things that aren’t true or that aren’t accurately depicted. For example, he repeatedly comes back to a story from Time magazine describing how an informal group of progressive activists and business organizations worked to defend the integrity of the election in the face of Trump’s repeated attacks on it (and congressional inaction), framing this effort as deeply nefarious.

“It’s a fact, according to Time Magazine, that mass riots were planned in cities across the country if Trump won,” Cooper writes at one point. “Sure, they were ‘protests’, but they were planned by the same people as during the summer, and everyone knows what it would have meant.”

Read the Time article for yourself and gauge if that’s an accurate summary. It isn’t, at all. There was a system created to mobilize protests in the likely event that Trump tried to overturn the results of a closer election — protests that probably would have looked similar to the ones that emerged in the wake of the 2016 election in various cities. But Cooper needs to present this as a preparation for violence because it allows him to both present the left as being the ones to legitimize political violence (a common argument after Jan. 6) and because it allows him to suggest that judges wouldn’t take up election fraud lawsuits out of fear for their own personal safety. The idea, in other words, is that random election officials would speak out against the false fraud claims, invoking threats of violence, but that judges who enjoy much more robust security assistance were too afraid to contest them. This, too, depends on the idea that the left is more violent and dangerous than the right.

Cooper admits that most of the fraud claims made after the election are bogus nonsense, but argues that there were legitimate concerns, like how election laws were changed — a bit of rhetoric also made by politicians who wanted to appeal to Trump’s angry base after the election but who wanted to keep their distance from more ludicrous assertions. But that he ascribes the embrace of these ideas to a newfound distrust of the media or of government is ridiculous.

The right has spent decades undercutting confidence in the media, allowing people like Donald Trump to make false claims without the ability of objective observers to push back forcefully. And one set of evolving false claims that Trump made repeatedly was about the motivation for and initiation of the investigation into his presidency — claims now treated as indisputably accurate by his supporters and by Cooper. The distrust in the government that’s become rampant on the right in the past few years is not simply a reaction to objective consideration of what occurred. It is largely instead a function of Trump’s successful attempts to deflect criticism of himself onto government officials — a success attributable to the conservative media’s preference in helping Trump bolster that defense.

Cooper’s obviously right that this erosion of confidence in everything besides Trump made it easy for Trump to falsely claim that the election was stolen. Cooper’s incorrect, however, in nearly all of his efforts to defend that erosion as warranted. He ended his Twitter thread with a hyperbole that would have pleased Trump himself: “Trump fans should be happy he lost; it might’ve kept him alive.”

Carlson ended his reading of Cooper’s tweets well before that.

Advertisement
free widgets for website

“Trump’s voters,” Carlson said, “quote, ‘are absolutely right that their government is monopolized by a regime that believes they are beneath representation and will observe no limits to keep them getting it.’ End quote.”

“That is true,” he added, “and every honest person knows it.”

Read More

TWITTER

Elon Musk Says He’ll Pay $11 Billion in Taxes in 2021 But Twitter Wants ‘Proof’

Published

on

By

elon-musk-says-he’ll-pay-$11-billion-in-taxes-in-2021-but-twitter-wants-‘proof’

Elon Musk took to Twitter to clarify once and for all that he will be paying a whopping $11 billion as taxes this year.

If the number of times Elon Musk could count when someone has asked him to pay the full taxes, he would be a very rich..wait, never mind. The Tesla boss is rich beyond any private individual has been in history, reports said.

Musk has increasingly been facing criticism from many politicians and many others who insist he has not been paying taxes as compared to the profits his companies have been making. On Sunday, the SpaceX CEO took to Twitter to share that he will be paying a whopping $11 billion as taxes.

For those wondering, I will pay over $11 billion in taxes this year— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 20, 2021

But some of the questions did not stop. One person tweeted how they needed to see Musk’s tax returns while yet another asked how much percentage was that of his total income.

A few were, however scathing of the government who thought they will add that amount to their pockets rather than using it for some proper development.

Advertisement
free widgets for website

Wow that’s enough to give each person in the world almost $2 million but instead the government will just stick it in their pockets— greg (@greg16676935420) December 20, 2021

Why not $200 billion? Asking for a Senator— litquidity (@litcapital) December 20, 2021

Earlier this week, Democratic US Senator Elizabeth Warren has tweeted to say that Musk should pay taxes and stop “freeloading off everyone else” after Time magazine named him its “person of the year”.

In response, Musk shot four tweets in which he said that the senator reminded him of a friend’s angry mom who yelled at everybody. He tweeted, ““And if you opened your eyes for 2 seconds, you would realize I will pay more taxes than any American in history this year.” “Don’t spend it all at once … oh wait you did already.”

He added further, “You remind me of when I was a kid and my friend’s angry Mom would just randomly yell at everyone for no reason.”

Musk responded by saying that he “will pay more taxes than any American in history this year”. This Twitter exchange left netizens divided as even though many supported Warren and agreed that Musk should pay more taxes, others felt that he was already doing enough.

Musk’s Tesla is worth about $1 trillion. Over the last few weeks, he has sold nearly $14 billion worth of Tesla shares.

Advertisement
free widgets for website

The Tesla boss has been pushing for his colonize Mars agenda for years now, and has made it very clear in some occasions that he would rather spend the money on putting humanity on the red planet, than pay his taxes. “My plan,” the SpaceX founder tweeted about his fortune, “is to use the money to get humanity to Mars and preserve the light of consciousness.”

See also  Twitter is testing new e-commerce features to integrate product details
Continue Reading

TWITTER

Twitter Admits Policy ‘Errors’ After Far-Right Abuse Its New Rules of Posting Pictures

Published

on

By

twitter-admits-policy-‘errors’-after-far-right-abuse-its-new-rules-of-posting-pictures

Twitter’s new picture permission policy was aimed at combating online abuse, but US activists and researchers said Friday that far-right backers have employed it to protect themselves from scrutiny and to harass opponents.

Even the social network admitted the rollout of the rules, which say anyone can ask Twitter to take down images of themselves posted without their consent, was marred by malicious reports and its teams’ own errors.

It was just the kind of trouble anti-racism advocates worried was coming after the policy was announced this week.

Their concerns were quickly validated, with anti-extremism researcher Kristofer Goldsmith tweeting a screenshot of a far-right call-to-action circulating on Telegram: “Due to the new privacy policy at Twitter, things now unexpectedly work more in our favor.”

“Anyone with a Twitter account should be reporting doxxing posts from the following accounts,” the message said, with a list of dozens of Twitter handles.

Advertisement
free widgets for website

Gwen Snyder, an organizer and researcher in Philadelphia, said her account was blocked this week after a report to Twitter about a series of 2019 photos she said showed a local political candidate at a march organized by extreme-right group Proud Boys.

Rather than go through an appeal with Twitter she opted to delete the images and alert others to what was happening.

“Twitter moving to eliminate (my) work from their platform is incredibly dangerous and is going to enable and embolden fascists,” she told AFP.

In announcing the privacy policy on Tuesday, Twitter noted that “sharing personal media, such as images or videos, can potentially violate a person’s privacy, and may lead to emotional or physical harm.”

See also  California court sides with Twitter on right to ban users for speech considered hateful

But the rules don’t apply to “public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweets are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.”

Advertisement
free widgets for website

By Friday, Twitter noted the roll out had been rough: “We became aware of a significant amount of coordinated and malicious reports, and unfortunately, our enforcement teams made several errors.”

“We’ve corrected those errors and are undergoing an internal review to make certain that this policy is used as intended,” the firm added.

Continue Reading

TWITTER

Jack Dorsey Post Twitter Is Chasing His Crypto, Fintech Dream

Published

on

By

jack-dorsey-post-twitter-is-chasing-his-crypto,-fintech-dream

At a packed Miami conference in June, Jack Dorsey, mused in front of thousands of attendees about where his real passion lay: “If I weren’t at Square or Twitter, I’d be working on Bitcoin.”

On Monday, Dorsey made good on one part of that, announcing he would leave Twitter for the second time, handing the CEO position to a 10-year veteran at the firm. The 45-year-old entrepreneur, who is often described as an enigma with varied interests from meditation to yoga to fashion design, plans to pursue his passion which include focusing on running Square and doing more philanthropic work, according to a source familiar with his plan.

Well before the surprise news, Dorsey had laid the groundwork for his next chapter, seeding both companies with cryptocurrency-related projects.

Underlying Dorsey’s broader vision is the principle of “decentralisation,” or the idea that technology and finance should not be concentrated among a handful of gatekeepers, as it is now, but should, instead, be steered by the hands of the many, either people or entities.

The concept has played out at Square, which has built a division devoted to working on projects and awarding grants with the aim of growing Bitcoin’s popularity globally. Bitcoin price in India stood at Rs. 44.52 lakh as of 12:50pm IST on December 1.

Advertisement
free widgets for website

Dorsey has been a longtime proponent of Bitcoin, and the appeal is that the cryptocurrency will allow for private and secure transactions with the value of Bitcoin unrelated to any government.

The idea has also underpinned new projects at Twitter, where Dorsey tapped a top lieutenant – and now the company’s new CEO Parag Agrawal – to oversee a team that is attempting to construct a decentralised social media protocol, which will allow different social platforms to connect with one another, similar to the way email providers operate.

See also  Tiger Woods' Twitter account provides update on his injuries, thanks fans

The project called Bluesky will aim to allow users control over the types of content they see online, removing the “burden” on companies like Twitter to enforce a global policy to fight abuse or misleading information, Dorsey said in 2019 when he announced Bluesky.

Bitcoin has also figured prominently at both of his companies. Square became one of the first public companies to own Bitcoin assets on its balance sheet, having invested $220 million (roughly Rs. 1,650 crore) in the cryptocurrency.

In August, Square created a new business unit called TBD to focus on Bitcoin. The company is also planning to build a hardware wallet for Bitcoin, a Bitcoin mining system, as well as a decentralised Bitcoin exchange.

Advertisement
free widgets for website

Twitter allows users to tip their favourite content creators with Bitcoin and has been testing integrations with non-fungible tokens (NFTs), a type of digital asset that allows people to collect unique digital art.

Analysts see the transition as a positive signal for Square, the fintech platform he co-founded in 2009. Square’s core Cash App, after a bull run in its share in 2020, has experienced slower growth in the most recent quarter. It is also trying to digest the $29 billion (roughly Rs. 2,17,240 crore) acquisition of Buy Now Pay Later provider Afterpay, its largest acquisition ever.

But these ambitions will not pay off until years from now, analysts cautioned.

“The blockchain platform they’re trying to develop is great but also fraught with technical challenges and difficult to scale for consumers. I think he’ll focus more on Square and crypto will be part of that,” said Christopher Brendler, an analyst at DA Davidson.

See also  Why Twitter Could Be the Social Media Surprise This Earnings Season

© Thomson Reuters 2021

Advertisement
free widgets for website

Interested in cryptocurrency? We discuss all things crypto with WazirX CEO Nischal Shetty and WeekendInvesting founder Alok Jain on Orbital, the Gadgets 360 podcast. Orbital is available on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music and wherever you get your podcasts.

Cryptocurrency is an unregulated digital currency, not a legal tender and subject to market risks. The information provided in the article is not intended to be and does not constitute financial advice, trading advice or any other advice or recommendation of any sort offered or endorsed by NDTV. NDTV shall not be responsible for any loss arising from any investment based on any perceived recommendation, forecast or any other information contained in the article.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Continue Reading

Trending