The remarks, though later walked back by the White House, are the most explicit yet from the U.S. president that he sees no future for Putin as Russia’s head of state.
Originally published by JON QUEALLY March 26, 2022 in CommonDreams.ORG
Bucking those who warn that a push for regime change in Moscow could prolong the war in Ukraine and intensify the suffering of its people, U.S. President Joe Biden appeared to openly call for the overthrow of Russian Vladimir Putin on Saturday during a speech in Warsaw, Poland.
“Whenever the United States tried regime change, it didn’t turn out very well.”
While applauding the international unity that has mobilized to condemn and push back against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a war now entering its second month, Biden suggested it has now become intolerable for Putin to remain.
Near the very end of his speech, Biden declared, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
“Whenever the United States tried regime change, it didn’t turn out very well.”
The remarks were the most explicit yet from the U.S. president that he sees no future for Putin as Russia’s head of state, but the comment also raised immediate alarm bells among those who recognized that such rhetoric could make it harder to a negotiated peace settlement to take hold or for the diplomatic strategy known as the “Golden Bridge” which would allow for a dignified exit from hostilities.
In a Democracy Now! interview that aired Friday, former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis explained why Putin must be given a viable exit strategy—not because he isn’t a contemptible war criminal, which Varoufakis readily admitted—but because it would be the fastest way to end the invasion and mass slaughter of innocent Ukrainian civilians.
“What is exactly the aim?” asks Varoufakis during the exchange. “Is it regime change in Russia? Well, whenever the United States tried regime change, it didn’t turn out very well, and has never been tried with a nuclear power. This is like playing with fire, or nuclear fire, I should say. If it’s not regime change, what exactly is it?”
"Putin must be given a golden bridge from which to escape his conundrum. He must be given something he can sell to his own people as 'mission accomplished," says @YanisVaroufakis.
"We should be moving toward a rational solution that will leave everybody slightly dissatisfied." pic.twitter.com/SH0ma4aXBf
In his assessment, Varoufakis said that if Biden and his NATO allies are “not leaving any room for a compromise” with Putin, then they are “effectively jeopardizing the interests of Ukrainians, because a quagmire in—an Afghanistan-like quagmire in the Ukraine is not exactly in the interests of any Ukrainian I know of.”
“The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change,” said the official.
Following the walk back, Varoufakis responded on Sunday morning by saying the need for such a clarification is itself a worrying sign.
“A U.S. president who, during an atrocious war, does not mean what he says on matters of war and peace, and must be corrected by his hyperventilating staff,” said Varoufakis, “is a clear and present danger to all.”
Update: This piece was updated to include news comments from Varoufakis.
This article was first published on Common Dreams and republished under Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
“Using cluster munitions in populated areas shows a brazen and callous disregard for people’s lives,” said the human rights group.
Russian forces used cluster bombs during attacks on Ukraine’s second-largest city of Kharkiv in what may amount to war crimes, Human Rights Watch said Friday.
“Using cluster munitions in populated areas shows a brazen and callous disregard for people’s lives,” said Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch, in a statement.
The new assessment of Monday strikes on Kharkiv, an eastern city home to over 1.4 million people, is based on photos and video evidence verified by the human rights group and was presented as Russia faces increasing global condemnation over its ongoing invasion, which has stoked fears of nuclear disaster and has already forced over one million people to flee Ukraine.
HRW already confirmed last week use of cluster munitions by Russian forces in a February 24 strike just outside a hospital in the Ukrainian city of Vuhledar. The new assessment focuses on munitions that hit the Moskovskyi, Shevchenkivskyi, and Industrialnyi districts of Kharkiv on February 28.
The rights group—which noted the “inherently indiscriminate nature of cluster munitions and their foreseeable effects on civilians”—based its new assessment on interviews with two witnesses and an analysis of 40 videos and photographs, which revealed information on explosion signatures and remnants of the rockets.
The munitions used in the Kharkiv strikes, said HRW, were delivered by Russian-made 9M55K Smerch cluster munition rockets.
NEW: Russian forces fired cluster munitions into at least three residential areas of Kharkiv, #Ukraine’s second largest city, on February 28, 2022. The use of these weapons might constitute a war crime. https://t.co/S7cgZFAifnpic.twitter.com/rMubla6C1a
Over 120 nations have signed on to an international treatybanning the use, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions, which can pose deadly harm far beyond initial explosions, as unexploded submitions becoming akin to landmines. The Cluster Munition Caolition describes the weapons as being able to “saturate an area up to the size of several football fields.”
Neither Russia, Ukraine, nor the U.S., however, is state party to the treaty.
“We are seeing mounting evidence of indiscriminate attacks on Kharkiv and the price civilians are paying for these serious violations,” said HRW’s Goose.
“If these deadly acts were carried out either intentionally or recklessly,” he added, “they would be war crimes.”
The head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) also said Friday that Russian forces have used cluster bombs in its attacks on Ukraine.
“We have seen the use of cluster bombs and we have seen reports of use of other types of weapons which would be in violation of international law,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters.
Amnesty International has also previously confirmed Russian forces’ use of cluster bombs on Ukraine, and open source investigative outlet Bellingcat has also been tracking Russia’s use of the weapons during the invasion.
In a Wednesday statement, the U.K. presidency of the Convention on Cluster Munitions expressed “grave” concern about reports of Russia using the weapons in strikes on Ukraine, noting that cluster bombs “have had a devastating impact on civilians in many conflict areas.”
The Cluster Munition Coalition, in a Wednesday tweet, said, “We welcome the growing number of states speaking out on—and urge all states to condemn—the unacceptable use of cluster munitions by Russian forces in Ukraine.”
Originally published on Common Dreams by ANDREA GERMANOS and republished under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
artist’s version of the Reichstag fire, which Hitler blamed on the communists. COLLAGE CREDIT: Lynxotic / DEZAIN UNKIE/ ALAMY
In the past few weeks, U.S. officials have warned severaltimes that Russia plans to create the appearance of an attack on its own forces and broadcast those images to the world. Such a “false flag” operation, they alleged, would give Russia the pretext to invade Ukraine by provoking shock and outrage.
By exposing this plan, the Biden administration sought to undermine its emotional power and stop the Kremlin from manufacturing a casus belli, or justification for war.
But false flag attacks aren’t what they used to be. With satellite photos and live video on the ground shared widely and instantly on the internet – and with journalists and armchair sleuths joining intelligence professionals in analyzing the information – it’s difficult to get away with false flag attacks today. And with the prevalence of disinformation campaigns, manufacturing a justification for war doesn’t require the expense or risk of a false flag – let alone an actual attack.
The long history of false flag attacks
Both false flag attacks and allegations that states engage in them have a long history. The term originated to describe pirates’ wielding of friendly (and false) flags to lure merchant ships close enough to attack. It was later used as a label for any attack – real or simulated – that the instigators inflict against “friendly” forces to incriminate an adversary and create the basis for retaliation.
In the 20th century, there were several prominent episodes involving false flag operations. In 1939, agents from Nazi Germany broadcast anti-German messages from a German radio station near the Polish border. They also murdered several civilians whom they dressed in Polish military uniforms to create a pretext for Germany’s planned invasion of Poland.
That same year, the Soviet Union detonated shells in Soviet territory near the Finnish border and blamed Finland, which it then proceeded to invade.
The U.S. has also been implicated in similar plots. Operation Northwoods was a proposal to kill Americans and blame the attack on Castro, thereby granting the military the pretext to invade Cuba. The Kennedy administration ultimately rejected the plan.
In addition to these actual plots, there have been numerous alleged false flag attacks involving the U.S. government. The sinking of the USS Maine in 1898 and the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 – each of which was a critical part of a casus belli – have been claimed as possible false flag attacks, though the evidence supporting these allegations is weak.
Global visibility, disinformation and cynicism
More recent and even less fact-based is the “9/11 Truth” movement, which alleged that the Bush administration engineered the destruction of the twin towers to justify restrictions on civil liberties and lay the foundation for invading Iraq. Right-wing pundits and politicians have promoted the conspiracy theory that Democrats have staged mass shootings, such as the one at a high school in Parkland, Florida, in 2018, in order to push for gun control laws.
Furthermore, governments operate in relative secrecy and have recourse to tools of coercion such as intelligence, well-trained agents and weapons to implement their agenda. It is not a huge leap to imagine that leaders deliberately cause the high-impact events that they later exploit for political gain, notwithstanding the logistical complexities, large number of people who would have to be involved and moral qualms leaders might have about murdering their own citizens.
For example, it is not controversial to note that the Bush administration used the 9/11 attacks to build support for its invasion of Iraq. Yet this led some people to conclude that, since the Bush administration benefited politically from 9/11, it therefore must have caused the attacks, despite all evidence to the contrary.
The challenge of credibility
The willingness to believe that leaders are capable of such atrocities reflects a broader trend of rising distrust toward governments worldwide, which, incidentally, complicates matters for leaders who intend to carry out false flag attacks. If the impact of such attacks has historically come from their ability to rally citizens around their leader, false flag attacks staged today may not only fail to provoke outrage against the purported aggressor, but they can also backfire by casting suspicion on the leaders who stand to benefit.
Furthermore, investigators using open source intelligence, such as the Bellingcat collective of citizen internet sleuths, make it more difficult for governments to get away with egregious violations of laws and international norms.
Even as the Biden administration attempts to blunt Russia’s ability to seize the initiative, it too faces credibility challenges. Reporters were justifiably skeptical of State Department spokesman Ned Price’s warning about Russia’s false flag plans, especially since he did not provide evidence for the claim.
Skeptics pointed to the August 2021 drone strike during the U.S. withdrawal from Kabul, which the military initially asserted was a “righteous strike” to kill a suicide bomber but that later turned out to be a mistaken attack on an innocent man and his family. It took overwhelming and undeniable evidence from media investigations before the U.S. government admitted the mistake.
Insofar as the Kremlin might expect to benefit from executing a false flag attack, it would be to manufacture a casus belli among Russian citizens rather than to persuade audiences abroad. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of Russians are opposed to invading Ukraine, yet they also harbor negative attitudes toward NATO.
The spectacle of a provocation aimed against Russia on state-run television might provide a jolt of support for an invasion, at least initially. At the same time, Russians are cynical about their own leaders and might harbor the suspicion that a purported attack was manufactured for political gain.
False flag alternatives
In any event, Russia has other options to facilitate an invasion. At the start of its incursion into Crimea in 2014, the Kremlin used “active measures,” including disinformation and deception, to prevent Ukrainian resistance and secure domestic approval. Russia and other post-Soviet states are also prone to claim a “provocation,” which frames any military action as a justified response rather than a first move.
By contrast, false flag operations are complex and perhaps overly theatrical in a way that invites unwanted scrutiny. Governments seeking to sway public opinion face far greater challenges today than they did in the 20th century. False flag attacks are risky, while leaders seeking to manufacture a casus belli can select from a range of subtler and less costly alternatives.
As the U.S. and other NATO member governments monitor Russia’s activities and determine appropriate policy responses, the timely intelligence they rely on no longer comes solely from multimillion-dollar spy satellites and spies on the ground.
Social media, big data, smartphones and low-cost satellites have taken center stage, and scraping Twitter has become as important as anything else in the intelligence analyst toolkit. These technologies have also allowed news organizations and armchair sleuths to follow the action and contribute analysis.
Governments still carry out sensitive intelligence-gathering operations with the help of extensive resources like the U.S. intelligence budget. But massive amounts of valuable information are publicly available, and not all of it is collected by governments. Satellites and drones are much cheaper than they were even a decade ago, allowing private companies to operate them, and nearly everyone has a smartphone with advanced photo and video capabilities.
Through information captured by commercial companies and individuals, the realities of Russia’s military posturing are accessible to anyone via internet search or news feed. Commercial imaging companies are posting up-to-the-minute, geographically precise images of Russia’s military forces. Several news agencies are regularly monitoring and reporting on the situation. TikTok users are posting video of Russian military equipment on rail cars allegedly on their way to augment forces already in position around Ukraine. And internet sleuths are tracking this flow of information. https://www.youtube.com/embed/F6uiXdAiIig?wmode=transparent&start=0 Popular social media platforms like TikTok have become valuable sources of intelligence.
This democratization of intelligence collection in most cases is a boon for intelligence professionals. Government analysts are filling the need for intelligence assessments using information sourced from across the internet instead of primarily relying on classified systems or expensive sensors high in the sky or arrayed on the planet.
However, sifting through terabytes of publicly available data for relevant information is difficult. Knowing that much of the data could be intentionally manipulated to deceive complicates the task.
Enter the practice of open-source intelligence. The U.S. director of national intelligence defines Open-Source Intelligence, or OSINT, as the collection, evaluation and analysis of publicly available information. The information sources include news reports, social media posts, YouTube videos and satellite imagery from commercial satellite operators.
OSINT communities and government agencies have developed best practices for OSINT, and there are numerous free tools. Analysts can use the tools to develop network charts of, for example, criminal organizations by scouring publicly available financial records for criminal activity.
Private investigators are using OSINT methods to support law enforcement, corporate and government needs. Armchair sleuths have used OSINT to expose corruption and criminal activity to authorities. In short, the majority of intelligence needs can be met through OSINT.
Machine learning for intelligence
Even with OSINT best practices and tools, OSINT contributes to the information overload intelligence analysts have to contend with. The intelligence analyst is typically in a reactive mode trying to make sense of a constant stream of ambiguous raw data and information.
Machine learning, a set of techniques that allows computers to identify patterns in large amounts of data, is proving invaluable for processing OSINT information, particularly photos and videos. Computers are much faster at sifting through large datasets, so adopting machine learning tools and techniques to optimize the OSINT process is a necessity.
Identifying patterns makes it possible for computers to evaluate information for deception and credibility and predict future trends. For example, machine learning can be used to help determine whether information was produced by a human or by a bot or other computer program and whether a piece of data is authentic or fraudulent.
And while machine learning is by no means a crystal ball, it can be used – if it’s trained with the right data and has enough current information – to assess the probabilities of certain outcomes. No one is going to be able to use the combination of OSINT and machine learning to read Russian President Vladimir Putin’s mind, but the tools could help analysts assess how, for example, a Russian invasion of Ukraine might play out.
Technology has produced a flood of intelligence data, but technology is also making it easier to extract meaningful information from the data to help human intelligence analysts put together the big picture.
[The Conversation’s science, health and technology editors pick their favorite stories.Weekly on Wednesdays.]
“This money belongs to the people of Afghanistan, not to the United States,” said an Afghan protest organizer in Kabul over the weekend.
With the people of Afghanistan facing one of the most severe humanitarian crises in the world, U.S.-based peace activists—who largely blame the policies of their own government for inflicting pain on millions of innocent Afghans—are using Valentine’s Day on Monday to demand the Biden administration return billions of dollars of seized assets to the war-torn country before more lasting harm and “cruelty” is done.
Under the banner of “Love to Afghanistan,” nationwide actions were scheduled for the weekend and localized vigils organized set for Monday (Feb. 14) by Peace Action, World Beyond War, and other humanitarian groups who argue that $7 billion frozen by the U.S. government and subsequently seized by an executive order issued Friday by President Joe Biden rightfully belongs to the Afghan people, who without it face an economy on the brink of collapse and a healthcare system and federal infrastructure without adequate support amid the Covid-19 pandemic and a worsening food crisis.
The Biden plan to confiscate $7 Billion of the Afghan people’s assets is unjust. Afghans need food & a functioning economy. Urge #Congress to reverse this policy.#LoveToAfghanistan#UnFreezeAfghanistan Call Congress from Congress Square Park . Noon. Portland, ME. Valentine's Day! pic.twitter.com/9tXwxrmKOe
After 20 years of war in Afghanistan, Peace Action welcomed the withdrawal of troops from the country and an end to the war.
Yet when the United States military pulled out of Afghanistan, the Biden administration also responded by choking off assets to Afghan banks and the economy by freezing the reserves of the Afghan Central Bank held in the U.S. They also imposed sanctions on those doing business with Afghanistan and cut aid. Jobs and income disappeared, people cannot afford to buy food and mass starvation is now occurring.
The Afghan people are suffering now more than ever. Hunger could kill more now than in two decades of war. This humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan is in the words of the International Red Cross a “human-made catastrophe.” “Human-made” largely by coercive U.S. economic policies.
In Decemebr, 46 members of Congress wrote a letter demanding the U.S. unfreeze assets that had been locked following the U.S. military withdrawal earlier in 2021. But instead of heeding that call, Biden on Friday took the step of more permanently seizing the funds that otherwise would be under control of Afghanistan’s central bank, the Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB), which now operates under the authority of the Taliban government.
Biden’s executive order includes setting aside half of the funds, $3.5 billion, for possible settlement claims by families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks of 2001, but critics have said the Afghan people—who had nothing to do with the crimes of that day twenty years ago—should not be punished for the acts of Al Qaeda jihadists, most them Saudis and Egyptians.
Millions of Afghans are starving, due to US crimes, and now instead of getting back what is their’s, their money is being used as reparations for a crime they never committed & have been punished for for 20 years.
Promoting the “Love to Afghanistan” events in an op-ed for Common Dreamslast week, peace activist Jean Athey, coordinator of the Montgomery County Peace Action group in Maryland, said the economic war against the Afghan has the potential to be just as deadly as the 20 years of war and occupation they have just endured. Explaining the current situation and the “liquidity crisis” gripping the country, she wrote:
The government has almost no money and cannot pay workers, who cannot buy food for their families. Most have received no payment for months. In addition, Afghans have limited access to their own funds in banks. International commerce has halted.
Given U.S. sanctions and the liquidity crisis, even international humanitarian relief organizations have great difficulty operating in Afghanistan, despite U.S. government assurances. Relief efforts designed to stave off starvation—although critically important right now—cannot endure for long since no one is willing to provide assistance indefinitely to a country of almost 40 million people. The country needs a functioning government and economy, and needs access to the international financial system.
“Political backbone” is now required of the Biden administration, argued Athey, who said the president should not be scared of predictable GOP attacks or media hit pieces about somehow appeasing the Taliban by giving the everyday people back money the money that rightfully belongs to them. “The lives of one million children are more important than a negative headline in a tabloid. The U.S. should unfreeze Afghan government assets and lift sanctions hindering the recovery of the Afghan economy and humanitarian relief efforts. We must end the U.S. economic war on Afghanistan.”
On Saturday, the DAB demanded the funds ostensibly stolen by the U.S. government be returned and called the move by Biden an “injustice against the people of Afghanistan.”
Also in Saturday, protests in Kabul decried the theft of the money.
“This money belongs to the people of Afghanistan, not to the United States. This is the right of Afghans,” Abdul Rahman, a civil society activist and the demonstration’s organizer, told the Dawn newsaper.
A spokesperson for the Taliban government, Mohammad Naeem, also decriedthe move in a post on social media Saturday.
“The theft and seizure of money held by the United States of the Afghan people represent the lowest level of human and moral decay of a country and a nation,” Naeem tweeted, added that while victory and defeat are evident throughout history, “the greatest and most shameful defeat is when moral defeat combines with military defeat.”
Originally published on Common Dreams by JON QUEALLY and republished under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
U.S. President Joe Biden said on Jan. 19, 2022, that he thinks Russia will invade Ukraine, and cautioned Russian president Vladimir Putin that he “will regret having done it,” following months of building tension.
Russia has amassed an estimated 100,000 troops along its border with Ukraine over the past several months.
In mid-January, Russia began moving troops into Belarus, a country bordering both Russia and Ukraine, in preparation for joint military exercises in February.
Putin has issued various security demands to the U.S. before he draws his military forces back. Putin’s list includes a ban on Ukraine from entering NATO, and agreement that NATO will remove troops and weapons across much of Eastern Europe.
Ukraine’s layered history offers a window into the complex nation it is today — and why it is continuously under threat. As an Eastern Europe expert, I highlight five key points to keep in mind.
What should we know about Ukrainians’ relationship with Russia?
Ukraine gained independence 30 years ago, after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has since struggled to combat corruption and bridge deep internal divisions.
Ukraine’s western region generally supported integration with Western Europe. The country’s eastern side, meanwhile, favored closer ties with Russia.
Tensions between Russia and Ukraine peaked in February 2014, when violent protesters ousted Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, in what is now known as the Revolution of Dignity.
Around the same time, Russia forcibly annexed Crimea. Ukraine was in a vulnerable position for self-defense, with a temporary government and unprepared military.
Putin immediately moved to strike in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. The armed conflict between Ukrainian government forces and Russia-backed separatists has killed over 14,000 people.
Unlike its response to Crimea, Russia continues to officially deny its involvement in the Donbas conflict.
What do Ukrainians want?
Russia’s military aggression in Donbas and the annexation of Crimea have galvanized public support for Ukraine’s Western leanings.
Ukraine’s government has said it will apply for European Union membership in 2024, and also has ambitions to join NATO.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who came to power in 2019, campaigned on a platform of anti-corruption, economic renewal and peace in the Donbas region.
In September 2021, 81% of Ukrainians said they have a negative attitude about Putin, according to the Ukrainian news site RBC-Ukraine. Just 15% of surveyed Ukrainians reported a positive attitude towards the Russian leader.
Why is Putin threatening to invade Ukraine?
Putin’s decision to engage in a military buildup along Ukraine is connected to a sense of impunity. Putin also has experience dealing with Western politicians who champion Russian interests and become engaged with Russian companies once they leave office.
Western countries have imposed mostly symbolic sanctions against Russia over interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential elections and a huge cyberattack against about 18,000 people who work for companies and the U.S. government, among other transgressions.
Without repercussions, Putin has backed Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko’s brutal crackdown on mass protests in the capital city, Minsk.
In several instances, Putin has seen that some leading Western politicians align with Russia. These alliances can prevent Western countries from forging a unified front to Putin.
Other senior European politicians promoting a soft position toward Russia while in office include former French Prime Minister François Fillon and former Austrian foreign minister Karin Kneissl. Both joined the boards of Russian state-owned companies after leaving office.
What is Putin’s end game?
Putin views Ukraine as part of Russia’s “sphere of influence” – a territory, rather than an independent state. This sense of ownership has driven the Kremlin to try to block Ukraine from joining the EU and NATO.
In January 2021, Russia experienced one of its largest anti-government demonstrations in years. Tens of thousands of Russians protested in support of political opposition leader Alexei Navalny, following his detention in Russia. Navalny had recently returned from Germany, where he was treated for being poisoned by the Russian government.
Putin is also using Ukraine as leverage for Western powers lifting their sanctions. Currently, the U.S. has various political and financial sanctions in place against Russia, as well as potential allies and business partners to Russia.
A Russian attack on Ukraine could prompt more diplomatic conversations that could lead to concessions on these sanctions.
The costs to Russia of attacking Ukraine would significantly outweigh the benefits.
While a full scale invasion of Ukraine is unlikely, Putin might renew fighting between the Ukrainian army and Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Why would the US want to get involved in this conflict?
With its annexation of Crimea and support for the Donbas conflict, Russia has violated the Budapest Memorandum Security Assurances for Ukraine, a 1994 agreement between the U.S., United Kingdom and Russia that aims to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty in exchange for its commitment to give up its nuclear arsenal.
Putin’s threats against Ukraine occur as he is moving Russian forces into Belarus, which also raises questions about the Kremlin’s plans for invading other neighboring countries.
Military support for Ukraine and political and economic sanctions are ways the U.S. can make clear to Moscow that there will be consequences for its encroachment on an independent country. The risk, otherwise, is that the Kremlin might undertake other military and political actions that would further threaten European security and stability.
Early in 2020, as the pandemic gripped the nation, JPMorgan Chase offered to help customers weather the crisis by taking a temporary pause on mortgage, auto and credit card payments. Chase’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, sounded sympathetic about a year later as he offered broader reflections on what was ailing the country. “Americans know that something has gone terribly wrong,” he wrote in a letter to shareholders. “Many of our citizens are unsettled, and the fault line for all this discord is a fraying American dream — the enormous wealth of our country is accruing to the very few. In other words, the fault line is inequality.”
But even as those words were published, the bank had quietly begun to unleash a lawsuit blitz against many of its struggling customers. Starting in early 2020 and continuing to today, Chase has filed thousands of lawsuits against credit card customers who have fallen behind on their payments.
Chase had stopped pursuing credit card lawsuits in 2011, in the wake of the last major economic downturn, after regulators found that the company was filing tens of thousands of flimsy suits, sometimes overstating what customers owed. Rather than being backed by extensive billing records to document the debts, according to the regulators, the suits were typically filed with a short affidavit from one of a half-dozen Chase employees in one office in San Antonio who vouched for the accuracy of the bank’s information in thousands of suits.
Chase “filed lawsuits and obtained judgments against consumers using deceptive affidavits and other documents that were prepared without following required procedures,” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau concluded in 2015. At times, Chase employees signed affidavits “without personal knowledge of the signer, a practice commonly referred to as ‘robo-signing.’” According to the CFPB’s findings, there were mistakes in about 10% of cases Chase won and the judgments “contained erroneous amounts that were greater than what the consumers legally owed.”
Chase neither admitted nor denied the CFPB’s findings, but it agreed, as part of a consent order, to provide significant evidence to make its cases in the future. The company also agreed it would provide “relevant information and documentation maintained by [Chase] to support their claims” in cases — the vast majority of those it filed — in which customers did not respond to the lawsuit.
But that provision expired on New Year’s Day 2020. And since then the bank has gone back to bringing lawsuits much as it did before 2011, according to lawyers who have defended Chase customers.
“From what I can see, nothing has changed,” said Cliff Dorsen, a consumer-rights attorney in Georgia who represents Chase credit card customers.
Chase declined to make executives available for interviews. It said in a statement that the timing of the resumption of its credit card lawsuits was just a coincidence. “We have engaged with our regulators throughout this process,” said Tom Kelly, a bank spokesperson. “We continue to meet the requirements of the consent order.” (Kelly said Chase also filed some credit card lawsuits in 2019.)
Kelly declined to say how many suits it has filed in its blitz of the past two years, but civil dockets from across the country give a hint of the scale — and its accelerating pace. Chase sued more than 800 credit card customers around Fort Lauderdale, Florida, last year after suing 70 in 2020 and none in 2019, according to a review of court records. In Westchester County, in New York’s suburbs, court records show that Chase has sued more than 400 customers over credit card debt since 2020; a year earlier, the equivalent figure was one.
A similar surge is occurring in Texas, according to January Advisors, a data-science firm. Chase filed more than 1,000 consumer debt lawsuits around Houston last year after filing only seven in 2020, the analytics firm’s review of court records in Harris County shows. Chase instigated 141 consumer debt cases in Austin last year after filing only one such case in 2020, according to January Advisors, which is conducting research for a nationwide study ofdebt collection cases.
Today, just as it did before running afoul of the CFPB, Chase is mass-producing affidavits from the same San Antonio office where low-level employees generated hundreds of thousands of affidavits in the past, according to defense attorneys and court documents. Those affidavits are often the main piece of evidence that Chase uses to win its case while detailed customer records — and any errors they may contain — remain out of sight.
“Our clients deserve to see everything that Chase has in its files,” Dorsen said. “Instead, Chase gives us these affidavits and says: ‘You can trust us about the rest.’”
Before the robo-signing scandal a decade ago, Chase recovered about a billion dollars a year with its credit card collections business, according to the CFPB. Why would Chase stop suing customers for years, forgoing billions of dollars, only to ramp up its suits once key provisions of the CFPB settlement had expired?
Craig Cowie thinks he has an answer. “Chase did not think it could make money if it had to sue customers and abide by the CFPB settlement,” said Cowie, who worked as an enforcement attorney at the CFPB during the Obama administration and now teaches at the University of Montana Law School. “That’s the only explanation that makes sense for why the bank would have held back.”
Cowie, who did not work on the CFPB’s case against Chase, said he doesn’t know why the agency agreed to a time limit on some settlement provisions. He pointed out that such agreements are negotiated and the CFPB cannot just dictate the terms. The agency may have felt it had to let some provisions of the settlement expire to get Chase to agree to the deal, Cowie said.
The CFPB declined to comment.
For its part, Chase said it waited years to restart its lawsuits because it took that long to get the system working right. “We rebuilt the litigation program slowly and methodically to make sure we had the right controls in place,” said its spokesperson, Kelly.
At the time, the CFPB had found numerous flaws in Chase’s suits. The agency concluded that Chase used “unfair” legal tactics when it promised that its credit card account information was reliable and mistake-free. It wasn’t simply a matter of errors in calculating how much was owed; in some cases the company even got the customer’s name wrong. Chase would sometimes pass accounts with errors — including instances where customers had been victims of credit card fraud, others who had tried to settle their debts and even some who had died — on to outside debt collectors, who might then take action based on that information.
Once Chase won a victory in court, the bank could seek to garnish a customer’s wages or raid their bank accounts, and those customers would pay a further price: a stain on their credit report that could make it harder to “obtain credit, employment, housing, and insurance,” the CFPB wrote.
Those sued by Chase, then and now, might spot errors if the company provided full records in its court filings, consumer advocates say. Instead, Chase typically submits copies of a few credit card statements along with a two-page affidavit attesting that the bank’s records were accurate and complete.
Consumer advocates say they do not expect that the majority of Chase’s credit card records are tainted with errors. But if today’s error rate is the same 10% that the CFPB estimated in the past and the Chase lawsuit push continues, thousands of customers may be sued for money they don’t owe. And there is no easy way to check when Chase keeps so many of its records out of sight.
Chase said that its current system for processing credit card lawsuits is sound and reliable. “We quality-check 100% of our affidavits today,” the company said in a statement.
Credit card customers do not respond to collections lawsuits in roughly 70% of cases, according to research from The Pew Charitable Trusts. In those instances, the customer typically loses by default.
In the small percentage of cases where a customer gets a lawyer or otherwise fights back, Chase still has the advantage because it can access all of the customer’s account records easily, according to consumer lawyers. (The bank typically closes accounts of customers who have failed to pay their debts, leaving them unable to access their records online.) Chase usually shares the complete credit card account file only after a legal fight, according to attorneys and pleadings from across the country. “Chase has all the evidence and we have to beg to get it,” said Jerry Jarzombek, a consumer-rights attorney in Fort Worth, Texas, who is defending several Chase customers.
The result leaves many defendants in a bind: They don’t have enough information to know whether they should dispute the company’s claims. “Chase wants us to believe its records are reliable so we don’t need to see them,” Jarzombek said. “Well, I’m sorry. I’ve dealt with Chase for decades. I’d prefer to see what evidence they’ve actually got.”
The robo-signing scandal exposed Chase’s affidavit-signing assembly line. Before the settlement, Chase had about a half-dozen employees churning through affidavits stacked a foot high or taller, according to the former Chase executive who brought the practices to light at the time. Kamala Harris, who was then California’s attorney general and is now vice president, likened the process to anaffidavit mill.
The current operation involves roughly a dozen “signing officers” working from the same San Antonio offices as before and performing many of the same tasks, according to Chase employees and outside lawyers who have represented the company.
Chase used to prepare affidavits “in bulk using stock templates,” according to the 2015 CFPB findings. That is again happening today, according to two of Chase’s outside lawyers who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the process.
The lawyers said they typically send their affidavit requests in batches. The requests already contain the basic details of the customer’s account when they arrive in Chase’s San Antonio office, they said. An affidavit request that is sent one day can typically be processed and returned the next business day, the lawyers said.
Chase affidavits contain stock language that the “signing officer” has “personal knowledge of and access to [Chase’s] books and records.” That “personal knowledge” is limited, said one signing officer who declined to be named. Chase does not expect signing officers to perform a forensic review of an account but rather to follow computer prompts to complete the affidavit, said the employee. “We just work with what’s on the screen.”
Chase declined to discuss its process for creating affidavits, but the bank said it satisfies the rules set by courts in the places where it operates. “Judges, clerks and other judiciary staff are well versed in the court rules and laws in their jurisdictions,” said the statement by the bank’s spokesperson, Kelly. “Through our counsel, we provide the information those parties require in matters before them.”
Courts around the country have grown too accepting of what big banks and debt collectors say, according to consumer advocates. And the justice they dispense can feel as cursory and hurried as the suits that Chase files.
In Texas a decade ago, lawmakers pushed most credit card cases into the state’s version of small claims courts, known as justice courts. The rules of evidence are more lax there and the judge might not even be a lawyer. A retired basketball player presides over one suchcourtroom in Houston. “One of these judges said to me: ‘What’s the point of seeing a bunch of evidence? We already know these people borrowed the money,’” said Jarzombek, the Fort Worth attorney. “I said: ‘Why even have a trial, then? Let the banks take whatever they want.’”
In Houston, where Chase has more than 1,000 consumer credit suits on the docket, only one defendant in those cases has fought to a trial on her own, according to court records.
That person’s experience is instructive. Like many, Melissa Razo struggled financially during the early pandemic. A former restaurant manager, the 42-year-old Razo had gone back to school, the University of Houston, to study psychology, and she supported herself by doing typing for an online transcription service. That work suddenly dried up when the pandemic hit, and Razo began missing credit card payments. Her debt escalated. Chase sued her in January 2021, claiming she owed a total of about $8,500 on two credit cards.
Razo had a previous court experience stemming from an acrimonious divorce, where she had learned that a plaintiff needs facts and evidence to win. “Nothing I presented was good enough,” she recalled of the divorce case.
Using what she’d learned, Razo prepared for her day in court against Chase. She could not access her account anymore, she said, because the bank had shut it down. So in late June, as her hearing date approached, Razo pulled together as many of her credit card statements as she could find. They told a story of grocery runs and shopping at Target and Goodwill, along with missed payments and penalties.
Razo presumed Chase would have to back up its claims just as she had been expected to do in divorce court. She expected the company’s lawyers would have five years of statements and documents to show that she owed exactly what they said she owed. This was a trial, after all.
The trial lasted perhaps a minute, according to Razo. It boiled down to two questions. Was Razo present? the judge asked over Zoom. When she announced herself, the judge asked if she had a Chase credit card. Yes, Razo said, that was true. Then, she said, the judge ruled in favor of Chase.
Chase declined to comment on the case. The judge was not authorized to speak about the matter, according to a court clerk. And the justice courts do not transcribe their hearings, so ProPublica could not verify what was said. (The court’s docket did confirm that a judgment was entered in Chase’s favor after a judge trial.)
Razo’s courtroom experience, though, sounds typical, according to Rich Tomlinson, a lawyer with Lone Star Legal Aid. “I can’t recall ever seeing a live witness in a debt case,” said Tomlinson, who has represented hundreds of debtors in his career. “These trials are not like Perry Mason. They’re not even Judge Judy.”
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
A jury has found all three men charged in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery guilty of murder. Arbery was a 25- year old Black man killed last year while jogging in Brunswick, Georgia, and the murder sparked a heated national debate.
Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and Willian Bryan Jr. had all been charged. All three men had pleaded not guilty and and faced charges in addition to murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.
All men faced varying felony counts for Arbery’s murder. Gregory McMichael and Willian Bryan Jr. were found guilty on felony murder, while only Travis McMichael was found guilty on all charges, Travis being the man pulling the trigger.
Conviction of Steven Donziger, said one critic, “perfectly encapsulates how corporate power has twisted the U.S. justice system to protect corporate interests and punish their enemies.”
Environmental justice advocates and other progressives on Friday condemned a federal judge’s decision Friday to sentence human rights lawyer Steven Donziger to six months in prison—following more than two years of house arrest related to a lawsuit he filed decades ago against oil giant Chevron.
The sentence, delivered by U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in New York City, represents “an international outrage,” tweeted journalist Emma Vigeland following its announcement.
Donziger’s sentence came a day after the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said it was “appalled” by the U.S. legal system’s treatment of the former environmental lawyer and demanded the U.S. government “remedy the situation of Mr. Steven Donziger without delay and bring it in conformity with the relevant international norms” by immediately releasing him.
Donziger represented a group of farmers and Indigenous people in the Lago Agrio region of Ecuador in the 1990s in a lawsuit against Texaco—since acquired by Chevron—in which the company was accused of contaminating soil and water with its “deliberate dumping of billions of gallons of cancer-causing waste into the Amazon.”
An Ecuadorian court awarded the plaintiffs a $9.5 billion judgment in 2011—a decision upheld by multiple courts in Ecuador—only to have a U.S. judge reject the ruling, accusing Donziger of bribery and evidence tampering. Chevron also countersued Donziger in 2011.
In 2019, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the Southern District of New York—a former corporate lawyer with investments in Chevron—held Donziger in contempt of court after he refused to disclose privileged information about his clients to the fossil fuel industry. Kaplan placed Donziger under house arrest, where he has remained under strict court monitoring for 787 days.
In addition to Kaplan’s own connections to Chevron, the judge appointed private attorneys to prosecute the case, including one who had worked for a firm that represented the oil giant.
Preska, who found Donziger guilty of the contempt charges in July, is a leader of the right-wing Federalist Society, which counts Chevron among its financial backers.
“As I face sentencing on Day 787 of house arrest, never forget what this case is really about,” tweeted Donziger on Friday morning, as he awaited the sentencing. “Chevron caused a mass industrial poisoning in the Amazon that crushed the lives of Indigenous peoples. Six courts and 28 appellate judges found the company guilty.”
Donziger indicated Friday afternoon that he plans to appeal the sentence.
“Stay strong,” he tweeted along with a photo from a rally attended by his supporters Friday.
BREAKING: Flouting the U.N. decision ordering my release, Judge Preska sentenced me to 6 months in prison. Still on house arrest until the appeals court rules on my motion for release pending appeal. Picture is from rally this morning.
350.org co-founder and author Bill McKibben said on social media that Donziger “deserves our thanks and support” for “daring to point out that Big Oil had poisoned the rainforest.”Rick Claypool, research director for Public Citizen, tweeted that Donziger’s case “perfectly encapsulates how corporate power has twisted the U.S. justice system to protect corporate interests and punish their enemies”—noting that as Donziger is ordered to prison for six months, members of the Sackler family recently won immunity from opioid lawsuits targeting their private company, Purdue Pharma.
“This ruling was done to deter ANYONE from crossing corporate special interests,” said progressive former congressional candidate Jen Perelman.
Originally published on Common Dreams by JULIA CONLEY and republished under a Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
There are many ways, in hindsight, to explain the seemingly sudden collapse of the local, US backed, forces in Afghanistan. Clearly also plenty of blame to go around and, obviously, huge changes are needed to prevent a repeat of this great, long tragedy.
There are some amazing people who are actively trying to help, such as STELP.eu, based in Germany, and supporting them and others can be a big first step.
Looking further ahead, perhaps now is the time, also, to do something to prevent this from repeating or continuing in the same tragic way.
A war is bad, a “forever war” is something to be prevented in any way possible. The books below, give history, thoughts and ideas, in many cases simple alternatives that could have helped to avoid this terrible outcome.
Learning the mistakes of the past, especially in Afghanistan, can only help to inform and prepare for the great challenges that still lay ahead.
One of the longest armed conflicts in our nation’s history is now winding down with American troops set to fully evacuate at the end of the month. Author Carter Malkasian writes a comprehensive and vivid portrait of the nearly two decade long war.
Malkasian is the leading academic authority on the subject, he spent years working in the Afghan countryside and later went to serve as senior advisor to General Joseph Dunford, the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan.
The upcoming investigative story of how three presidents as well as their military commanders deceived the public about the longest war in American History.
Washington Post and three time Pulitzer Prize finalist, Craig Whitlock unearthed documents by President Bush and other administrations and provides readers with a shocking account of everything that went wrong.
This book comes out August 31, if you want to pre-order, check out more information on “The Afghanistan Papers“
The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014
Starting shortly after 9/11, reporter Carlotta Gall has been on the scene, getting an inside scoop from both Afghanistan and Pakistan. With American troops now leaving, the time to reflect and learn about the full history is now.
Gall uses both personal accounts as well as portraits from ordinary Afghanis who have had to endure the terrors of war for more than a decade, she knows first hand the costs to the Afghan people.
The speed and seeming ease of the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban this week shocked the world. First cities around the country fell, one after another, and then, just days later, the nation’s capitol Kabul was ready to go.
“The urgency bordering on panic laid bare how the president’s strategy for ending the 20-year U.S. military effort — leaving Afghan forces to hold off the Taliban for months as negotiators redoubled efforts to hammer out a peace deal — has undergone a rapid dismantling.”
Washington Post
The Kabul airport became virtually the last US controlled zone as scenes reminiscent of the fall of Saigon were broadcast over the weekend, showing the desperate scramble to evacuate remaining personnel.
Official acknowledgement of ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’ is becoming more commonplace
After a viral video was shared massively across the internet, now the Pentagon has confirmed that the footage showing what appears to be UFOs is authentic. Even more significant is the fact that the pyramid-shaped unidentified flying objects were “stalking” the guided-missile destroyer USS Russell in coastal waters near California in July 2019.
In an interview with Fox News Pentagon spokeswoman Susan Gough said “I can confirm that the referenced photos and videos were taken by Navy personnel. The UAPTF [Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force] has included these incidents in their ongoing examinations.”
“I can confirm that the referenced photos and videos were taken by Navy personnel. The UAPTF [Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force] has included these incidents in their ongoing examinations.
Pentagon spokeswoman Susan Gough
“Whoever is operating these technologies are far more advanced than anything we have in the U.S. arsenal and that should be a warning sign. We need to find out the intent of the operators of these vehicles.”
Jeremy Corbell, UFO researcher and filmmaker interviewed on Fox News
The public acknowledgment of the incident, that happened near San Clemente Island, where five different U.S. warships were operating at the time, was a required act. This is due to the new provision in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2021 which requires the U.S. to disclose what it knows about UFOs.
According to the provision the director of national intelligence (DNI) must work with the secretary of defense to create a comprehensive report of what information the U.S. government has regarding unidentified flying objects. The full report is due on June 1, 2021.
A highly sophisticated aerial display leaves doubt and open questions as to the origin of the objects
The incident that is seen in the footage involved unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or “drones”. In addition to the otherworldly appearance, the UFOs were observed flying around the U.S. warships for multiple hours, longer than would be possible based on the maximum flight time of most commercial drones currently known and available.
Highly coordinated and precise movements were also noted, raising the question of what methods of control were being utilized. Further questioned were raised by the calculated range of more than 100 nautical miles that would have been required, under conditions of very low visibility, that would have been required during the time elapsed during the encounters.
Though investigations have been conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard, Nave and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the mysterious UFOs and their behavior continues to perplex.
The new openness required by the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2021 is a welcome change and more details are bound to surface regarding these phenomena. Since August 2020, the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) is known to be operating and putting further official resources behind the study and analysis of UFOs and other “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena”.
Clearly there is something going on here and it seems blazingly obvious to everyone except those gathered to partake. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) of 2021 began in Orlando, Florida on Friday. And nearly straight away this thing grabbed the show by the horns (above).
Or at least the Twitter reaction and meme factory was impressed. For all the wrong reasons. The four years of the “former guy” were hard to live through for sane people. But it is becoming more and more apparent that those that reveled in those times were not just angry political weirdos but, possibly, certifiable.
First was the warning from the Chief of the Capitol Police that pro-former-guy and right wing militia members were plotting to set bombs, literally, off at the Capitol to coincide with Biden’s upcoming State of the Union Address.
“We know that members of the militia groups that were present on January 6th have stated their desires that they want to blow up the Capitol and kill as many members as possible with a direct nexus to the State of the Union.”
Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman
Now, as the always bizarre anyway CPAC conference convenes they decide to set up a Gold-calf worship statue and parade it around for the faithful.
That "golden calf" statue of Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida? pic.twitter.com/unwbEPUxwv
— Mr. Naturalism (The Antichrist Unicorn) (@MNaturalism) February 26, 2021
Another seems to think BigBoy Burgers had something to do with the statue’s origin:
OMFG whoever built this golden calf of Trump *must* have known about Bob's Big Boy. COME ON.
The only thing missing is the burger, probably because Trump already ate it with a large fry and washed it down with a Diet Coke. pic.twitter.com/UP6vR8ylVL
At least they had some modicum of civility, truth, and intelligence back then. Wish we had someone like Ike back at the helm instead of Trump aka "the golden calf"… pic.twitter.com/nUhrlLt80r
A site in Syria was struck by the US military. The site was used by militia groups backed by Iran. This follows reported rocket attacks against American forces in the area, CNN reports, citing source as a “US official.
This was the first known military action since the inauguration of President Joe Biden. Though the site that was hit had no known direct involvement in the rocket attacks, but Shia militias operating in the area, and backed by Iran were believed to have used the facilities.
According to Pentagon spokesman John Kirby the stakes were carried out “at President Biden’s direction” and were not just authorized in response to recent attacks on American and coalition forces, but to deal with “ongoing threats to those personnel.”
Kirby said that Biden conducted the strikes after consulting with US allies, including coalition partners.
On Monday, State Department spokesman Ned Price said “We have stated before that we will hold Iran responsible for the actions of its proxies that attack Americans,” and that “many of these attacks have used Iranian made, Iranian supplied weapons.”
Statement from Pentagon press Secretary:
Pentagon statement on US air strikes against targets in eastern #Syria. The raid reportedly was carried out by US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft. The statement was sent out at 1954 EST 25 Feb https://t.co/x4ueUseu3Npic.twitter.com/EbS2Yk9npJ
The end-all and be-all of memes emerged out of the inauguration…
In a move that transcends the presidential, Bernie Sanders now owns the internet. All he needed was the right mittens and a countenance of equanimity, rising above to see into the center of all being and nothingness.
Like a zen monk or Yoda on steroids, he accomplishes all by doing little, even nothing, beyond his mind bending position and posture. Ever modest and with a meaningful invisible wink, he disavows any knowledge of his splendor or any plan to conquer all:
“I was just sitting there trying to keep warm, trying to pay attention to what was going on,”
-Bernie Sanders / Interview Late Night With Seth Meyers
Meanwhile, there has been a meaningful and valid response to the triumph, and it all gets back to a t-shirt and mittens.
Now that there has been an endless stream of replication and iteration based on the genius moment, we best begin at the beginning and trace this new species of viral wonderfulness back to its humble source: the photo:
#BernieSanders We love the Bernie memes being shared all day. Taking special requests where do you want to see Bernie? Bernie – our heart will go on pic.twitter.com/zPSJVlfuSG
And to you, Amazon, you can not have this meme for your endless self-aggrandizement, and here is the obvious reason why:
On #PrimeDay, let's not forget. During the pandemic, Jeff Bezos became $97 billion richer by increasing prices by up to 1,000% on essential items and denying hazard pay and paid sick leave to over 450,000 of his workers. It's time to break up Amazon and tax the rich.
Suffice it to say for the moment: He deserved it and it’s about time. The fact that his account was re-activated after a short pause was a strange choice by the platform. At least they made the right one in the end. Here’s the official tweet
Below the full text from the official Twitter bog explaining, in detail the action taken and why:
After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.
In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open.
However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement.
The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case.
Overview
On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump tweeted:
“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
Shortly thereafter, the President tweeted:
“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks. After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.
Assessment
We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
This determination is based on a number of factors, including:
President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.
The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.
The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.
The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.
Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.
As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.
The day after it would have helped, better late than never
After more than four years of tyrannical abuse of social media and the eCommerce hawking of propaganda trinkets, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and even Shopify have put blocks on Trump accounts.
Particularly in the case of Facebook, the timing is somewhat unsatisfying. Facebook, as many can recall, has supported Trump “fake” and misleading advertising since before the 2016 election. Those ads were, according to many, a very big reason that he was elected at all. This was a huge mistake of history, one might say, and the mistake started at Facebook.
Naturally, being “arbiter of the truth” or not, is an entirely different issue, because it is the warlord-like raking-in of millions upon millions, if not billions of dollars, by blindly allowing lies, hate, racism and worse be propagated as political advertising, that has been the clear “wrong” that Facebook allowed and profited from.
So, it’s ,at least somehow, a belated comfort that, at least for the moment, ads fomenting violent overthrow of the imaginary “deep state” or sales of MAGA hats that finance said ads, are no longer running in tandem like some kind of dystopian fascist nightmare machine.
At least the media, much of the government and now a lot of big tech and social media are united in one simple thought: Trump is simply a criminal and aiding him in any way make you and your company one also. So, yes, shut it down, now.
Shopify
Shopify, the multinational e-commerce company that hosted shops that relate to Trump’s campaign products as well as Trump’s personal brand have both been taken down. Those who attempt to go to TrumpStore.com or shop.donaldjtrump.com, known for selling the official Trump MAGA merchandise will be meet with error messages as the sites were taken down Thursday morning.
A spokesperson for the company released the following statement following the terminated stores affiliated with Trump:
“Shopify does not tolerate actions that incite violence. Based on recent events, we have determined that the actions by President Donald J. Trump violate our Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits promotion or support of organizations, platforms or people that threaten or condone violence to further a cause,”
Twitter also added that “Future violations of the Twitter Rules, including our Civic Integrity or Violent Threats policies, will result in permanent suspension of the @realDonaldTrump account.”
Trump has since deleted the three tweets that led to the temporary suspension of his account. Trump’s account will remain locked for an additional 12 hours after the deletion. It is not clear the exact timing of when the tweets were deleted and when Trump will be allowed to post again, he has yet to tweet. According to CNBC, the lock could be removed around 3 p.m. ET.
Facebook
Trump’s official Facebook and Instagram accounts have both been locked due to policy violations. Facebook Newsroom released a statement via Twitter starting on January 6 at 8:36 p.m. ET, stating that Trump’s account would be blocked for 24 hours. On January 7th, they updated its statement to explain the extent of the block would be “indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”
CEO and founder, Mark Zuckerberg also released his own statement on the matter:
“The shocking events of the last 24 hours clearly demonstrate that President Donald Trump intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor, Joe Biden.
His decision to use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters at the Capitol building has rightly disturbed people in the US and around the world. We removed these statements yesterday because we judged that their effect — and likely their intent — would be to provoke further violence.
Following the certification of the election results by Congress, the priority for the whole country must now be to ensure that the remaining 13 days and the days after inauguration pass peacefully and in accordance with established democratic norms.
Over the last several years, we have allowed President Trump to use our platform consistent with our own rules, at times removing content or labeling his posts when they violate our policies. We did this because we believe that the public has a right to the broadest possible access to political speech, even controversial speech. But the current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government.
We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”
We believe the risks of allowing President Trump to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great, so we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks. pic.twitter.com/JkyGOTYB1Z
So many stories, with such an overwhelming consensus on where the blame lies (Trump), with so much detail in the ongoing reporting, it’s a lot to even begin to absorb. However the headline is: a massive majority has sincerely reached the point of unmitigated and well deserved condemnation of Trump and his deluded followers.
How better to get a feel for the magnitude of the outrage than to scan the headlines the old fashioned way: by looking at the cover pages of the world’s biggest “newspapers”. The massive titles and biting subheadings show just how “done” the world press is with this malignant maniac.
January 6th will be remembered, but not for what Trump’s devotees are threatening
Since the end of the Bush years and Obama’s rise there has been a simple yet devastating truth haunting the Republican Party. The demographic realities do not support a continuation of the racist stance that was the bedrock of the party’s appeal for more than half a century. The Southern Strategy does not work when the non-white majority is growing daily.
Instead of shifting gradually, for example during the eight years of Obama, a bolt from the blue sent the party back to the stone age with a fluke, a mistake of history, called Donald Trump. A “Rhino” who was able to say anyone who disagreed with his disgusting extreme racist politics was the real “Republican in name only”.
That has led to the current “civil war” within the Republican Party. In essence it is the suicide party of Trump, rather dead than rainbow, vs. the “democratic” Republicans, those that believe that the US Constitution and the rule of law should be upheld, even if it means that people of color have a demographic advantage and must be included in government going forward.
Groups like the Lincoln Project and RVAT (Republican Voters against Trump) helped to defeat him and represent a more “sane” idea of what they believe the Republican should be about in the future. In reality, the fanatical backing that a reality show demagogue has managed to assemble is both too large and too sick to change anytime soon, particularly not if that change involves disavowing racism as a core belief.
While talking about his former Party, Schmidt touches on the larger issues for the rest of America
Therefore, as Steve Schmidt, a GOP strategist who co-founded the Lincoln Project, said is a series of tweets this weekend, the coming ‘civil war’, oddly scheduled for January 6th and being announced by many wackos, from “Proud Boys” to Republican senators and congressmen, is not one of a country divided, but the death throes of the Republican Party itself:
“The die is cast for the Republican Party. It will be destroyed on January 6th”
Referring to the suicidal nature of this hopeless attempt to declare a “real” civil war, one where Trump’s 70 million-plus base literally take up arms against the rest of the country including the government, military and law enforcement infrastructure.
The implication that the threatened war would never take hold, that the armed forces and the entire infrastructure of the country is not ready to commit treason in order to save a crying baby who lost an election, is an unspoken phrase underscoring the prediction of what will actually take place:
That date “will commence a political civil war inside the GOP,” he continued.
He also admits that the Trump led “autocratic” leaning Republicans outnumber the p”pro-democracy” wing of the party and, therefore, the party as a whole will collapse.
“The autocratic side will roll over the pro-democracy remnant of the GOP like the Wehrmacht did the Belgian Army in 1940. The ’22 GOP primary season will be a blood letting. The 6th will be a loyalty test. The purge will follow.”
The implication of his words are that the party will be split with the Trump faction to remain, weaker yet held together by zealous insanity, while any sane former Republicans will be “purged” and will have to go it alone:
“Fascism has indeed come to America and as was once predicted it is wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. This movement must be defeated. It cannot be appeased, accommodated or negotiated with. It must be recognized for what it is and we must all recognize the new age of American politics it has wrought,” he wrote.
The future will eventually reflect current reality; ethnic diversity can not be wished away by racism
What is missing from the post is an answer to the question of what this new fascist Republican party will do with a small minority and a leader who will likely be in exile or jail. Perhaps “Trump the Martyr” will cast a long powerful shadow over American politics for years. More likely he will be immortalized in the dustbin of history.
His most rabid and crazed followers may commit illegal acts, for which they will pay with incarceration or fate, but more than a few impotent and isolated incidents are highly unlikely. Like Trump himself, it will be the incompetence and stupidity, along with the corruption and evil, that will be remembered from his rise, and derided and, rightly, mocked in his fall.
Above: Photo Collage / Time Inc. / Mock up of Der Spiegel Concept
Changing America’s Story and Awarding Trump what he has Earned
On the same day that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris received the “Time’s Person of the Year” designation, jointly, in another of the new twists that Time likes to feature, Trump got his own award from Germany’s ‘Der Spiegel’ magazine: Loser of the year.
While anyone who has been paying attention, noticed that Trump deserved this award most, if not, all the years of his life, this year it is particularly fitting as he earned it with the most lies and potentially, the most alleged indictable crimes.
Featuring Kamala Harris as co-Person of the year is a nice touch, since she is both a woman of color and was attacked in a particularly vicious and personal way by Trump and his Republican minions during the campaign.
Further, the possibility of real partnership to oust a misogynistic and racist foe showed that humility, dignity and compassion for others could actually win against a bully and, with Kamala Harris on the ticket, could demonstrate leadership and leaders, who are not bullies or failed human beings but empathetic and fully functioning people capable of cooperation and teamwork.
For so many, indeed, over 81.2 million, the time was right to join together and take the old saying “nice guys (or gals) finish last” and turn it on its head – This year, the best man & woman won and the world’s biggest a-hole lost big, which, though long-ish, makes for a more apt phrase to sum up 2020, in the presidential race, at any rate.
For months we have seen ex-Mayor Giuliani exposing himself repeatedly, no, not to Borat’s daughter in that movie, but to the coronavirus. He’s been on video and in photos in direct, maskless contact with contact with infected people, including Trump while the two of them were preparing for his first debate against President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in September – even during the recent voter fraud hearings, fiascos and spectacles, he has often been seen maskless.
Indeed, there is even a video of him blowing his nose into a handkerchief and then using it, wrong-side-out to wipe his face and hands. Honestly, it’s a miracle that this has not happened sooner. Hopefully, like Trump, he will get medical attention and recover quickly (and remain in quarantine to protect others)
“@RudyGiuliani, by far the greatest mayor in the history of NYC, and who has been working tirelessly exposing the most corrupt election (by far!) in the history of the USA, has tested positive for the China Virus. Get better soon Rudy, we will carry on!!!”
__Trump in a tweet
.@RudyGiuliani, by far the greatest mayor in the history of NYC, and who has been working tirelessly exposing the most corrupt election (by far!) in the history of the USA, has tested positive for the China Virus. Get better soon Rudy, we will carry on!!!
Why Mr. Trump took to twitter to announce this is anybody’s guess. It is unknown at this point, whether Mr. Giuliani, 76, is symptomatic, although he is clearly in a high risk group for covid-19.
As follows, a list of various other Republican establishment figures that have tested positive as well;
Melania Trump (First Lady)
Ronna McDaniel (Republican National Committee chairwoman)
Hope Hicks (White House communications aide)
Kellyanne Conway (Former White House counselor)
Bill Stepien (Trump campaign manager)
John Jenkins (University of Notre Dame president)
Chris Christie (Former New Jersey Gov.)
Nick Luna (Director of Oval Office operations)
Karoline Leavitt (White house assistant press secretary)
Biden transition team reveals multiple top position picks, NYT reveals
According to a New York Times article, Joe Biden’s transition office said that they plan to announce multiple new top national security picks on Tuesday. The news will be accounted officially at an event in Washington.
The picks are said to include Alejandro Mayorkas, who will be the first Latino to head the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, Avril Haines is slated to be his director of national intelligence and will become the first woman to head the intelligence community.
John Kerry will be nominated to for climate czar. Kerry, who was formerly secretary of state, will also will be on the National security council, which, since it is not a cabinet position will not need to be confirmed by the Senate.
Janet Yellen will be Treasury Secretary & Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan in cabinet positions
Janet Yellen, formerly chair of the Federal Reserve, from 2014 – 2018, is said to be on the list and expected to be nominated for head of the treasury depart. and would therefore be the first woman Treasury secretary of the United States
According to the transition team President-elect Biden also plans to nominate Linda Thomas-Greenfield, an African-American woman to be ambassador to the United Nations and, as a result of his intention to restore the position to cabinet-level status, will thereby also give Ms. Thomas-Greenfield a National Security Council seat.
These picks follow the announcement that Antony J. Blinken will be nominated for secretary of state, Jake Sullivan is to be White House national security adviser, also reported through sources from the transition team.
