|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
Google’s Disturbing Influence Over Think Tanks
The first thing you see when you walk into the offices of the New America Foundation in Washington is the Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab, a space named after the executive chairman of Google’s parent company. Google, Mr. Schmidt and his family’s foundation are the principal funders of that think tank.
On Wednesday, New America’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, issued a statement saying that Barry Lynn, a pre-eminent scholar there, had been fired for “his repeated refusal to adhere to New America’s standards of openness and institutional collegiality.”
What horrible, dangerous act had Mr. Lynn committed? He wrote a piece for New America’s website in support of the $2.7 billion fine the European Union levied against Google for antitrust violations in June. That post fit perfectly with the work of the Open Markets initiative he lead, which has been one of the strongest voices in Washington calling for more antitrust scrutiny of our economy. It’s the platform Mr. Lynn, Matt Stoller and Lina Khan have used to call for regulatory scrutiny of the tech monopolies like Google, Amazon and Facebook as these companies increasingly come to dominate our economy. But Google’s financial power at New America was apparently such that it could close the group down. Though Ms. Slaughter denies the connection between Google’s funding and her decision, the implication seems clear. A firm whose motto was “Don’t Be Evil” has no interest in being called a monopoly by a think tank it funds.
In his book “Zero to One,” the tech investor Peter Thiel writes that companies like Google lie to protect themselves. “They know that bragging about their great monopoly invites being audited, scrutinized and attacked. Since they very much want their profits to continue unmolested, they tend to do whatever they can to conceal their monopoly — usually by exaggerating the power of their (nonexistent) competition,” he explains. There’s evidence that this kind of exaggeration is carried out by numerous scholars and think tanks funded by Google. According to a 2017 Wall Street Journal investigative report, “Over the past decade, Google has helped finance hundreds of research papers to defend against regulatory challenges of its market dominance, paying $5,000 to $400,000 for the work.”
But as the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog discovered in February 2009 when it investigated Google’s handling of consumer privacy, the funding from Google comes with strings attached. As the group noted on its website, Google’s director of policy communications, Bob Boorstin, emailed the Rose Foundation (a major funder of Consumer Watchdog) complaining about Consumer Watchdog and asking the charity to consider “whether there might be better groups in which to place your trust and resources.” Mr. Boorstin later apologized for his attempts to cripple a Google critic, but there is no evidence that the use of this kind of tactic has ended.
The Wall Street Journal’s report found that since 2009, Google had directly funded 100 papers written by academics and 100 papers that came through think tanks funded by Google. These papers make their way to the congressional committees and regulatory agencies that are charged with overseeing Google’s business, like the Federal Trade Commission.
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” suggested that the company valued transparency. But the extent of its influence is anything but transparent. Occasionally this is revealed to the public, such as when the infamous Google Shill List came out during a lawsuit brought by Oracle. Google was forced to disclose that it provided major funding to important organizations like Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
So when these supposedly neutral organizations weigh in on issues that involve Google, you should take their advocacy with a grain of salt. In the coming months, privacy legislation put forward by Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, and modifications to the Safe Harbor provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act advocated by Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, will come before Congress. Google does not want either of these laws to pass, and you can be sure that papers from major think tanks will be part of the policy discussion.
Perhaps more important, the discussion that is beginning to take place on both sides of the political aisle on whether companies like Google and Amazon are too big will continue. The role of the think tanks in this debate will be important. What we don’t need are more Google shills.
Source
Google is anti-censorship, except when they do the censoring.
|
On August 31 2017 22:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +
Google’s Disturbing Influence Over Think Tanks
The first thing you see when you walk into the offices of the New America Foundation in Washington is the Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab, a space named after the executive chairman of Google’s parent company. Google, Mr. Schmidt and his family’s foundation are the principal funders of that think tank.
On Wednesday, New America’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, issued a statement saying that Barry Lynn, a pre-eminent scholar there, had been fired for “his repeated refusal to adhere to New America’s standards of openness and institutional collegiality.”
What horrible, dangerous act had Mr. Lynn committed? He wrote a piece for New America’s website in support of the $2.7 billion fine the European Union levied against Google for antitrust violations in June. That post fit perfectly with the work of the Open Markets initiative he lead, which has been one of the strongest voices in Washington calling for more antitrust scrutiny of our economy. It’s the platform Mr. Lynn, Matt Stoller and Lina Khan have used to call for regulatory scrutiny of the tech monopolies like Google, Amazon and Facebook as these companies increasingly come to dominate our economy. But Google’s financial power at New America was apparently such that it could close the group down. Though Ms. Slaughter denies the connection between Google’s funding and her decision, the implication seems clear. A firm whose motto was “Don’t Be Evil” has no interest in being called a monopoly by a think tank it funds.
In his book “Zero to One,” the tech investor Peter Thiel writes that companies like Google lie to protect themselves. “They know that bragging about their great monopoly invites being audited, scrutinized and attacked. Since they very much want their profits to continue unmolested, they tend to do whatever they can to conceal their monopoly — usually by exaggerating the power of their (nonexistent) competition,” he explains. There’s evidence that this kind of exaggeration is carried out by numerous scholars and think tanks funded by Google. According to a 2017 Wall Street Journal investigative report, “Over the past decade, Google has helped finance hundreds of research papers to defend against regulatory challenges of its market dominance, paying $5,000 to $400,000 for the work.”
But as the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog discovered in February 2009 when it investigated Google’s handling of consumer privacy, the funding from Google comes with strings attached. As the group noted on its website, Google’s director of policy communications, Bob Boorstin, emailed the Rose Foundation (a major funder of Consumer Watchdog) complaining about Consumer Watchdog and asking the charity to consider “whether there might be better groups in which to place your trust and resources.” Mr. Boorstin later apologized for his attempts to cripple a Google critic, but there is no evidence that the use of this kind of tactic has ended.
The Wall Street Journal’s report found that since 2009, Google had directly funded 100 papers written by academics and 100 papers that came through think tanks funded by Google. These papers make their way to the congressional committees and regulatory agencies that are charged with overseeing Google’s business, like the Federal Trade Commission.
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” suggested that the company valued transparency. But the extent of its influence is anything but transparent. Occasionally this is revealed to the public, such as when the infamous Google Shill List came out during a lawsuit brought by Oracle. Google was forced to disclose that it provided major funding to important organizations like Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
So when these supposedly neutral organizations weigh in on issues that involve Google, you should take their advocacy with a grain of salt. In the coming months, privacy legislation put forward by Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, and modifications to the Safe Harbor provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act advocated by Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, will come before Congress. Google does not want either of these laws to pass, and you can be sure that papers from major think tanks will be part of the policy discussion.
Perhaps more important, the discussion that is beginning to take place on both sides of the political aisle on whether companies like Google and Amazon are too big will continue. The role of the think tanks in this debate will be important. What we don’t need are more Google shills.
SourceGoogle is anti-censorship, except when they do the censoring.
This just in: virtuous company Google is actually holier-than-thou for-profit entity willing to be hypocritical if it benefits the bottom line.
|
On August 31 2017 12:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 12:04 Sermokala wrote:
You act like an opposition isn't trying to go after the president with everything they have. They have a lot. He has been handing out bat to hit him with since he took office. His first week in office he lied about it not raining during the inauguration and its been off to the races since.
I still don't see how that's rediculis. Yes they've gone low on racism and his previous professions as a community organizer but I don't see why anyone could expect anything less. Expecially from a party that was as down in the dumps as they were. He wasn't a very good politician and was never able to fight them off well which is why they were so sucsessful in attacking him.
I don't think it's wrong to be proud of what white people have done as long as you can acepted that they built on top of what other races did as well. The other option is to not allow anyone to be proud of anything that their people have done.
|
United States44283 Posts
On August 31 2017 14:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 14:32 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:
It's pretty simple to see why American 'conservatives' nowadays hate Obama. Disproving "white" exceptionalism is definitely a big part of it. It is super clear that a lot of people got a lot of comfort in knowing they are the same "race" as Einstein and other prolific, big name, influential historical figures. The fact that every president has *also* happened to be white is probably something a lot of people didn't really attribute to the actual underlying reasons. For a black guy to walk in, talk shit about anti-intellectualism and boldly stop tolerating conservative bullshit was definitely hugely tear-inducing for a lot of rural communities. People who, by any objective measure, are utterly mediocre at best, could take comfort in knowing they are a member of the "winning team". Once Obama was like "lol nope", a lot of people felt their pride was threatened. Sad, but oh well. This is going to be a shit storm in the morning. You don't just go saying white people aren't exceptional. Look at all the Fortune 500 companies they own. And all of the money they monopolize. And all of the power they hold in almost every faucet of your life. If that's not white exceptionalism, I don't know what is. Prepare yourself.
Which is the weird thing because you have poor whites and poor blacks that are being crushed under the same white boot but when the poor blacks punch up the elites turn to the poor whites and say "look, they're attacking us".
|
On August 31 2017 22:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 14:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 31 2017 14:32 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:
It's pretty simple to see why American 'conservatives' nowadays hate Obama. Disproving "white" exceptionalism is definitely a big part of it. It is super clear that a lot of people got a lot of comfort in knowing they are the same "race" as Einstein and other prolific, big name, influential historical figures. The fact that every president has *also* happened to be white is probably something a lot of people didn't really attribute to the actual underlying reasons. For a black guy to walk in, talk shit about anti-intellectualism and boldly stop tolerating conservative bullshit was definitely hugely tear-inducing for a lot of rural communities. People who, by any objective measure, are utterly mediocre at best, could take comfort in knowing they are a member of the "winning team". Once Obama was like "lol nope", a lot of people felt their pride was threatened. Sad, but oh well. This is going to be a shit storm in the morning. You don't just go saying white people aren't exceptional. Look at all the Fortune 500 companies they own. And all of the money they monopolize. And all of the power they hold in almost every faucet of your life. If that's not white exceptionalism, I don't know what is. Prepare yourself. Which is the weird thing because you have poor whites and poor blacks that are being crushed under the same white boot but when the poor blacks punch up the elites turn to the poor whites and say "look, they're attacking us".
There might be a few more reasons why poor black people and poor white people are anxious to be teaming up with eachother.
|
On August 31 2017 22:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 22:22 Plansix wrote:
Google’s Disturbing Influence Over Think Tanks
The first thing you see when you walk into the offices of the New America Foundation in Washington is the Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab, a space named after the executive chairman of Google’s parent company. Google, Mr. Schmidt and his family’s foundation are the principal funders of that think tank.
On Wednesday, New America’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, issued a statement saying that Barry Lynn, a pre-eminent scholar there, had been fired for “his repeated refusal to adhere to New America’s standards of openness and institutional collegiality.”
What horrible, dangerous act had Mr. Lynn committed? He wrote a piece for New America’s website in support of the $2.7 billion fine the European Union levied against Google for antitrust violations in June. That post fit perfectly with the work of the Open Markets initiative he lead, which has been one of the strongest voices in Washington calling for more antitrust scrutiny of our economy. It’s the platform Mr. Lynn, Matt Stoller and Lina Khan have used to call for regulatory scrutiny of the tech monopolies like Google, Amazon and Facebook as these companies increasingly come to dominate our economy. But Google’s financial power at New America was apparently such that it could close the group down. Though Ms. Slaughter denies the connection between Google’s funding and her decision, the implication seems clear. A firm whose motto was “Don’t Be Evil” has no interest in being called a monopoly by a think tank it funds.
In his book “Zero to One,” the tech investor Peter Thiel writes that companies like Google lie to protect themselves. “They know that bragging about their great monopoly invites being audited, scrutinized and attacked. Since they very much want their profits to continue unmolested, they tend to do whatever they can to conceal their monopoly — usually by exaggerating the power of their (nonexistent) competition,” he explains. There’s evidence that this kind of exaggeration is carried out by numerous scholars and think tanks funded by Google. According to a 2017 Wall Street Journal investigative report, “Over the past decade, Google has helped finance hundreds of research papers to defend against regulatory challenges of its market dominance, paying $5,000 to $400,000 for the work.”
But as the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog discovered in February 2009 when it investigated Google’s handling of consumer privacy, the funding from Google comes with strings attached. As the group noted on its website, Google’s director of policy communications, Bob Boorstin, emailed the Rose Foundation (a major funder of Consumer Watchdog) complaining about Consumer Watchdog and asking the charity to consider “whether there might be better groups in which to place your trust and resources.” Mr. Boorstin later apologized for his attempts to cripple a Google critic, but there is no evidence that the use of this kind of tactic has ended.
The Wall Street Journal’s report found that since 2009, Google had directly funded 100 papers written by academics and 100 papers that came through think tanks funded by Google. These papers make their way to the congressional committees and regulatory agencies that are charged with overseeing Google’s business, like the Federal Trade Commission.
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” suggested that the company valued transparency. But the extent of its influence is anything but transparent. Occasionally this is revealed to the public, such as when the infamous Google Shill List came out during a lawsuit brought by Oracle. Google was forced to disclose that it provided major funding to important organizations like Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
So when these supposedly neutral organizations weigh in on issues that involve Google, you should take their advocacy with a grain of salt. In the coming months, privacy legislation put forward by Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, and modifications to the Safe Harbor provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act advocated by Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, will come before Congress. Google does not want either of these laws to pass, and you can be sure that papers from major think tanks will be part of the policy discussion.
Perhaps more important, the discussion that is beginning to take place on both sides of the political aisle on whether companies like Google and Amazon are too big will continue. The role of the think tanks in this debate will be important. What we don’t need are more Google shills.
SourceGoogle is anti-censorship, except when they do the censoring. This just in: virtuous company Google is actually holier-than-thou for-profit entity willing to be hypocritical if it benefits the bottom line.
Just because you and I saw through the bullshit PR that the tech industry has been peddling doesn’t mean others have too. People still think Google is this wonderful company that is going to make us self driving cars and drones the deliver burritos. They are not aware of the part where google is actively trying to suppress any critical analysis of things like the 1996 communications decency act and the unlimited liability shield is provides to google. And there is no doubt in my mind that Facebook is doing the exact same thing.
|
On August 31 2017 15:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 14:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 31 2017 14:32 Mohdoo wrote:On August 31 2017 14:13 Nyxisto wrote:
It's pretty simple to see why American 'conservatives' nowadays hate Obama. Disproving "white" exceptionalism is definitely a big part of it. It is super clear that a lot of people got a lot of comfort in knowing they are the same "race" as Einstein and other prolific, big name, influential historical figures. The fact that every president has *also* happened to be white is probably something a lot of people didn't really attribute to the actual underlying reasons. For a black guy to walk in, talk shit about anti-intellectualism and boldly stop tolerating conservative bullshit was definitely hugely tear-inducing for a lot of rural communities. People who, by any objective measure, are utterly mediocre at best, could take comfort in knowing they are a member of the "winning team". Once Obama was like "lol nope", a lot of people felt their pride was threatened. Sad, but oh well. This is going to be a shit storm in the morning. You don't just go saying white people aren't exceptional. Look at all the Fortune 500 companies they own. And all of the money they monopolize. And all of the power they hold in almost every faucet of your life. If that's not white exceptionalism, I don't know what is. Prepare yourself. It's not a matter of if whites are dominant right now. It is a matter of why. Rural conservative voters smile to themselves thinking they are in any way related to their leaders. They identify with greatness while their entire careers are replaced with automation, the most clear indication they are barely more useful than a hammer. In reality, they are no different than a horse pulling a carriage. For a group that values hierarchy so greatly, a black guy walking in and being king definitely had them buying boxes of tissues.
That's what I'm saying. If you try to explain to a rural white community that they aren't exceptional or anyone who is delusional enough to think that they are, simply because of the power structure this country has fostered, you're going to be met with derision and just plain stubbornness. They don't want to hear the truth, that they are mediocre. They want to believe that they are the chosen ones to "rule" this country. The same can be said for urbanites as well.
Since so much of the history of this country (and the world for that matter) is seen through a "white" lens, then they think that since the dawn of time, white people have been on top. They'll see Aztec, Mayan, Egyptian, Persian, Chinese, Muslim, etc cultures and think, "Well they had it first, but white people made it better and expanded it to the rest of the world." Not realizing that a lot of those places were living just fine and in relative peace before European invasions started happening. These are the same people who think the world is 2000 years old. You can't go breaking down their walls of white exceptionalism. They'll freak and think they're under attack. Something about western culture being attacked.
|
Most rural people don't give a damn about being exceptional at an individual level, it's more about being a part of something greater. They care a lot more about raising their kids, supporting their high school football team, supporting their college football team, and supporting their NFL team.
|
Wtf is "white exceptionalism"?
Googling doesn't help; what I got from it is that it is a code word for white supremacy.
|
On August 31 2017 23:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wtf is "white exceptionalism"?
Googling doesn't help; what i got is that it is a code word for white supremacy.
Something like "American exceptionalism", except that some groups of Americans are excluded.
We Euros probably don't have to understand it.
|
On August 31 2017 23:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wtf is "white exceptionalism"?
Googling doesn't help; what I got from it is that it is a code word for white supremacy.
It is like American exceptionalism, except you replace nationalist propaganda with racist propaganda.
|
United States44283 Posts
On August 31 2017 23:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wtf is "white exceptionalism"?
Googling doesn't help; what I got from it is that it is a code word for white supremacy.
I would assume that it's basically that everyone lived in caves, then the white Greeks and Romans invented civilization, then the British and Germans (and maybe the French but they're kinda Catholic so maybe not, definitely not Spanish and Italians) showed up with their protestant work ethics and that's how we have the world. I've oversimplified it but I'm sure xDaunt can build upon what I just wrote.
|
On August 31 2017 22:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +
Google’s Disturbing Influence Over Think Tanks
The first thing you see when you walk into the offices of the New America Foundation in Washington is the Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab, a space named after the executive chairman of Google’s parent company. Google, Mr. Schmidt and his family’s foundation are the principal funders of that think tank.
On Wednesday, New America’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, issued a statement saying that Barry Lynn, a pre-eminent scholar there, had been fired for “his repeated refusal to adhere to New America’s standards of openness and institutional collegiality.”
What horrible, dangerous act had Mr. Lynn committed? He wrote a piece for New America’s website in support of the $2.7 billion fine the European Union levied against Google for antitrust violations in June. That post fit perfectly with the work of the Open Markets initiative he lead, which has been one of the strongest voices in Washington calling for more antitrust scrutiny of our economy. It’s the platform Mr. Lynn, Matt Stoller and Lina Khan have used to call for regulatory scrutiny of the tech monopolies like Google, Amazon and Facebook as these companies increasingly come to dominate our economy. But Google’s financial power at New America was apparently such that it could close the group down. Though Ms. Slaughter denies the connection between Google’s funding and her decision, the implication seems clear. A firm whose motto was “Don’t Be Evil” has no interest in being called a monopoly by a think tank it funds.
In his book “Zero to One,” the tech investor Peter Thiel writes that companies like Google lie to protect themselves. “They know that bragging about their great monopoly invites being audited, scrutinized and attacked. Since they very much want their profits to continue unmolested, they tend to do whatever they can to conceal their monopoly — usually by exaggerating the power of their (nonexistent) competition,” he explains. There’s evidence that this kind of exaggeration is carried out by numerous scholars and think tanks funded by Google. According to a 2017 Wall Street Journal investigative report, “Over the past decade, Google has helped finance hundreds of research papers to defend against regulatory challenges of its market dominance, paying $5,000 to $400,000 for the work.”
But as the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog discovered in February 2009 when it investigated Google’s handling of consumer privacy, the funding from Google comes with strings attached. As the group noted on its website, Google’s director of policy communications, Bob Boorstin, emailed the Rose Foundation (a major funder of Consumer Watchdog) complaining about Consumer Watchdog and asking the charity to consider “whether there might be better groups in which to place your trust and resources.” Mr. Boorstin later apologized for his attempts to cripple a Google critic, but there is no evidence that the use of this kind of tactic has ended.
The Wall Street Journal’s report found that since 2009, Google had directly funded 100 papers written by academics and 100 papers that came through think tanks funded by Google. These papers make their way to the congressional committees and regulatory agencies that are charged with overseeing Google’s business, like the Federal Trade Commission.
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” suggested that the company valued transparency. But the extent of its influence is anything but transparent. Occasionally this is revealed to the public, such as when the infamous Google Shill List came out during a lawsuit brought by Oracle. Google was forced to disclose that it provided major funding to important organizations like Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
So when these supposedly neutral organizations weigh in on issues that involve Google, you should take their advocacy with a grain of salt. In the coming months, privacy legislation put forward by Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, and modifications to the Safe Harbor provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act advocated by Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, will come before Congress. Google does not want either of these laws to pass, and you can be sure that papers from major think tanks will be part of the policy discussion.
Perhaps more important, the discussion that is beginning to take place on both sides of the political aisle on whether companies like Google and Amazon are too big will continue. The role of the think tanks in this debate will be important. What we don’t need are more Google shills.
SourceGoogle is anti-censorship, except when they do the censoring.
Interesting story, but the article seems pretty terrible. Like it's trying to smear the EFF and Public Knowledge for getting donations from Google with no actual evidence that they are not neutral. It is a pretty big claim for something like the EFF which has been around much longer than Google.
I don't see at all how an established charity that gets >50% of it's funding from individual donors should be lumped into the same group as a pressured think tank. Hell I'm using a (partial) ad blocker made by the EFF that's actively blocking cookies from google ads and messing with their functionality.
|
On August 31 2017 23:37 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 23:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wtf is "white exceptionalism"?
Googling doesn't help; what i got is that it is a code word for white supremacy. Something like "American exceptionalism", except that some groups of Americans are excluded. We Euros probably don't have to understand it.
We do, it is not like we do not have our fair share of xenophobic parties on the rise which also agree. They just call it western culture.
|
You guys aren't exactly divesting me of my interpretation of what white exceptionalism actually means. In fact you are basically reinforcing it.
|
On September 01 2017 00:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You guys aren't exactly divesting me of my interpretation of what white exceptionalism actually means. In fact you are basically reinforcing it.
Because your right?
|
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on its investigation into Paul Manafort and his financial transactions, according to several people familiar with the matter.
The cooperation is the latest indication that the federal probe into President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman is intensifying. It also could potentially provide Mueller with additional leverage to get Manafort to cooperate in the larger investigation into Trump’s campaign, as Trump does not have pardon power over state crimes.
The two teams have shared evidence and talked frequently in recent weeks about a potential case, these people said. One of the people familiar with progress on the case said both Mueller’s and Schneiderman’s teams have collected evidence on financial crimes, including potential money laundering.
...
People close to Manafort say the team has pressured him by approaching family members and former business partners. A number of other firms and people who have worked with him have received subpoenas.
Federal agents also conducted an early-morning raid at Manafort’s home in late July, seizing documents and other items.
...
The New York prosecutor’s office also is looking into some of Trump’s business transactions and could potentially share those records with Mueller’s team, one of these people said. Those inquiries are in the preliminary stage.
www.politico.com
You can imagine how furious Trump is right now
|
Normally somebody comes along and tell me that I am wrong. Or diverts the discussion. Something like; white exceptionalism isn't a covert way to express white supremacy. White supremacy is what made the constitution and to say as such is to drive them into supporting Donald Trump.
|
On August 31 2017 23:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2017 23:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wtf is "white exceptionalism"?
Googling doesn't help; what I got from it is that it is a code word for white supremacy. I would assume that it's basically that everyone lived in caves, then the white Greeks and Romans invented civilization, then the British and Germans (and maybe the French but they're kinda Catholic so maybe not, definitely not Spanish and Italians) showed up with their protestant work ethics and that's how we have the world. I've oversimplified it but I'm sure xDaunt can build upon what I just wrote.
I have no idea. I haven't heard the term before, but you're probably on the right track.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
