Check out Tuesday’s newsletter!
|
|
From The Reporter’s Notebook
In a report published Monday by Gizmodo, a former Facebook news curator said that those choosing the stories that appear on the “trending” news section suppressed conservative news and stories from conservative news sites, TPM’s Kristin Salaky wrote. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator told Gizmodo.
Agree or Disagree?
Josh Marshall: “At the moment, Republican elected officials are basically the only people in the United States who don’t have a strong opinion about whether or not Donald Trump should be president. And that’s a big, glaring problem. Because that just won’t make sense to anybody, not his supporters or detractors. I’m not sure it’s right to say that it’s better to just oppose him or endorse. These are both terrible options. But these various permutations of ‘no comment’ or ‘ask somebody else’ are almost as bad because they make the person saying it sound silly and ridiculous, which is really the worst thing that can happen to you in politics.”
Say What?!
“The panel alleges Boeckmann showed preferential treatment to white men and allowed sentencing not recorded on court dockets, including performing the task of picking up trash at his home. He’s accused of coercing some of the men into sexual acts ranging from spanking to masturbating on camera in return for paying their attorney fees or forgiving their fines.”
– An Arkansas judge resigned Monday after new allegations surfaced that he used his authority for the last 30 years to sexually prey on young men charged with crimes who needed financial help.
BUZZING: Today in the Hive
From a TPM Prime member: “As I argue with my Sanders-supporting friend who feels betrayed with no prosecutions of Jamie Dimond et al, I suggest I don’t know what statutes would have been invoked for an indictment. Aside from the political risk of attempting a prosecution and failing to get a sympathetic jury and/or judge, and losing, what would have been the avenue to use? The creation of the exotic derivatives was not only legal, it had special protection from oversight or even data collection, due to the Commodities Futures Modernization Act excluding them as normal financial instruments. So it doesn’t matter if the folks selling them lied through their teeth about their value, it was legal. I felt an example of provable fraud is if I sell you stocks that are not real. But if I sell you stocks I say are great and the company is almost bankrupt, that is legal. There is huge legal latitude regarding lying for commercial reasons. A recent SCOTUS case upheld a company that required their employee to report falsehoods as facts. My friend says Iceland jailed some bankers. We aren’t Iceland, but I would like to know what legal approach was taken, and what laws they have that applied.”
Related: Elizabeth Warren shreds Jamie Dimon’s mansplaining.
Have something to add? Become a Prime member and join the discussion here.
What We’re Reading
This West Virginia election inspired a John Grisham novel, and now it just got even weirder. (Mother Jones)
How the global elite spent 80 years getting injections of sheep fetus. (BuzzFeed)
|
|
