Olivia Munn condemns ‘Zoom bombing’ racist attack during AAPI webinar
January 25, 2022
For customer support issues contact
support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to
corrections@rawstory.com.
Stories Chosen For You
United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) published an editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal on Wednesday in which he voiced opposition to a ban on the popular app TikTok that passed the House of Representatives last year and is currently being debated in the Senate.
Paul, a libertarian conservative, attacked the proposal as a surefire way to alienate young voters and assailed it as an affront to Republicans' supposed aversion to censorship.
"This GOP strategy comes while polls indicate that 71% of young women and 53% of young men voted for a Democrat candidate for Congress. Now admittedly, many Democrats have joined Republicans in calling for this ban but like most such issues, the blame will stick to Republicans more," Paul wrote. "The banning TikTok strategy also comes while the GOP simultaneously complains of liberal U.S. social media companies canceling and censoring conservatives. So, without a hint of irony, many of these same 'conservatives' now agitate to ban a platform owned by an international group that includes several American investors."
Paul warned that prohibiting Americans from accessing Tiktok means that the US may "emulate China’s speech bans," noting that the app is already banned in China.
Paul also wondered, "does TikTok do the Chinese government’s bidding?" noting that "videos are all over TikTok that are critical of official Chinese positions."
After reiterating his fear of censorship, Paul concluded that "if you don't like TikTok or Facebook or YouTube, don't use them. But don't think any interpretation of the Constitution gives you the right to ban them."
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Nicolle Wallace smacks down Ginni Thomas for 'demented and unethical way' of funneling money
March 29, 2023
It was reported on Tuesday that Ginni Thomas, the wife to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, raised $600,000 in anonymous donations to her fringe political group over the past few years. It's a fund that is raising alarms among ethics hawks wondering if it has to do with the Thomas' work around the 2020 election.
The money, according to the report, were funneled through a right-wing think tank in Washington that agreed to help Thomas from 2019 until the start of 2022. It guaranteed that any donations were shielded from public view. Those donors would have been disclosed if they gave to Thomas' group directly.
"Yet another shocking display of audacity by the spouse of a sitting Supreme Court justice that raises brand-new questions about ethics and potential conflicts of interest," MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace said.
"Thomas' activism has set her apart from other spouses of Supreme Court justices," The Washington Post report said. "She had aligned with numerous people and groups that have interests before the court and dedicated herself to causes that involve some of the most polarizing issues in the country. It was glaringly, Ginni Thomas' involvement in the attempted coup by the twice-impeached ex-president to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost."
IN OTHER NEWS: ‘This is about one client – Donald Trump’: Eric Swalwell destroys Jim Jordan and his ‘Insurrection LLC’ committee
Ginni Thomas was texting Mark Meadows, giving him strategy ideas. She was pressing the fake electors scandal on state lawmakers. It was thanks to Meadows that Thomas' text messages were exposed in which she begs him to "stand firm" and fight for Trump to stay in office, despite losing.
"Not for nothing, while the Supreme Court acts like it doesn't care that the public isn't that into them anymore, stories like this are exactly why the public doesn't trust and — they've seen a collapse in public trust in the institution," said Wallace.
Brian Fallon with Demand Justice agreed, saying that it isn't just the unpopular rulings coming out of the court. It's also the ongoing ethics problems on display.
"So, there's a feeling that it's not only reaching decisions that are questionable, it's also reaching them through illicit means," said Fallon.
To Wallace, it was the funding piece of the story that stunned her.
"Because, you know, over here on Earth 1, you would do the opposite, right?" she asked. "If there were a nonprofit that involved the spouse of a Supreme Court justice, you would take the path that would bring about more disclosure, more transparency. Ginni Thomas does the opposite. She basically buries and hides the funding through a workaround that may or may not be legal. It's certainly not ethical or transparent. What do you make of the demented approach toward ethics and transparency?"
Fallon explained that there were some links to organizations that may seem political and not entirely ethical but wasn't illegal. His example was if Mrs. Thomas was lobbying on behalf of corporate interests seeking to loosen regulations. Given Justice Thomas hears cases related to those issues, it wouldn't be ethical.
"But it probably wouldn't stun Washington to the degree that her activities here do," said Fallon. "That's because she's a fringe figure, Nicolle. The people that she brought together for this nonprofit that received $600,000 was a rogues gallery of people that didn't belong in polite society in Washington, D.C. You've got the head of Project Veritas, who has been criminally prosecuted for the shady activity of that group. Charlie Kirk, these are people that say outrageous things that help provoke conspiracy theories that contributed to the riots that tried to overturn the government. And Ginni Thomas is in league with all of them. This should be shocking and appalling on both sides of the aisle. It should be 100 percent uncontroversial at this point to impose a mandatory code of ethics on the Supreme Court so that Clarence Thomas has to account for his wife's activities."
See the conversation below or at the link here.
Nicolle Wallace smacks down Ginni Thomas for 'demented and unethical way' of funneling dirty money www.youtube.com
CONTINUE READING
Show less
'Out-negotiated by Mickey Mouse': Trump team taunts DeSantis as Disney gambit blows up in his face
March 29, 2023
Former President Donald Trump's team is taking a gleeful victory lap after Gov. Ron DeSantis' law to punish Disney for speaking out against his anti-LGBTQ legislation hit a brick wall, reported Florida Politics publisher Peter Schorsch on Wednesday.
"President Trump wrote 'Art of the Deal' and brokered Middle East peace," an unidentified Trump campaign staffer told Schorsch. "Ron DeSantis just got out-negotiated by Mickey Mouse."
The legislation aimed to allow DeSantis to replace the governing board of the special district that has allowed Disney to effectively run its own local government at the site of its Walt Disney World resorts just outside of Orlando since the 1970s. The takeover was passed soon after Disney issued a statement criticizing state legislation known as the "Don't Say Gay" law, which prohibits classroom "instruction" on sexual orientation or gender identity, and is written so broadly that it can effectively make it illegal even for teachers to have a picture of their same-sex partner on their desk.
But according to the Orlando Sentinel, the previous board voted at the last minute on a development compact that makes DeSantis' new, handpicked replacement board effectively powerless to govern Disney for 30 years.
IN OTHER NEWS: Pizza receipt leads to 12-year-old boy’s arrest in Wisconsin homicide: report
"The new DeSantis-aligned board expressed dismay over the previous board’s actions," reported Skyler Swisher. "'This essentially makes Disney the government,' board member Ron Peri said. 'This board loses, for practical purposes, the majority of its ability to do anything beyond maintain the roads and maintain basic infrastructure.' Among other things, a 'declaration of restrictive covenants' spells out that the district is barred from using the Disney name without the corporation’s approval or 'fanciful characters such as Mickey Mouse.' That declaration is valid until '21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,' according to the document."
DeSantis is already gearing up to challenge this contract in court, with a spokeswoman saying, "An initial review suggests these agreements may have significant legal infirmities that would render the contracts void as a matter of law." Disney maintains that the contract is legal and all debate over passing it complied with Florida's transparency laws.
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}