(THREAD) The Whitaker scandal is deepening, as it becomes clear that Sessions' Russia recusal was a coordinated sham and his firing an act of obstruction—and that his replacement is a White House plant inside the Mueller probe. I hope you'll retweet and read on for more details.
More from Seth Abramson
1/ I must stress how unbelievably complex the "Grand Bargain" theory of the Trump-Russia case is—a different thing from saying it's not substantiated. It's substantiated in *almost every single particular*—it just *also* happens to be very confusing. Not byzantine—just confusing.
2/ The basics: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE all view Iran as their chief regional enemy. Iran is propped up by Russia. Therefore the Saudis, Israelis, and Emiratis all need a US government willing to find a way to get the Kremlin to *stop* supporting Iran in the Middle East.
3/ The best way to get Russia to stop supporting Iran—or reduce support—was/is to drop all sanctions on Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea, as that'd be worth *trillions* to the Kremlin over the next decade. Everyone knew that Clinton wouldn't do this—and that Trump would.
4/ Per the NYT, on August 3, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. met secretly at Trump Tower with a Saudi and Emirati emissary, George Nader, as well as an Israeli intelligence expert, Joel Zamel, with *significant* ties to both Israeli intelligence *and* Russian oligarchs allied with Putin.
2/ For those who missed the first set of excerpts from PROOF OF COLLUSION, they can be seen in the tweet below—click on the link to see the tweet. For the link to preorder PROOF OF COLLUSION, see my currently pinned tweet or the link in my Twitter profile.
(EXCERPT) Here are the first excerpts to be published from my forthcoming 450-page, 1,650-endnote book PROOF OF COLLUSION. More excerpts will be released each Monday until the book's November 13 release. I hope you'll RETWEET and consider preordering here: https://t.co/ZJsnHcVwGi pic.twitter.com/LDu7deiPJU— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) October 15, 2018
PS/ To see a larger, more readily readable version of any of these excerpts, right-click and download the picture to your desktop. Then open the file and it will be much larger and easier to read.
BONUS FACT/ In the last excerpt, I refer to "any aide with whom Trump shared the classified intelligence he received in the [August 17, 2016] briefing." Well you might wonder—who did he share it with? Answer: we don't know.
But we DO know who was WITH HIM at the briefing: FLYNN.
BONUS FACT 2/ According to Mother Jones and Washington Post reporting, then, we know Flynn attended the August 17, 2016 briefing at which Trump was informed of Russian aggression, and THEREAFTER—but BEFORE the election—engaged in clandestine contacts with the Russian ambassador.
More from Politics
One of the oddest features of the Labour tax row is how raising allowances, which the media allowed the LDs to describe as progressive (in spite of evidence to contrary) through the coalition years, is now seen by everyone as very right wing— Tom Clark (@prospect_clark) November 2, 2018
Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel
He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:
He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:
He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
2/ Stone and Manafort are longtime business partners; we'd expect Manafort to tell Stone what Assange told him, and for him to expect Stone to then pressure the campaign not only to hire him but quickly elevate him.
And who was Stone in touch with at the campaign? Trump himself.
3/ I bet you Manafort's late March emails are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime business associate Roger Stone. And I bet Roger Stone's late March phone calls are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime friend Donald Trump.
4/ At the end of March 2016, Trump suddenly convenes a NatSec meeting. At that meeting he directs his NatSec team to change the RNC platform in July to benefit Putin. Who later takes credit for that change?
Paul Manafort's business associate, Kremlin agent Konstantin Kilimnick.
5/ Why did Donald Trump suddenly convene a NatSec meeting 3 days after he finally hired Manafort? Why did he issue a pro-Kremlin directive at that meeting that Manafort's camp would later take credit for? What did Manafort tell Trump in the days leading up to that NatSec meeting?
You May Also Like
2/ Sales is often viewed as either a saving grace or proof that the product isn’t good enough (because it should sell itself). Neither are ever true. Some common mistakes that result in...
3/ Mistake 1: Hire a sales rep before reaching product/market fit to get your initial batch of customers. This is a mistake because founders need to work through their MVP with early adopters to truly understand what it is they’re selling.
4/ Mistake 2: Reach product/market fit, need to scale, and rely entirely on self-serve. For enterprise products that require big commitments and internal shifts, almost no product is self-explanatory enough to sell itself.
5/ Mistake 3: Make a first sales hire who isn’t scrappy enough to help mold the sales process from scratch. Some salespeople are amazing at their jobs, but not cut out to establish the processes that others end up following. This skillset is what @rdedatta calls a “sales ninja”.
Here are the things I'm excited about.
🚂 Trailing commas in function/method calls!
🧵 Less disgusting heredoc syntax!
Inlining heredoc strings in any way right now is grrrosssss. Now we get sensible capabilities. Everything that was wrong with it is now fixed!
(Ignore the bad syntax highlighting)
☠️ Finally, not-so-silent json_decode error detection!
This really sucked before, now it just sucks a bit less (who wants to pass a 4th param and pass 2 default params first? (helper function anybody?)
📜 Not horrible functions for getting the first and last item (or key) from an array!
Before you either strung a bunch of functions together or messed with internal array pointers. This is a much-needed improvement.
The paper is a good example of lots of elements of good experimental design. They validate their metric by showing lots of variants give consistent results. They tune hyperparamters separately for each condition, check that optimum isn't at the endpoints, and measure sensitivity.
They have separate experiments where the hold fixed # iterations and # epochs, which (as they explain) measure very different things. They avoid confounds, such as batch norm's artificial dependence between batch size and regularization strength.
When the experiments are done carefully enough, the results are remarkably consistent between different datasets and architectures. Qualitatively, MNIST behaves just like ImageNet.
Importantly, they don't find any evidence for a "sharp/flat optima" effect whereby better optimization leads to worse final results. They have a good discussion of experimental artifacts/confounds in past papers where such effects were reported.