THREAD: My thoughts on the decision not to call witnesses. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This take is based on what I think I know, and there's much I don't know, but I do not understand why the dems didn't depose Rep. Beutler. Let's talk about the objections: 1/

First, many are saying it would drag this thing out and prevent Biden's agenda from moving forward. I don't see how that's possible. The senate had the votes to depose Rep. Beutler. We saw that with the 55-45 vote to allow witnesses. GOP can't filibuster that 2/
It would have taken probably a week to depose her and introduce her testimony into the senate record. The senate is scheduled to be in recess this week. The only thing a deposition of Beutler would have done is stopped the senate's vacation. 3/
Since everything would have been done in roughly a week, and the senate was scheduled for a week-long vacation, the deposition of Beutler wouldn't have delayed any of Biden's agenda. 4/
Next, many are saying Mitch threatened to filibuster Biden's agenda. That's also an empty threat. Cabinet confirmations require only a simple majority vote, and the Covid relief package is going through the budget reconciliation process so it's not subject to filibuster 5/
Many say Mitch threatened to filibuster all legislation NOT eligible for budget reconciliation such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Mitch was already going to filibuster those, AND, senate dems can change the budget reconciliation rules to get them passed without the GOP 6/
Some say the dems have to allow the republicans to call witnesses, too. That's not true. If the dems wanted to depose ONLY Beutler, they could have voted with a simple majority to do so. 7/
The ONLY reason I can think the dems decided not to depose Beutler was if they didn't have the simple majority votes to ONLY depose Beutler. Can anyone think of any other reason NOT to depose only Beutler? 8/
You may say "well, it wouldn't change the GOP minds." That's true, but this has NEVER been about them, it's about getting the truth out to the public so THEY can judge republicans who vote to acquit. It's well established that a witness is better than a document. 9/
So, there may be something we aren't aware of, or there may be something I simply don't know, but with the available information, I can't for the life of me figure out why the dems wouldn't have deposed Beutler in this case. END
UPDATE: it is now being floated that calling witnesses could have in some way interfered with criminal prosecutions. More to come.

More from Mueller, She Wrote

THREAD: TRUMP JUST BECAME MORE OF A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT THAN HE ALREADY WAS: As most of us know by know, the trump org was indicted on ten counts yesterday, and the CFO Allen Weisselberg was indicted in 15 counts 1/

Despite what the trump org lawyers and donald's crotch goblins are saying - that all Weisselberg did wrong was that he failed to report a mercedes benz to the IRS - these are serious crimes and include conspiracy, fraud, and falsifying business records. 2/

As @kurteichenwald explains here: an org indictment could mean trump lenders will likely call in their loans early, especially if the org falsified business records as count 12 shows it did. So what does this have to do with NATIONAL SECURITY? 3/


Remember when Sue Gordon - who resigned with Bolton after the Ukraine shadow government (Rudy) and the scheme to extort Zelensky in exchange for an investigation announcement into Biden was discovered - wrote an op ed "Cut Off his Intelligence"? 4/

Sue Gordon feared what I posited three months before she wrote the op-ed: that donald was broke and would sell our secrets to pay his debts 5/

More from For later read

Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron.
https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0


SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.

You May Also Like