Surprised in this otherwise excellent obit of legendary journalist Neil Sheehan, the @nytimes didn't mention that the Nixon admin tried to charge Sheehan and his wife Susan under the Espionage Act *after* the Pentagon Papers Supreme Court case.

The Pentagon Papers Supreme Court ruling is, of course, a landmark First Amendment opinion. But it's bizarre to me that the Nixon admin actually tried to *criminally charge* Sheehan for his reporting, and the case is almost lost to history.
One of the only descriptions of the Espionage Act grand jury investigation into Neil Sheehan, besides in the @nytimes archives, is this 2011 @DailyBeast piece by former NYT general counsel James Goodale. It is an absolutely remarkable story. https://t.co/lHs7svzhJr
After Nixon lost the Pentagon Papers Supreme Court case, he was enraged and still wanted the NYT prosecuted. While @DanielEllsberg's grand jury was happening in LA, federal prosecutors opened up an investigation into Sheehan in Boston for "conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act"
The grand jury investigating both Sheehan and his wife Susan, who was a writer at the @NewYorker, subpoenaed several famous journalists and academics, including David Halberstam, Noam Chomsky, and Howard Zinn. https://t.co/lHs7svzhJr
The @nytimes was so sure Sheehan was going to get charged, it drafted a statement condemning the indictment that never came. The only reason it didn't? The journalists and academics subpoenaed almost universally refused to comply. https://t.co/SHnRVFlmXb
This is yet another reason why it's vital for reporters to oppose the US government's case against Julian Assange. He's charged with the same crime Nixon tried to go after Sheehan with. Given the opportunity, future presidents will try try the same thing. https://t.co/lHs7svzhJr
Basically the only other place online you can read details. about the grand jury investigating reporter Neil Sheehan for "conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act" is in the @nytimes archives from the early 1970s. https://t.co/pARSV1ULIa https://t.co/VUNLkcXSHM
You can also read about this forgotten, yet incredibly important, aspect of the Pentagon Papers case in Sanford Ungar's excellent book "The Papers and the Papers." Unfortunately it's out of print, so it's hard to come by. https://t.co/hT3lmqtXzW

More from Politics

THREAD

1)
@SidneyPowell1 reflects on #Iran’s meddling in the U.S. in a recent tweet to U.S. President Donald Trump.

This thread focuses on Iran’s dangerous influence in the U.S., especially through its DC-based lobby group


2)
Why is this important?

@DNI_Ratcliffe "told CBS News that there was foreign election interference by China, #Iran & Russia in November of this year [2020]."

All Americans should be informed about how Iran & its lobby group NIAC are meddling in the


3)
#Iran has been increasingly aiming to interfere in U.S. elections specifically through NIAC.

DNI John Ratcliffe had previously shed light on this vital


4)
NIAC is a lobby group in the U.S. pushing Iran’s talking points.

Listen to this Iranian regime insider explain that NIAC was established by @JZarif, the foreign minister of


5)
@tparsi is the official founder of NIAC in the U.S.

Listen to how Trita Parsi parrots Zarif’s talking
Handy guide for Dominic Raab and other Brexiteers, and for anyone keen to replace our EU trade with trade with the rest of the world on WTO terms...


You can't magic away the vast distances involved. Clue: we fly in only 1/192th of our trade compared to the amount that arrives via sea


But even if you invented a teleporter tomorrow, WTO terms are so bad, so stacked against us, that a no-deal Brexit will be a total economic disaster


And while the Brexiteers fantasise, real jobs are being lost, investments are drying up, companies are moving assets to the EU27 or redomiciling. All already happened and happening right now, not in some mythical


Of course, there are many, many myths that Brexiteers perpetuate that are total fiction. You've seen a couple of them already. The thread below busts a whole lot
This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/


First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/

Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/

Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/

Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/

You May Also Like

The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/