Anonymous Sources: Facebook and YouTube suppressing important questions and discussion | A Pragmatist's Take | Douglas Moran | Palo Alto Online |

Local Blogs

A Pragmatist's Take

By Douglas Moran

E-mail Douglas Moran

About this blog: Real power doesn't reside with those who make the final decision, but with those who decide what qualifies as the viable choices. I stumbled across this insight as a teenager (in the 1960s). As a grad student, I belonged to an org...  (More)

View all posts from Douglas Moran

Anonymous Sources: Facebook and YouTube suppressing important questions and discussion

Uploaded: Nov 12, 2019
On Friday night (11/8), Facebook and YouTube announced that they would suppress any postings that included the name of the person widely believed to be the "whistleblower" on Trump's call with the new President of the Ukraine. Facebook and YouTube are not protecting his identity because it is already public, and their actions provided additional confirmation of that identification. So exactly what are FB and YT trying to censor? What is so extraordinary about this one person that, unlike many other whistleblowers, legitimate news stories from reputable journalists are being suppressed?

I don't have answers to those questions -- that would be to attribute motivation to Facebook and YouTube, which would be bad journalism (if I were a journalist). I think it is important for citizens to watch what happens in this particular case. First, within the mainstream media, there are increasing calls for censorship and attacks on the alternative media that has been a crucial counterbalance to the narratives being pushed by the mainstream (corporate, elite, partisan) media. And there is an expanding group that could be labeled "News outlets and reporters for censorship". Second, some see this as another early signal of Facebook and Google/YouTube having decided to play major partisan roles in the 2020 elections. Others, in contrast, suspect that this may simply be FB and G/YT responding to "squeaky wheels" without considering the policy implications.

There is also speculation that FB and YT are doing this out of fear of litigation. But this goes against the social media companies' claim that they are not legally responsible for what their users post because they are platforms, not publishers: This censorship adds to the evidence that they see themselves as controlling -- or responsible for -- what they distribute, and thus making them publishers.
Note: The platform/publisher argument/discussion is off-topic here. It is a long-running one that is easily accessible via web search.

I am self-censoring here: I will not cite the whistleblower's name to reduce the risk of Facebook and Google/YouTube applying sanctions on the overall PAOnline website and related social media accounts. Instead, I will used the name "HewnIpBuSnobem" -- "He whose name is public but shall not be mentioned". Others have used names like "Voldemort" as placeholders, but that carries additional implications. Others are using misspellings of the name hoping that it is enough to be outside the fuzzy matching capabilities of FB and G/YT.

Other media outlets may have similar bans. That Fox News has banned its hosts and personalities from mentioning HewnIpBuSnobem's name, and this has made the news because several guests have mentioned that name on-air. Example: "^Mollie Hemingway names alleged whistleblower ((HewnIpBuSnobem)) on-air despite Fox News ban^" (2019-11-10).

HewnIpBuSnobem's actual name became openly public on 2019-10-30 with the article "^The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name^" by ^RealClearInvestigations^ (RCI) of the highly regarded news site ^RealClearPolitics^. Since then, my news feeds have suggested multiple articles that gave HewnIpBuSnobem's name. According to the RCI article and others, HewnIpBuSnobem's identity was been widely known in Washington political and press circles since September, with it appearing in tweets since early October.

Note: Discussion about the decision to publish the name is off-topic here -- the topic here is the attempt to prevent public information from reaching the general public. Discussion of whether the name should have been revealed is well represented in media articles that are easily found by web search. Unfortunately, most of them are little more than reiterations of partisan talking points, and very few rise to the level of argumentation found in the RealClearInvestigations article cited above.

Over the weekend, reports of legitimate news articles being suppressed have been popping up. One such is from noted reporter/commentator Tim Pool -- his YouTube video "^Facebook Has SUSPENDED Me For Reporting on CIA Whistleblower Calling It 'Crime Activity' ^ " (23:55) describes his suppressed posting and shows the messages received from FB and YT. Warning: Pool tends to ramble and mildly rant. He also doesn't give links to the articles he talks about.
His suppressed Facebook post (^@5:34^) references the Politico article "^Opinion: The New York Times Was Right to Unmask the Whistleblower: Journalists are supposed to report the news, not suppress it^" by Jack Shafer, Senior Media Writer.
Note: The cited NY Times article didn't provide a name, but compiled a list of things publicly disclosed about HewnIpBuSnobem, from which his identity could be easily determined by building the (often short) lists of people meeting each criteria and then seeing who is in the set intersection.

There are claims that additional public mention of HewnIpBuSnobem's identity will put him in danger unnecessarily. I am in no position to judge this. On the other hand, substantial questions have been raised that seem to warrant public examination. From the publicly available information, HewnIpBuSnobem continues to be heavily involved in partisan electoral politics (see the RCI article cited above). This included the Democratic National Committee's connection to the Ukrainian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. Aside: The Ukrainians projected and feared that Trump wouldn't support them against Russia, -- it turned out that Trump's administration provided "lethal aid" (weaponry) -- especially anti-tank missiles (the FGM-148 Javelin) -- that Obama refused to provide.

Aside: Some of this concern for consequences for someone suspected of being a whistleblower may not be simple partisan posturing. In the next section, ABC and CBS fired a producer (wrongly?) suspected of being a whistleblower within their own organizations with little investigation. Their advocating for protecting whistleblowers is sheer hypocrisy.

These circumstances had already raised serious questions about HewnIpBuSnobem's motives, credibility and potential collaborators. The decision by Facebook and YouTube effectively suppresses most discussion of these questions. If you try to find this discussion using web search on "whistleblower" there are just too many irrelevant results hiding what you are seeking, and either far too many or too few when using the workaround phrases or names (e.g., "Voldemort" and "HewnIpBuSnobem"-equivalents).

----Suppressed reporting on now-deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his "rich and powerful friends" by ABC: 3 years and counting----

If you want to further raise your cynicism about the national news media, a ^video^ of anchor/reporter Amy Robach expressing her frustration ("pissed") was leaked by an ABC insider to ^Project Veritas^. According to this video, ABC was worried that they would lose an interview with the British royals (William and Kate) -- that was more important than stopping a prolific pedophile. However, the various rich and powerful men who were involved might have been a factor. Commentary can be found with web search.
Important: With such videos, you need to be wary about edits that distort what was being said.

^ABC's press release^ claimed that "not all of our reporting met our standards to air". This resulted in a torrent of social media posts of lists of stories that ABC had broadcast that demonstrated few, if any, journalistic standards: use in conflict with context, continuing to report information well after it had been shown to be false, no fact-checking, no sanity-checking, rank speculation and opinion presented as news, second/third/... hand information, ...

A broader account is provided in NPR's "^ABC News Defends Its Epstein Coverage After Leaked Video Of Anchor^". However, there seem to be more discrepancies between this and the Project Veritas video than one would attribute to Robach's speaking off-the-cuff.

ABC decided they knew who was the leaker -- a producer who had just moved to CBS -- and communicated with CBS, which immediately fired her. She has denied being responsible, and Project Veritas has posted ^a statement that is claimed to be from the actual leaker^, who is still at ABC. Who got the ^exclusive on the firing^? ^Page Six^, a website covering celebrities, entertainment, fashion, ...
Video: ^The MK Interview: Megyn ((Kelly)) sits down with Ashley Bianco who was fired by CBS^ (7:18).

Most interesting for me is that the media insiders didn't trust the mainstream media with these stories and instead went to alternative media.


With the seeming increase in suppression of legitimate news by the media companies, including the social media giants, you need to be listening to news from "the other side". You may be shocked -- and educated -- by what news is you start seeing that is ignored by your current media outlets. My strategy is to select a few outlets from the other side and view them (read/watch) for long enough for the Google News, YouTube, -- algorithm to start recommending similar publishers. You may well find that you can't stand the initial choices and early recommendations. Just unsubscribe or stop viewing and let the recommendation algorithm adjust.

----Appendix: Anticipating requests for recommendations on media outlets----

I'm going to focus on YouTube because, although you get a lot of "talking heads", some include photos, videos, and graphics related to the story being discussed.

On YouTube, channels have lists of other channels, similar to a list of who you follow on Facebook. These channels listed under "HOME" and "CHANNELS". Be especially on the lookout for channels that are on the lists of multiple channels representing different perspectives.

I am at a loss to make good recommendations. For many of my subscriptions, I am rarely viewing their articles/videos because their headlines/titles alert me that they want to sell me outrage or that they have a distorted perspective on reality that may verge on the delusional. For me as the viewer, it makes no difference whether this is what they believe and how they think, or if it is just clickbait.

That said, if you are a Conservative looking for Progressive channels on YouTube, ^The Young Turks^ (TYT) will likely kick-start recommendations, after which you are almost certain to unsubscribe.

In the reverse direction, the YouTube channel of ^Ben Shapiro^ of the ^The Daily Wire^ channel is probably good for pump-priming, but little more. I find him off-putting, seeing him as primarily a debater trying to score points, rather than someone trying to inform and persuade. The Daily Wire also has a website and podcasts.

The YouTube channel of Conservative comedian ^StevenCrowder^, aka Louder with Crowder, has occasional digressions from its advertised format of "late night comedy show". Videos labeled ==I "^Change My Mind^"== can be interesting. Crowder sets up a table on a college campus or similar setting and invites passersby to try to convince him that his stated position is wrong (e.g., "Hate Speech Isn't Real"). He often helps them formulate their argument, with both facts and argumentation. Some of the sessions are duds because none of the volunteers know enough about their position to get started. Other sessions reveal that the volunteers haven't had to seriously argue their positions, but were unaware of how little they knew (^Dunning-Kruger effect^). If viewed as representative of the larger student body, this can be disturbing.

Another potential source is Tim Pool. A few years ago, his politics would have been regarded as Center-Left, if not Left (he supported Bernie Sanders in 2016). However, with Progressives shifting so much further to the Left, he likely comes across as Center-Right. He has two related channels -- ^Tim Pool^ and ^Timcast^. There also is a related, but separate, ^Subverse News^ that is ramping up. Pool typically puts out four 10-25 minute videos per day, and achieves this by going without a script and no editing for each video. Be highly skeptical of his statements on economics and the history behind current events: He dropped out of high school and most of his knowledge in such areas seems to come from the mainstream media, which is increasingly populated by the uninformed and the ill-informed.

One of the problems with trying to view news from a Conservative perspective is that there is so little of it. The observation is that Conservatives are focused on commentary and the repackaging of news from other sources, and do proportionately little original reporting. This becomes a fundamental problem with the ongoing decline of the mainstream media, where a so-called news story is what, not many years ago, would have been labeled commentary or opinion. And commentary is now heavily biased opinion, and opinion is unpaid advertisements (books, businesses, politicians ...).

An ^abbreviated index by topic and chronologically^ is available.

----Boilerplate on Commenting----
The ^Guidelines^ for comments on this blog are different from those on Town Square Forums. I am attempting to foster more civility and substantive comments by deleting violations of the guidelines.

I am particularly strict about misrepresenting what others have said (me or other commenters). If I judge your comment as likely to provoke a response of "That is not what was said", do not be surprised to have it deleted. My primary goal is to avoid unnecessary and undesirable back-and-forth, but such misrepresentations also indicate that the author is unwilling/unable to participate in a meaningful, respectful conversation on the topic.
A slur is not an argument. Neither are other forms of vilification of other participants.

If you behave like a ^Troll^, do not waste your time protesting when you get treated like one.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde,
on Nov 12, 2019 at 5:13 am

Streisand effect. Due to censorship, now I know the name. For what it's worth.

Posted by Gal Friday, a resident of Ventura,
on Nov 13, 2019 at 3:21 pm

Media self-censors lots of stuff.

Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Nov 13, 2019 at 3:54 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

> "Media self-censors lots of stuff."

The word "censor" has strong connotations in the US freedom of speech culture, and consequently value judgments.

The (Merriam Webster) definition of "censor" is
"to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
where the cited definition of "suppress" is
"to keep from public knowledge: such as: (a)to keep secret, or (b) to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of"

One's attitude toward a particular instance of censorship is "objectionable to who????" / "who determines what is objectionable?"

The negative connotations of the definition of "suppress" carry up to "censor".

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Nov 14, 2019 at 7:48 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

What I have learned from watching the actual events as they unfold vs the news coverage the next day is that the "press" is owned by large companies that have an agenda and a narrative that supports that agenda. They function in a "circle the wagons" mode despite the absurdity of the position. The current impeachment narrative is totally flawed and has been now revealed as being pushed by the government employees of the State Department whose funding and jobs are at risk - so they think. Check out US Foreign Aid on Wikipedia and the requirements of foreign aid management to get to the overall history and guidelines on that topic. Note that the US sells a lot of product to these foreign countries.

As to FB I watched as Zuck was being 'grilled' in congressional meetings with absurd questions that were to serve the purpose of the requestor who has nothing to do with the business requirements of running a company and the goals of the people who manage that company. Zuck is correct to a point in that any requirement to manage discourse on the table in any one day would be left to the interpretation by very young employees who may be generationally challenged.
I notice on my own FB page that they will print what I input but later when I review my page the item has been deleted.

The political environment today is about controlling the narrative and a lot of big money is devoted to that end. It is in part the philosophical views of nationalism vs globalism. In globalism - the US is always the ATM card for other countries.

As a side note check out on google Guatemala 1954. In Central America large companies controlled the economy - United Fruit Company - Boston and American Fruit Company-New Orleans. They were controlling the growing of products specific to that hemispheric location - bananas, coffee, spices, sugar cane. They put in place the local governments that controlled the cost of doing business. However a new president decided that he wanted union rules for the workers which would be very costly to those companies. Since the company boards were directly related to government employees they decided to create a phony war to eliminate that president. The NY Times participated in this illusion as they had a requirement to build public sentiment. The phony war was conducted by the CIA. The end result was that they did eliminate that president. Based on that success they then went on to conduct the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. That did not turn out well - Fidel Castro grew up on the sugar cane fields owned by the AFC. Thus turned a total failure regarding the future relations with the Central American countries and Cuba.

The companies then changed their identity and ownership. End result is Chiquita vs ONE ( Walmart) vs Dole - Safeway. Dole is a mega company with mega products world wide - corporate office in SOCAL. Most obvious for the Hawaiian efforts with pineapples. It is side note but critical to decisions concerning the immigration from those countries. The movement of food products is time critical. The stockholders in those companies are politically situated. Dole has characters for the products with names- there is a "Gavin Grape" character. Guess who that is.

Posted by Gal Friday, a resident of Ventura,
on Nov 14, 2019 at 10:51 am

> the "press" is owned by large companies that have an agenda

What, pray tell, is their agenda? (other than profits?)

Suppress vs Censor

- true, censorship is a step further down the suppression road
- suppressing names, such as whsitleblower
- or removing content, such as the name

Your conclusion is to 'use varied sources'.... okay. What about suppression?

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Nov 14, 2019 at 9:29 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Agendas - the Washington Post way back when was bought out of bankruptcy by Eugene Meyers. He was a Republican and former Hoover Administration member. As time moved on his daughter Katherine, a talented journalist, married Phil Graham - a college boyfriend, and the paper then transitioned to a Democrat platform reflecting the younger's college NY environment. Mr. Graham encouraged Kennedy to have Johnson as his VP. However the relationship with Mr. Johnson began to fail based on difference of opinion on the Vietnam war. Mr. Graham was bi-polar and committed suicide leaving the running of the paper to Katherine Graham. The paper is now owned by Mr. Amazon, one of the richest people in the world. It's opinion pieces reflect his global agenda.
They always had a competition with the NT Times - journalism world is very small. During a rough patch in funding the paper was infused with funding from Carlos Slim - one of the richest men in Mexico. Mr. Slim is not Mexican - his family transplanted to Mexico as a result of the Ottoman Empire breakdown.
The main Meyer family immigrated to the US during the Franco Prussian War over Alsace Lorraine so the French / German relationship is present. The NY Times members have their own heritage issues. Mr. Slim's family immigrated from the former Ottoman Empire - Turkey.

All of those heritage relations directly affect the relationship of news and opinion.

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Nov 15, 2019 at 8:30 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

No comment above in presentation about Fox News. All highlighted
"opinion" makers have previous backgrounds in the Washington news cycle. They have reps from both sides of the issue to challenge each other regarding history of topic and current legal opinion. They go to all presidential events regarding visiting foreign reps and your current congressional conflagrations. Thus you can see all of the events with your own eyes and you can form your own opinion. And since your own local legislators are participants you can see them in action to evaluate their overall ability to discourse in a rational and intelligent manner. You get to form an opinion rather than read someone else's opinion. At this point in time the news cycle is moving so fast that your opinion is just as good as the so-called opinion makers. And it has the highest coverage overall of signature events.

Posted by Gal Friday, a resident of Ventura,
on Nov 15, 2019 at 8:52 am


You bring up good points about Fox. Their reporting crew is legit. Here's a couple of Fox reporters live tweeting the impeachment inquiry, as an example of balance:

Bret Baier
That was a turning point in this hearing so far. She was already a sympathetic witness & the President's tweet ripping her allowed Schiff to point it out real time characterizing it as witness tampering or intimidation -adding an article of impeachment real-time. Web Link ...

reply to:

John Roberts
Wow....this is really unprecedented. @realDonaldTrump and Amb Yovanovitch are talking to each other in real time through @Twitter and Television... Something I never thought I would ever see.
7:34 AM - Nov 15, 2019

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Nov 15, 2019 at 10:35 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

If you go to Fox News you can see the whole discussion as it proceeds. YOU ARE THERE.
It is not about tweets - it is about the actual events as they unfold. I am listening to the questions and answers. You do not need to default to some other medium which only cherry picks the plusses and minuses. CSPAN also picks up on all events of a congressional manner as they are taking place. And this is not unprecedented - this is the news cycle reporting events as they happen. As to FB they partially pick-up on the cherry picked comments from ABC and Fox News. I think they are trying to do the right thing - but not everyone agrees with the what cherry picked comments they want associated with any one topic.

Posted by Gal Friday, a resident of Ventura,
on Nov 15, 2019 at 10:57 am

> You do not need to default to some other medium which only cherry picks the plusses and minuses.

Actually a number of news networks are running the inquiry live and uninterrupted. Or did we miss your point?

Posted by Gal Friday, a resident of Ventura,
on Nov 15, 2019 at 10:58 am

Why is this blog available through only one local outlet? Censorship?

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Nov 16, 2019 at 8:29 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

I can only devote time to one TV news outlet since I am comfortable with their ability to logically discuss any one topic. That is in direct contradiction to the four newspapers I read - NY Times, SFC, and SJM all of which have signed up to an agenda which they diligently stick to regardless of the absurdity of their headlines. The WSJ is business oriented so their approach is business oriented.

The SFC is mired in it's own problems - it's city is falling apart and it's board of supervisors are at each other's throats. Meanwhile the SJM reporting on San Jose has been swallowed by Google and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. SVLG's support of the transportation system was ballyhooed and is now falling apart. All predicted schedules for completion have now fallen apart.

Bottom line is that whatever position one has will change because the news cycle is rolling very fast. The reporters get stuck in a position and will not back out of it so have to keep spinning so they do not look like idiots. Some higher up is paying the tab for what ever you see.

And Zuck is stuck responding to stupid questions - like how many black people use FB? How would he know that since any approach on that topic would result in a law suit. Person asking is a congressional member? How did that person get elected? Your congressional members get elected on what every the current ideology is with no regard for the legal issues concerning that ideology. However if you are running a business on the stock exchange you are watching very carefully what you will get sued for by some non-profit group - probably the American Civil Liberties Union - or the AG Mr. Becerra who is busy using the court system to run the world.

Posted by Pensacola, a resident of Green Acres,
on Nov 16, 2019 at 11:34 am

I thought the poster was responding to the implication that only one network ran the whole hearing ("you can see the whole discussion as it proceeds".)

"I can only devote time to one TV news outlet"

Too bad. Diversity helps. On another network, they started the day with a former GOP congressman, and during the day had on the following: a former RNC chair, a former GWBush communications director who was also a high level member of McCain's campaign, Alan Greenspan's wife, etc.. along with a bunch of leftists.

Me, I use a remote. It helps, though frankly I can use the exercise. I also use drive time to alternate between far leftists on FM and the rest of the AM band talk circuit. Why pay for satellite just to hear the voices I hear elsewhere?

Censorship- I guess we're lucky enough to have so many outlets that censorship in one forum can be compared quite easily elsewhere. Just give me my remote!

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Nov 16, 2019 at 12:49 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Fox News has all of the posing and opposing point so view suggested above. Most of it's news leaders have worked in previous administrations. And they always have D vs R headliners challenging each other on the topics. Meanwhile CNN, MSNBC all sound like parrots - they all have the same message. I see no diversity on CNN or MSNBC - like a canned message. Fox News now is the leader in ratings.

Posted by Pensacola, a resident of Green Acres,
on Nov 16, 2019 at 1:11 pm

"....MSNBC all sound like parrots - they all have the same message"
"I see no diversity on CNN or MSNBC"

uhhhh, I just listed the diversity of hosts and guests: former GOP congressman runs a daily 3 hour show that helped put Trump on the map, former RNC chair as frequent guest across the platform, former Bush comms director, she ran McCain's campaign and hosts a daily show, Alan Greenspan's wife hosts a show, etc..

I'm absolutely no fan of CNN. I rarely watch it as I get nothing from them I don't see on other platforms as they tend to be repetitive center/left drivel. I can get a much clearer left pov on msnbc when I want. Nor am I here to defend msnbc, but facts are facts - they have the Republican and former Republican hosts/guests listed above.

Posted by Fact cherries, a resident of Mountain View,
on Nov 16, 2019 at 2:25 pm

Facts may be facts but they can certainly be cherry picked which is what ratings-motivated media presents. And former Republicans can be biased, as we have seen a lot recently.

Everyone has their biases, agendas and favorite causes. Read and watch as many sources as possible, more importantly read a LOT on past history, to be able to make educated choices. Quite often there is no right or wrong, there is just personal preference about how things should be done. It's so sad that no one unrdestands this today, everyone has to be “right" and not see that sometimes, just sometimes, there may be an opposing view that can be just as right even if you don't agree with it.

Posted by Curmudgeon, a resident of Downtown North,
on Nov 16, 2019 at 9:07 pm

"There is also speculation that FB and YT are doing this out of fear of litigation."

Or maybe they're just being good citizens and following the spirit of the whistleblower laws.

And/or, on the practical side, why assist Trump's deranged followers to make an example of this patriotic citizen under the Second-Amendment? And in the same vein, what if these companies help point the vigilantes at the wrong people? Who wants to be an accessory to serial massacre?

Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Nov 16, 2019 at 11:07 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

> "And/or, on the practical side, why assist Trump's deranged followers to make an example of this patriotic citizen under the Second-Amendment? And in the same vein, what if these companies help point the vigilantes at the wrong people? Who wants to be an accessory to serial massacre?"

You apparently believe that there are people who has been so incurious about the so-called whistleblower that they haven't done a few web searches to find his name -- remember it has been appearing in open sources since at least October -- and yet they are so enraged that they are going to track him down, get through his security and kill him. Sounds like the proverbial "tall thin short fat man".

Now, the Congressional Democrats are saying that he doesn't know enough for it to be worth him testifying. Or is that he knows too much for them to risk it?

Is this supposed threat enough to suppress presentation information that raises questions about his motives and credibility? Remember that his claims were of marginal credibility: second- and third-hand gossip from potentially biased sources, and stories from the New York Times. One of the likely sources of these opinions was LtCol Vendman who actually listened to the phone call and initially claimed that it was improper, but under questioning in the Congressional hearings admitted that his objection was not to Trump's conduct but to the potential side-effects of pursuing investigations into the Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and into possible misconduct by the Bidens. He was concerned that aid to the Ukrainian would get caught up in partisan bickering. But didn't it occur to him that claiming misconduct by Trump related to that aid might make it a partisan issue? And Vendman believes that our elected leaders should defer to the bureaucracy. Vendman is a good example of the need for public scrutiny of claims.

The censorship by Facebook and YouTube and others looks like an attempt to build a firewall against examination of the collection of people involved in the filing of the "whistleblower complaint".

YouTube's message to creators of videos of naming HewnIpBuSnobem ("the whistleblower") as part of their discussion of his non-whistleblower actions said that the YouTubers and their videos were being sanctioned:
"YouTube allows content intended to document, educate, or on world events. However, in this case your video contains footage that poses a credible threat to life." (emphasis added).
As many have pointed out, the poses a credible threat to life on the Internet is a federal crime, yet YouTube apparently failed to report it: The YouTubers reporting this message said that they had not been contacted by the Feds. So it appears that YouTube doesn't believe that there is a credible threat and is disingenuously using it as an excuse for censorship.

"Or maybe they're just being good citizens and following the spirit of the whistleblower laws."

Or maybe you are just credulously accepting false claims about those laws from a partisan media.
Do you remember when CNN's Chris "Fredo" Cuomo claimed that it was illegal for citizens to look at releases by Wikileaks that were embarassing to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. This included the DNC rigging the primaries against Bernie Sanders and the amount of time that top political leaders spent arranging cushy, high-paying jobs for their extended family and friends (Chris Cuomo is the beneficiary of such connections). (Refresher)

Posted by Vlad, a resident of College Terrace,
on Nov 17, 2019 at 12:57 am

A fire alarm is pulled, and the fire department arrives, finds a fire, puts it out.

Who cares who pulled the alarm?

Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Nov 17, 2019 at 1:17 am

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

A fire alarm is pulled, and the fire department arrives, doesn't find a fire, and doing so delays their arrival at a actual fire, resulting in increased property lost and potential loss of life.*

Who cares who pulled the false alarm? I suspect lots of us.

Notice that Nancy Pelosi has backed off the "quid pro quo" claim and is giving "corruption" a try-out (media stories claim that this is the result of focus group testing).

Vlad: If you don't know that the evidence for the claim of a quid pro quo so far rests on hostile, partisan interpretation of events, you are so deep in a filter bubble that you cannot participate in a meaningful discussion.

* The Republican harassment campaign against President Clinton, including the impeachment, was a distraction and diversion from the efforts to eliminate Osama bin Laden and a nascent al Qaeda while it was still in Sudan and later in Afghanistan.
Roughly 3000 Americans died as a result (most in 9/11, with smaller numbers in other attacks).

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Nov 17, 2019 at 2:22 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

What I learned from the current congressional hearings is that:

All agree that the previous Ukraine administration was totally corrupt. They all agree on that. The lady ambassador was in place for that administration.

Military support was not provided under Obama. The military support is part of the DT administration support. Any company providing military support is required to do their "due diligence" regarding that support. Since DT is a business man he is doing his "due diligence" regarding the use of the funds by the previous and current administrations. He is challenging the Ukraine current administration that corruption regarding the US tax payer support is not going to be used to fund any but the specific uses regarding the provision of the funds. That does not include subsidizing the relatives of elected administration officials. That is loud and clear.

The lady ambassador held a party at her house for a Ukrainian lady activist that had acid thrown on her face and later died. She was removed the next day for her own safety at the request of the Ukrainian president.

She was replaced by the Day 1 new ambassador who looked like a deer caught in the headlights. He agreed that there was no quid pro quo in the "letter" discussion of the telecon.

The lady ambassador is a thirty year veteran and now is at Georgetown U so she ended up okay. Any portrayal that she is intimidated is probably theatrics and at the direction of the D party. And shame on them for that.

The end result here is that the Ukrainian Country and president have their military aid and face to face relationship / discussion with DT. Obviously the State Department people believe that their position to be the face to face has been downsized - especially since none have talked to the current Ukrainian President or DT.

Bottom line he is clearing up a bad situation regarding the US - Ukraine relationships and has provided the military aid. And DT and the Ukrainian president have a good one-on-one relationship.

So read about that in the SFC and you get total spin. They have dug themselves in and are now stuck with their original position which has already gone by the wayside. They are throwing shade here.

You have to watch this yourself so when you read up the next day you can see who trying to pull the story sideways.

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Nov 17, 2019 at 4:33 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

Just like to point out here that during the Obama Administration there was no military equipment involved. So no Foreign Export Rules regarding military equipment in place. Under the Trump Administration there is shipment of military equipment. That changes up the game - Foreign Export Rules, approval, and documentation required. All military equipment that goes to a foreign country has a lot of involvement and scrutiny by many agencies. They have now imploded into this set of transactions requiring involvement and approval by many agencies. The Department of State Personnel have to literate and conversant on all aspects of these transactions.

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Nov 18, 2019 at 10:12 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

[[Deleted: too far off-topic: it was responding to some of the hyperbolic claims by the pro-impeachment advocates with controversial statements about historical events cited in those claims.]]

Posted by Chell, a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive,
on Nov 19, 2019 at 6:30 pm

[Deleted: Ambiguous assertion. Not discussion.]]

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Nov 19, 2019 at 7:00 pm

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

[[ Off-topic: tangential, too far off course.]]

Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,
on Nov 20, 2019 at 6:19 am

Resident 1-Adobe Meadows is a registered user.

[[ off-topic: The topic was media coverage and suppression of what I regarded as legitimate news. Presentation of deeper details of the current examples is off-topic because it will, and has, engendered back-and-forth on those ever-changing details. There is more than enough of that elsewhere.]]

Posted by Pensacola, a resident of Green Acres,
on Nov 20, 2019 at 10:17 am

[[ Off-topic: see immediately above. Also, comments are inappropriated if they assume that the audience is intensively watching the proceedings and the chyrons on Fox, CNN, ...]]

Posted by Curmudgeon, a resident of Downtown North,
on Nov 22, 2019 at 7:17 pm

[[ Seriously misrepresented the sentence being quoted (in order to be snarky).]]

Posted by Pensacola, a resident of Green Acres,
on Nov 23, 2019 at 11:51 am

[[ Subsequent comments indicated that this comment could be interpreted in conflicting manners and was creating back-and-forth about the overall blog and not this blog.
Consequently I have deleted (suppressed?) this comment and those followups.

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Boichik Bagels is opening its newest – and largest – location in Santa Clara this week
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 2,549 views

I Do I Don't: How to build a better marriage Page 15
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,082 views

By Laura Stec | 10 comments | 993 views


Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund

For the last 30 years, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund has given away almost $10 million to local nonprofits serving children and families. 100% of the funds go directly to local programs. It’s a great way to ensure your charitable donations are working at home.