Mediaboss Marketing

Former FBI boss James Comey has told Sky News he is worried about the threat of violence from "armed, disturbed people" at Joe Biden's inauguration.

Mr Comey, who was controversially fired by Donald Trump in 2017, says the threat has "to be taken very, very seriously" following the deadly Capitol riots.

The new US president will be sworn in on Wednesday amid high security after the FBI identified more than 200 people threatening violence in "concerning online chatter".

Fuelled by unsubstantiated claims by Mr Trump, many of his supporters believe there was fraud in November's election.

"I'm worried because there are armed, disturbed people who are in this state of mind where they believe their country is being taken from them," said Mr Comey.

"So it's a threat law enforcement in the States has to take very seriously.

"At the same time, I know that we have the capability, investigative and the tactical capability on scene, to protect these locations and so I am optimistic that the threat will be neutralised, but it has to be taken very, very seriously."

On Friday a man was arrested in Washington DC when a gun and hundreds of rounds of ammunition was found in his vehicle after he allegedly showed police an unauthorised inauguration credential.

Wesley Allen Beeler, from Virginia, has been charged with carrying a concealed weapon, possessing an unregistered firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition and possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device, police told NBC News in Washington.

The National Guard has been descending on Washington to guard government buildings ahead of inauguration day, when officials say 21,000 will be on hand.

The storming of the Capitol building - the heart of US democracy - on 6 January caused widespread shock in America and across the world, with Trump supporters running amok and leaving five people dead.

Police were hugely outnumbered and have been criticised over how easy it was for the rioters to seize control.

Mr Comey told Sky News he was "sickened" by the violence and angry at the failure to defend the building, despite the obvious threat.

"I was angered by the apparent failure to defend a hill, it [the Capitol] sits on a hill with 2,000 officers assigned to it on a daily basis, the failure to defend the hill. It just mystifies and angers me," he said.

"It is going to be important for our country to understand that failure."

He added: "9/11 we were told was a failure of imagination, we didn't anticipate the way the terrorists might come at us; this didn't require imagination.

"This was all over the internet and the group literally walked slowly down Pennsylvania Avenue towards the Capitol so it was just a failure and we need to know why at all levels so that we don't let it happen again."

Mr Comey is a fierce critic of Mr Trump - who he has previously compared to a mafia boss.

He was fired by the president in May 2017 while the FBI was investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

White House officials accused him of mishandling the investigation into the email practices of Hillary Clinton, but Mr Trump later confirmed the "Russia thing" was on his mind when he made the decision.

Mr Comey, 60, has just released a new book called Saving Justice: Truth, Transparency, and Trust, described as a "clarion call for a return to fairness and equity in the law".

The disgust among many Americans over the Capitol riots this week led Mr Trump to become the first president to be impeached twice after the House of Representatives charged him with inciting the riot.

No date has been set for the political trial that follows, where senators can also vote by a simple majority to block Mr Trump from ever standing for election again.

You can watch the full interview on Sophy Ridge on Sunday from 8.30am.

Continue reading here:
Biden inauguration: Former FBI boss James Comey warns of serious threat from 'armed, disturbed people' - Sky News

Trump supporters stand on the U.S. Capitol Police armored vehicle as others take over the steps of the Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, as the Congress works to certify the electoral college votes.

Bill Clark | CQ-Roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images

Corporate money has flooded U.S. elections ever since 2010, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that business donations amounted to protected free speech under the First Amendment.

But the steady stream of cash slowed this week, when several businesses announced they would suspend donations from their political action committees after the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6. The businesses spanned industries, from Facebook to JPMorgan Chase to Walmart.

The promises were relatively narrow and did not suggest a permanent retreat from election spending. Some businesses promised only to cut spending from politicians who objected to confirming President-elect Joe Biden's victory, while others said they would reassess all PAC contributions.

But as employees, consumers and shareholders step up pressure on businesses to address their social impact, the announcements represented a significant departure from the status quo.

If the trend sticks, businesses may look to a handful of companies to learn how to gain influence in government without PAC spending.

In the tech sector, Apple and IBM have long resisted creating their own PACs, yet their presence is felt strongly in Washington. CEOs from both companies have sat on President Donald Trump's American Workforce Policy Advisory Board, and Apple's Tim Cook has cultivated a relationship with Trump that may have helped it avoid getting caught in the crossfire of Trump's tariff fight with China.

"We've never had a PAC at IBM and I've never felt that it diminished our effectiveness or our voice in any way," Christopher Padilla, IBM's VP of government and regulatory affairs, told CNBC in an interview. "In fact, it's times like this that I'm actually glad we don't have a PAC because it's kind of easy just to say, 'I'm going to stop my PAC giving either to everybody or to some people.' It's a little harder to say what are the deeper issues that are causing some of these problems and can we do anything about it as companies?"

IBM revealed on Friday several particular areas where it plans to focus its advocacy this year. Broadly, the policies center around ensuring a stable federal government and that political partisanship doesn't interfere with public servants' jobs. This includes things like strengthening the Hatch Act, which is meant to prevent public officials from using their posts for partisan activities, and legislating clear rules about how a presidential transition should be performed.

Padilla talked with CNBC on Thursday to share why IBM has decided to take a stand on such issues and how it has made its voice heard in Washington without PAC contributions.

PACs aren't the only way companies can spend money to influence politicians. In the third quarter of 2020, for example, Apple spent nearly $1.6 million and IBM $650,000 in lobbying spending, according to public disclosures.

Padilla said much of the money IBM puts toward policy issues is used to connect with local representatives. Pre-pandemic, this included flying many of them into Washington to meet directly with lawmakers.

"I sit in those meetings and the kinds of relationships the local plant manager from New York or Texas has with their elected official, you can't buy that with hundreds of PAC checks," Padilla said.

IBM has had a seat at the table for key policy proposals, including around reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a contentious statute that protects online platforms from being held liable for users' messages on their platforms. IBM successfully advocated for SESTA-FOSTA, the package that removed Section 230 protection for platforms that hosted solicitations of sex trafficking.

More recently, it has urged lawmakers go even further, making liability protection dependent on platforms demonstrating a standard of "reasonable care" to remove illegal behavior from their sites. IBM has praised the bipartisan PACT Act, for example, which would require platforms to remove content that a court finds to be illegal within 24 hours. The company is firm, however, that Section 230 should not be repealed and the "Good Samaritan" provision that allows companies to moderate their platforms should be left intact.

Tech platforms like Facebook have also advocated for SESTA-FOSTA as well as other modest reforms to Section 230. But IBM does not have as much potential direct exposure to liability as consumer-facing platforms would if the statute were more significantly altered.

President Donald Trump speaks, flanked by Vice President Mike Pence (L) and IBM CEO Virginia Marie 'Ginni' Rometty (R) during a roundtable discussion on vocational training with United States and German business leaders lead in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 17, 2017 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images

In some ways, shying away from election spending has been helpful to IBM's efforts, especially during a time of deep political division. Padilla described IBM as "fiercely nonpartisan," even during the intense 2016 election where many prominent tech executives voiced support for then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Padilla said IBM was able to quickly reach out to the Trump administration to lay out areas of overlapping interests.

In addition to serving on Trump's workforce policy panel, former IBM CEO Ginni Rometty previously served on former President Barack Obama's export council.

"I remember going with her in September 2016 for a meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office to talk about trade and we were back in the West Wing less than six months later for her to have a meeting with President Trump," Padilla said.

Without PAC donations or other partisan moves, he said, "When the pendulum inevitably swings, you can be well-positioned to advocate your interests."

Without a PAC, Padilla said it would have been easy to have "washed our hands and said we don't have anything to do here" to address the Capitol riot. But, he said, that approach "certainly wouldn't have addressed the questions we've gotten from our own employees about what can we do to try to address some of these issues."

Employee activism has gained steam over the past few years, particularly at tech companies built on the values of an open internet and innovation. At places like Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft, internal movements have forced the companies to takes stances or action on issues like climate change, sexual harassment and work with the military.

Over the past summer during mass protests for racial justice and police reform, employees, consumers and shareholders looked to brands to take a stance on those issues. Many companies issued statements, pledged money to nonprofits and some, like IBM, backed policies like the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Padilla said he has noticed "a sea change" in terms of how employees, shareholders and local communities expect the company to get involved in issues outside of its direct business during his nearly 12 years at IBM.

"What we're seeing more and more is companies are having to get involved in issues that maybe go a little bit outside their narrow lanes because their employees and their shareholders are expecting them to do so," Padilla said."This is what companies do now."

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

WATCH: Here's how the lobbying industry works

Excerpt from:
How IBM influences policy without spending big money on election campaigns - CNBC

President-elect Joe Biden is expected to name Gary Gensler, a former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), according to Reuters.

Gensler is a long-time Washington policymaker. He was a top Treasury official during the Clinton administration, and, while leading the CFTC, he helped craft Dodd-Frank, the federal government's response to the 2008 financial crisis.

Gary Gensler

Source: CFTC

"He's a smart and tough regulator who knows how to get things done," Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America, told The Wall Street Journal.

Analysts praise Gensler's tenure at the CFTC, the federal government's main derivatives regulator. He was there for five years immediately following the financial crisis.

"He was terrifically effective," Roper said.

Gensler is credited with creating a framework for regulating the over-the-counter swaps market and for going after banks whose manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) ultimately encouraged officials to consider replacing it.

After leaving the CFTC, the former Goldman Sachs banker joined Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign as its CFO. Currently, he's an adjunct instructor of finance at the MIT Sloan School of Management.

At the SEC, analysts expect Gensler to roll back many of the outgoing administration's regulatory efforts, including eased rules to encourage more companies to go public and to allow companies to pay gig workers partially in equity stakes.

He's also expected to seek tougher disclosure rules, tighten firewalls between companies and their auditors, and press companies to disclose their environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance.

"In stark contrast to the prior [SEC] chairman, Gary will actually look out for Mr. and Mrs. 401(k) and Main Street investors," Better Markets CEO Dennis Kelleher said in an Axios report. "Gary is the right choice to lead the SEC in a new direction."

Continue reading here:
Former Clinton CFO, CFTC head Gary Gensler expected to be named SEC chief - CFO Dive

One of Georgias 16 presidential electors cast her Electoral College vote for Joe Biden but says, if she had it her way, the United States would do away with theconstitutional election process altogethera radical and dangerousposition.

I support abolishing the Electoral College, former Atlanta City Council President Cathy Woolardsaidduring a recent interview. I think all too often the popular vote has been overturned by the Electoral College and that doesnt seem right to me.

It may not seem right to Ms. Woolard, but the Electoral College purposefully forces would-be presidents tobuild nationwide coalitions, courting diverse voters across the country. Itshould remain in place. Otherwise, politicians would ignore the needs of people inflyover countryand focuseven moreonbig cities andthe coasts.

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clintonwas another elector who, like Ms. Woolard,called for eliminatingthe Electoral Collegeeven as she cast one of New Yorks electoral votesfor Democrat President-elect Joe Biden.

I believe we should abolish the Electoral College and select our president by the winner of the popular vote, same as every other office, she said in atweet. But while it still exists, I was proud to cast my vote in New York for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Clinton is missing the fact that the presidency is not like other offices. Most major democratic nations use a two-step process (usually a parliamentary system) to elect their top executive. Our Electoral College, like those other systems, balancesthe interests of everyone acrossadiverse country while limitingthe power of big-cityelites.

Our system also limits the power of Washington, D.C.As Thomas S. Kidd,historyprofessor at Baylor University,says, 2020 has shown that the states still possess powerful checks on national executive power. Thats a good thing, and we should be exceedingly cautious about cutting the states out of the process of electing the president (i.e. the Electoral College).

Complaints about the Electoral Collegeoftenstem from Clintonslossin 2016. At various times, Clinton hasblamedformer FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), President Barack Obama,Russiaand, of course, the Electoral Collegefor her loss.

Really it wasClintonsowndecisionsthat cost her the presidency, and the Electoral College worked just right. By design, the Electoral College rewards candidates who do the hard work of winning over Americans in many states, not just winning huge margins in a few states or giant cities. The American Founders believed the president should be a national candidate, not a regional one.

In 1888, Grover Clevelandwon the popular vote but was blown out in the Electoral College because his support was concentrated in the South; he won huge margins there but lost almost everywhere else. Similarly, Clinton ran up huge margins in coastal states while failing to connect with middle America.

Clinton dismissed struggling voters asdeplorablesand lost their votes as a consequence. Marc Thiessen of The Washington Postargues,Clinton still cant seem to tell the difference between a white nationalist and working-class voters who are upset because their family incomes are stagnant or falling, they feel shut out of the labor force, and their communities are mired in substance abuse and despair. Theseforgotten Americanshad legitimate grievances that Democrats ignored.

The Clinton campaign also squandereditsmonetary advantageby failing to invest enough instates like Michigan and Pennsylvania.Accordingto one liberal activist, the candidates team was,very surgical and corporate. Their thing was,We dont have to leave [literature] at the doors, everyone knows who Hillary Clinton is.

Joe Biden corrected Clintons errors,cultivating a working man persona andinvesting heavilyin turning out the vote inkeystates.He received the Democratic nominationin partbecause primary votersbelievedhe wouldappeal to those forgotten Americans who Clinton had ignored and demeaned.

In both 2016 and 2020, the Electoral College worked as intended. Serious presidential candidates were forced to build diverse coalitions rather than relying on one region or demographic group. For close to 250 years, the Electoral College has fostered a healthy and vibrant electoral system, and we shouldnt throw that away because Hillary Clinton mismanaged her campaign.

View post:
Opinion: What's the True Agenda Behind the Movement to Abolish the Electoral College? - Prescott eNews

West Vancouver billionaire Frank Giustra has been given the go-ahead to sue Twitter in a B.C. courtroom over the social media giant's publication of a series of tweets tying him to baseless conspiracy theories involving pedophile rings and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

In a ruling released Thursday, Justice Elliott Myers found that Giustra's history and presence in British Columbia, combined with the possibility the tweets may have been seen by as many as 500,000 B.C. Twitter users, meant a B.C. court should have jurisdiction over the case.

It's a victory not only for Giustra whose philanthropic activities have earned him membership in both the Orders of Canada and B.C. but for Canadian plaintiffs trying to hold U.S.-based internet platforms responsible forborder-crossing content.

In a statement, Giustra said he was looking forward to pursuing the case in the province where he built his reputation as the founder of Lionsgate Entertainment.

"I hope this lawsuit will help raise public awareness of the real harm to society if social media platforms are not held responsible for the content posted and published on their sites," Giustra said.

"I believe that words do matter, and recent events have demonstrated that hate speech can incite violence with deadly consequences."

Giustra filed the defamation lawsuit in April 2019, seeking an order to force Twitter to remove tweets he claimed painted him as "corrupt" and "criminal."

He claimed he was targeted by a group who vilified him "for political purposes" in relation to the 2016 U.S. election and his work in support of the Clinton Foundation.

The online attacks allegedly included death threats and links to "pizzagate" a "false, discredited and malicious conspiracy theory in which [Giustra] was labelled as a 'pedophile,'" the claim stated.

Twitter has not filed a response to Giustra's claim itself applying instead to have the case tossed because of jurisdiction.

The California-based company said it does not do business in B.C. and that Giustra was only relying on his B.C. roots to file the case in Canada because it would be a non-starter in the U.S., where the First Amendment protects free speech.

The company claimed he would have been mostly affected in the U.S.where he spends much of his time, owns extensive property and has substantial interests in the entertainment industry meaning B.C. is only tangentially connected to the matter.

In essence, Myers said, Twitter claimed it was only a platform for others to post comment, and couldn't be expected to face defamation cases every place people felt aggrieved.

The judge said the case presented some difficult if timely questions.

"This case illustrates the jurisdictional difficulties with internet defamation where the publication of the defamatory comments takes place in multiple countries where the plaintiff has a reputation to protect," Myers wrote.

"The presumption is that a defendant should be sued in only one jurisdiction for an alleged wrong, but that is not a simple goal to achieve fairly for internet defamation."

Myers found Giustra's connection to B.C. undeniable.

"There can be no dispute that Mr. Giustra has a significant reputation in British Columbia. He also has strong ties to the province," he wrote.

"The fact that he has a reputation in or connections to other jurisdictions does not detract from that."

The judge said Giustra had also done what he needed to do to showhis reputation in B.C. might have been affected.

"I do not agree with Twitter who argues that of all places in the world, the Plaintiff's reputation has not been harmed in B.C.," Myers wrote.

In its application, Twitter drew on a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada judgment in which a Canadian billionaire with substantial interests in Israel was denied his bid to sue an Israeli newspaper in Ontario over an article that appeared online.

In that case, the court ruled that Israel would be the more appropriate place to hold a trial because the billionaire was better known there, he hadn't limited his suit to damages suffered in Canada and most of the witnesses would also be in Israel.

But Myers found that many of the tweets referred to B.C. and went beyond the kind of business articles that were at the heart of the Supreme Court of Canada case.

"Here the tweets refer to Mr. Giustra's personal characteristics alleging, for example, pedophilia," Myers wrote.

Despite the lawsuit, Giustra maintains a Twitter account.

The court filings include a letter hewrote to Twitter chief executive officer Jack Dorsey in April 2018, asking him to make his case a priority.

"As Twitter's CEO, I ask that you now investigate the source of these past and ongoing attacks against me whether they are the result of individuals, a group, bots, or a combination of all three," Giustra wrote.

"I do not want to cancel my Twitter account that would be a victory of those who are turning this incredible communication tool into a conduit for slander and hate."

Visit link:
B.C. billionaire given the green light to sue Twitter over 'Pizzagate' tweets - CBC.ca