Three Things You Need to Know - January 25, 2018

January 25, 2018

WRITER

That's one heck of a sentient phone glitch at the FBI

Which one of these is more believable? Bigfoot, alligators in the New York City sewer, OR the FBI’s recent excuse for “failing to preserve” five months of cell phone texts?

The latest FBI explanation for the missing texts is that it was less “failing to preserve” and more “well crap, we had a glitch.” The “glitch” apparently affected 10% of the FBI. Out of 35,000 employees, that’s about three thousand phones.

Riiight. Let’s pretend for a second that we buy this. This glitch would have to be the most picky, selective and fortuitous glitch in history. Ten percent of a large organization such as the FBI is actually pretty small. Somehow it decided to choose the two people, Struck and Page, that were at the center of potentially the biggest political scandal since Watergate. Was it just going through and randomly picking people it didn’t like?

The seemingly sentient “glitch” then decided to turn on right as the Russia investigation was ramping up. Hey, you never know, maybe all the talk of Russians scared it? Whatever it’s reason was, it kept up the mischief as the Steele Dossier was released and as James Comey was fired. Glitching this select group of personnel, during one of the most turbulent times the bureau has seen in years, sure must have been fun!

But - as happens to everyone having a good time - I guess “the glitch” eventually got tired, because - and this is TOTALLY just a coincidence - it decided to end it’s rampage on the same exact day Muller was appointed special counsel. I know it’s strange timing, but those glitches are some strange cats.

Are you kidding me with this excuse? Are we seriously supposed to believe that the FBI IT technicians failed to notice or fix this for FIVE MONTHS? I mean, was the Imran Awan family doing the FBI’s IT in addition to Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

I don’t know if the FBI is covering something up, but all this sure does look bad. These excuses are getting ridiculous. The American public deserves a full and detailed explanation for what’s going on. If not, they might as well announce the formal opening of investigations into Bigfoot and New York City sewer alligators. At least then they’d be consistent in their absurdity.

Lobbying for Google

It’s in your phone, your car, your home. Now it’s in your government too. Google is everywhere.

In 2017, Google out-spent all other companies in lobbying Washington. It was the first time that a tech company claimed this dubious top honor. Google spent $18 million on lobbying.

They had stiff competition of course. Amazon, Facebook, and Apple each broke their own lobbying records last year. Apple spent 51% more on lobbying than it did in 2016. Combined, the four tech giants spent $50 million.

What are they spending it on? Lobbying operations to try to influence policy on DACA, corporate tax reform, regulation of online advertising, mobile medical apps, self-driving vehicles, and naturally, climate change.

Government and the tech giants are barreling toward a showdown because current anti-trust laws are not equipped to handle these tech companies that transcend various industries. Amazon for example – it’s like an old mail-order catalog company, but it’s also a grocery store chain (after buying Whole Foods last year), and a TV broadcaster that produces its own original shows. Google and Apple are now similarly diverse. These are not like traditional companies focused on a single industry. And there seems to be no end to their growth.

These companies have grown so big, so fast, that – surprise – federal regulators haven’t been able to keep pace. That leaves us vulnerable. Why? Because the tech giants have more data stored about us than any government ever dreamed of collecting on its citizens. Our data is gold to these companies, and if the government wants to protect consumers from exploitation, they’ll have to pry our data from the cold, dead fingers of the tech giants. Not likely. Especially when the tech companies are paying $50 million in lobbying efforts to make sure it never comes to that.

Our constitutional form of government is very high maintenance. It requires constant vigilance. You have to keep an eye on government and business. We must be engaged and educated. Too much government interference is not a good thing. But neither is too much corporate interference.

As much as we enjoy all the services and gadgets from the tech giants, they aren’t looking out for your interests. They have their own agendas, and as we saw with Google last year when they fired James Damore for having an opinion, those agendas are not what you want being peddled in Washington.

Self-identifying may not be enough for Democrats anymore

Elizabeth Warren has a problem.

As 2020 approaches, the Democrats are trying to solve the mystery of her Native American heritage.

All her life, Warren has listed herself as Native American. She claimed she was a “minority” in the legal directory of the Association of American Law Schools.

She is listed as Native American in federal forms at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.

She even contributed to the Native American cookbook “Pow Wow Chow” and listed her name as “Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee.”

But for some reason, Warren has not officially reported her Native American ethnicity to the Senate’s historian office.

And that reason is apparent to every person on planet Earth.

Elizabeth Warren isn’t really Native American.

She is the whitest white woman ever.

She claims family ties to Oklahoma going back to before it was a state, but that doesn’t mean she’s part Indian.

Warren says she grew up hearing tales from her mother’s side of the family that they had Cherokee and Delaware blood in them.

A thorough examination by genealogists has proved otherwise.

They poured over her family’s birth, marriage, and death records and could not find any conclusive proof of Native American ancestry.

Oopsie.

But does Elizabeth Warren lying about her heritage really matter to people anymore?

Can’t she simply get away with “self-identifying” as Native American? It seems like everyone else on Earth can claim they are something they’re not and we’ll go along with it, so why can’t she?

Or do we still value authenticity in a person?

I think we do, or else the democrats wouldn’t be so worried about her unsubstantiated Native American claims.

And that’s actually a really good sign.

MORE 3 THINGS

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

What we DO and DON'T know about Thomas Matthew Crooks

Jim Vondruska / Stringer | Getty Images

It has been over a week since 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks narrowly failed to assassinate President Trump while the president gave a speech at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennslyvania. Despite the ongoing investigations, we still know very little about the would-be assassin, which has left many wondering if the agencies involved are limiting the information that Congress and the public are receiving.

As Glenn has pointed out, there are still major questions about the shooter that are unanswered, and the American people are left at the whim of unreliable federal agencies. Here is everything we know—and everything we don't know—about Thomas Matthew Crooks:

Who was he?

What we know:Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, approximately an hour south of Butler. Crooks went to high school in Bethel Parks, where he would graduate in 2022. Teachers and classmates described him as a loner and as nerdy, but generally nice, friendly, and intelligent. Crooks tried out for the school rifle team but was rejected due to his poor aim, and reports indicate that Crooks was often bullied for his nerdy demeanor and for wearing camo hunting gear to school.

After high school, Crooks began work at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a dietary aide. In fact, he was scheduled to work on the day of the rally but requested the day off. He passed a background check to work at the facility and was reportedly an unproblematic employee. Crooks was also a member of a local gun club where he practiced shooting the day before the rally.

It was recently revealed that sometime before his attempted assassination, Crooks posted the following message on Steam, a popular computer application used for playing video games: "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." Aside from this, Crooks posted no warning or manifesto regarding his attack, and little other relevant information is known about him.

What we don't know:It is unclear what Crook's political affiliations or views were, or if he was aligned with any extremist organizations. Crooks was a registered Republican, and his classmates recall him defending conservative ideas and viewpoints in class. On the other hand, the Federal Election Commission has revealed he donated to a progressive PAC on the day Biden was inaugurated. He also reportedly wore a COVID mask to school much longer than was required.

Clearly, we are missing the full picture. Why would a Republican attempt to assassinate the Republican presidential nominee? What is to gain? And why would he donate to a progressive organization as a conservative? This doesn't add up, and so far the federal agencies investigating the attack have yet to reveal anything more.

What were his goals?

What we know: Obviously we know he was trying to assassinate President Trump—and came very close to succeeding, but beyond that, Crooks' goals are unknown. He left no manifesto or any sort of written motive behind, or if he did, the authorities haven't published it yet. We have frustratingly little to go off of.

What we don't know: As stated before, we don't know anything about the movies behind Crooks' heinous actions. We are left with disjointed pieces that make it difficult to paint a cohesive picture of this man. There is also the matter that he left explosives, ammo, and a bulletproof vest in his car. Why? Did he assume he was going to make it back to his car? Or were those supplies meant for an accomplice that never showed up?

The shocking lack of information on Crooks' motives makes it seem likely that we are not being let on to the whole truth.

Did he work alone?

What we know: Reportedly, Crooks was the only gunman on the site, and as of now, no other suspects have been identified. The rifle used during the assassination attempt was purchased and registered by Crooks' father. However, it is unlikely that the father was involved as he reported both his son and rifle missing the night of the assassination attempt. Crooks' former classmates described him as a "loner," which seems to corroborate the narrative that he worked alone.

What we don't know: We know how Crooks acquired his rifle, but what about the rest of his equipment? He reportedly had nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and several homemade bombs in his car. Could these have been meant for a co-conspirator who didn't show? Did Crooks acquire all of this equipment himself, or did he have help?

There's also the matter of the message Crooks left on the video game platform Steam that served as his only warning of the attack. Who was the message for? Are there people out there who were aware of the attack before it occurred? Why didn't they alert authorities?

We know authorities have access to Crooks' laptop and cellphone that probably contain the answers to these pertinent questions. Why haven't we heard any clarity from the authorities? It seems we are again at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy, which begs one more question: Will we ever know the whole truth?

Who will be Kamala Harris' VP pick?

JIM WATSON / Contributor, Chris duMond / Stringer, Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Over the weekend, President Joe Biden officially dropped out of the 2024 presidential election and put forward his endorsement behind his Vice President Kamala Harris.

Glenn recently predicted that Biden would step down due to the mountain of pressure within his party to do so. But now that we are here we are faced with an all-new line of questions, like, who will be the candidate on the Democratic ticket? Who will be their pick for vice president?

As of now, the answer to the first question seems to be Kamala Harris, who received the support of the president and several prominent democrats. It's still too early to call for certain, and Glenn doesn't think it's likely, but assuming Kamala becomes the Democrat nominee, who will her VP pick be? There are endless possible options, but there are a 5 big names that could prove beneficial to Harris' campaign:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom

Bill Pugliano / Stringer | Getty Images

Governor Newsom has spiked in popularity within his party since his taking office in 2019 due to his scathing criticisms of President Trump and other Republicans. Newsom has been a popular contender as a possible Biden replacement, and a future presidential bid seems likely.

His widespread recognition may be a boon to Kamala's ticket, but the California governor comes with a dark side. Newsom was famously nearly recalled as Governor in 2021, hanging on to his office by a narrow margin. He also faced criticism for his hypocrisy during the COVID lockdowns, attending large gatherings while the rest of his state was locked inside. There's also the issue that both Newsom and Kamala are from California, meaning that if they were to appear on the same ticket, that ticket would lack geographical balance and would potentially lead to a Constitutional issue that would force the duo to forfeit all 54 of the states' Electoral College votes.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro

Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Images

Another prominent Democrat Governor, Josh Shapiro has also been floated as a potential VP pick. Governor Shapiro has become a viable pick due to his well-received performance as Pennslyvania's Governor. The governor has good support within the swing state due to his handling of the I-95 bridge collapse, the train derailment in East Palestine, which had effects on his state, and the assassination attempt on the former president last week. Shapiro would bring much-needed support from the swing state if he was put on the ticket.

That being said, Shapiro has little time to build nationwide name recognition before the DNC in August and the November election. This would be Shapiro's debut on the national stage, and he would find himself in the most unforgiving situation possible.

Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg

FREDERIC J. BROWN / Contributor | Getty Images

Former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and opponent of Biden during the 2020 Democratic primaries, "Mayor Pete's" name recognition might be what Kamala needs on her presidential ticket. Buttigieg rose to popularity during the 2020 election due to his youth and status as "openly gay." Buttigieg has served as the Secretary of Transportation during the Biden administration for the past four years and has formally endorsed Harris.

Nevertheless, Buttigieg has some dark spots on his resume. The East Palestine train derailment disaster has besmirched his reputation as Secretary of Transportation. And while his youth may work in his favor when compared to the other elderly members of our federal government, it also means Buttigieg lacks the experience and prestige that other politicians enjoy.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer

Noam Galai / Stringer | Getty Images

Yet another governor of a crucial swing state, Whitmer was elected in 2018, two years after President Trump was elected, helping secure the state for the Democrats. Whitmer is known for her strong opposition to Trump, both during his presidency and his reelection campaign. Whitmer serves as co-chair for the Biden-Harris campaign and as vice chairperson of the DNC, which gives her influence over the Democratic party, something that would come in handy as a Vice President. Gov. Whitmer also established the Fight Like Hell PAC, which is dedicated to helping Democrats get elected and to stopping Trump by any means.

On the other hand, in a statement following Biden's resignation from the election, Governor Whitmer stated that her role “will remain the same.” It is also worth noting that if she were to be chosen as Kamala's VP, that would make their ticket all-female, which may foster some "woke points," but is politically risky.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear

Lexington Herald-Leader / Contributor | Getty Images

Andy Bashear has seemingly beaten the odds twice, having been elected and reelected as the Governor of Kentucky, despite the deep-red nature of the state. Beshear, who has moderate tendencies, would be a boon to the Harris campaign as he has a track record of reaching rural, typically conservative regions where Democrats tend to struggle. He is also known for his propensity to talk about his Christian faith and willingness to work with Republicans, which are traits that might help win over moderates.

But, like Gov. Shapiro, Bashear has very little time to whip up national support and recognition. He also is unlikely to be very much help for the Harris campaign in winning over important swing states.

Five times Glenn had J.D. Vance on his show and where he stands on key issues

CHANDAN KHANNAMANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

We finally have an answer to the long-awaited question of who Trump will pick for his running mate, and it's none other than Ohio Senator and friend of the show, J.D. Vance. At the RNC in Milwaukee, Trump officially accepted the party's nomination as the Republican candidate and announced J.D. Vance as his running mate.

Glenn has had Senator Vance on the show several times to discuss everything from DEI to the Southern Border. If you are looking to familiarize yourself with the next potential Vice President, look no further, here are five conversations Glenn had with Trump's VP pick:

Glenn's Show Prep