Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Monday, October 04, 2021

Former Facebook employee Frances Haugen revealed as ‘whistleblower’ behind leaked documents - The Washington Post

Former Facebook employee Frances Haugen revealed as ‘whistleblower’ behind leaked documents that plunged the company into scandal

"The revelations amount to perhaps the most significant crisis in the company’s 17-year history and may have impacts for regulators

Former Facebook product manager Frances Haugen has been revealed as the source behind tens of thousands of pages of leaked internal company research. (Robert Fortunato/CBS News/60 Minutes)

In an interview with The Washington Post, Haugen said that while working at Facebook in the company’s civic integrity division, she realized it was not disclosing important information about the harms of its products to the public and the policymakers tasked with regulation, creating a situation she said posed a threat to democracy.

“Facebook in its current form is dangerous,” she said. “It became necessary to get the public involved.”

For Facebook, the document leak — and the public reveal of the source — represents perhaps the most significant crisis in the company’s history, further deteriorating relationships between the company and Washington politicians. The company is the target of a historic federal antitrust case and is fielding document requests as members of Congress investigate its role in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Widely referred to as a “Facebook whistleblower” responsible for leaking documents behind a Wall Street Journal series, Haugen spoke publicly about her complaint to federal authorities, disclosing her identity for the first time in an interview airing Sunday night on “60 Minutes.”

“There were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook, over and over again, chose to optimize for its own interests, like making more money,” Haugen said in the interview.

A veteran of tech companies including Pinterest, Yelp and Google, Haugen, 37, left Facebook in May after developing serious reservations about the company’s policies, particularly surrounding the events of Jan. 6. Before the 2020 election, Haugen said, Facebook implemented measures to prevent the spread of misinformation, but the company decided to dissolve many of these protections after the election. She said she stopped trusting that her employer was willing to limit growth to improve public safety.

“As soon as the election was over, they turned them back off, or they changed the settings back to what they were before to prioritize growth over safety,” she said. “And that really feels like a betrayal of democracy to me.”

Haugen’s lawyers have filed at least eight complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has broad oversight over financial markets and can bring charges against companies suspected of misleading investors, resulting in fines or other penalties for companies and executives. The complaints compare Haugen’s findings with the company’s public statements, according to “60 Minutes.” The SEC did not comment Sunday on the documents or whether it planned to bring action against Facebook.

Facebook spokesperson Lena Pietsch said in a statement: “Every day our teams have to balance protecting the ability of billions of people to express themselves openly with the need to keep our platform a safe and positive place. … To suggest we encourage bad content and do nothing is just not true.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), whose congressional panel will hear testimony from Haugen on Tuesday, said in a phone interview following Haugen’s “60 Minutes” appearance that the SEC should take “very seriously” her allegations that Facebook may have misled its investors and should be “very likely investigating formally.”

“Facebook certainly misled and deceived the public, and so their investors may well have been deceived as well,” Blumenthal added.

Blumenthal said that in addition to delving into how Facebook’s products harm children, lawmakers at the hearing will dig into Haugen’s claim that the social media giant undermined its safety efforts by disbanding the civic integrity team she worked on after the 2020 election. 

Lawmakers for years have threatened legislation they say would increase Facebook’s responsibility for privacy abuses or amplifying harmful or misleading content. But to date Congress has not passed any comprehensive social media bills into law, allowing companies like Facebook to flourish largely unhindered by legal restrictions.

“A lot of what Facebook is doing isn’t illegal because they hid the information that politicians would have needed to create regulations that addressed it,” she said.

“But you can’t lie to your investors.”

Haugen, who has worked in the tech industry since 2006, said she knew coming into Facebook that the company had problems, but she was shocked by the extent to which misinformation was fomenting violence and other problems around the world.

“I thought I knew how bad misinformation was,” she said. “Then I learned what it was doing in countries that don’t speak English.”

Because of her concern for Facebook’s impact in developing countries, she says she hopes to advance language agnostic solutions for that might reduce the spread of misinformation around the word. For instance, she said Facebook could introduce measures to slow down the spread of posts around covid, such as capping the number of times a post can be re-shared. 

“I don’t understand in a crisis why we can’t just do that,” she said. “We should just have a little friction.”

Her plea comes as the White House and other policymakers are scrutinizing the role falsehoods on Facebook may play in preventing people from getting vaccinated during the pandemic. 

For weeks, revelations from the documents, which were at the center of the Wall Street Journal’s “Facebook Files” series, have bolstered claims that Facebook’s researchers and executives have a deep understanding of the ways its products harm people — beyond what had been previously known to the public and key policymakers. The wide-ranging documents represent an unprecedented look inside Facebook’s struggles with an assortment of problems including child safety, political polarization, human trafficking and drug cartels.

Andrew Bakaj, who represents Haugen at Whistleblower Aid, said it was “immediately clear” that she had materials that were critical for lawmakers and regulators seeking to hold the company accountable.

“She’s a perfect example of why whistleblowers are so important: Without her, we didn’t know what we didn’t know,” Bakaj told The Post.

The material has only added to the embattled company’s woes in Washington, including Haugen’s upcoming testimony before the Senate Commerce consumer protection subcommittee Tuesday and documents she has shared with congressional offices probing Facebook. Haugen said she hopes the leaks will aid lawmakers to “get the fortitude and motivation to go put those regulations into place.”

Facebook has sought to deny and deflect the revelations, downplaying the documents — even tearing into its own internal research — in blog posts, interviews and congressional testimony. Facebook’s vice president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, appeared Sunday morning on CNN, calling allegations that the company is to blame for the violence on Jan. 6 “ludicrous.” (The company’s top executives, chief executive Mark Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, have not addressed the reports.)

“The responsibility for the violence on January the 6th and the insurrection on that day lies squarely with the people who inflicted the violence and those who encouraged them, including then-President Trump and candidly many other people in the media who were encouraging the assertion that the election was stolen,” Clegg said.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate have demanded that Facebook turn over documents pertaining to its handling of the Jan. 6 insurrection, including an order from the House select committee investigating the matter to preserve communications on its platforms related to the riot at the Capitol. Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said at the time that the company looks “forward to continuing to work with the committee” in the House but did not say whether it will fully comply with the requests. Lawmakers across Capitol Hill have at times criticized the company for not turning over documents about its policies and practices on misinformation, violent rhetoric and more.

Despite repeated pleas from lawmakers to make more of its research public, so far the company has turned over two partially redacted slide decks looking at Instagram’s impact on children and teens’ mental health, along with annotations downplaying their findings.

The company agreed to partially comply with the Facebook Oversight Board’s recommendation that the company take “a comprehensive review” of its impact on the events of Jan. 6, reflecting on “the design and policy choices that … may enable its platform to be abused.” Instead Facebook committed to making data available to a select group of its existing research partners.

Clegg said despite the public backlash, Facebook would continue to do research into the negative impacts of its products.

“We’re going to continue to ask ourselves these difficult questions,” Clegg said in the interview.

Facebook has been under the microscope in Washington for nearly five years for concerns ranging from foreign disinformation to privacy abuses. The company is already the target of a historic Federal Trade Commission antitrust case, which it is expected to respond to on Monday. In 2019, it also had to pay a record-setting$5 billion fine to settle with the FTC over alleged privacy abuses.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill responded last week by hauling Facebook executive Antigone Davis before Congress to testify on a Wall Street Journal report, including company research that showed that Facebook-owned Instagram was making teen girls’ body image issues worse. At the hearing, lawmakers accused Facebook of burying these findings and pledged to further investigate the matter.

Haugen addressed the findings about social media’s impact on teen girls in the “60 Minutes” interview.

“As these young women begin to consume this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed,” Haugen said. “And it actually makes them use the app more. And so, they end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more.”

Haugen is going public with her findings amid a growing debate about the power and influence of the world’s largest tech companies and a growing push from countries worldwide to pursue regulation.

“It’s important because Big Tech is at an inflection point,” said Bakaj, her lawyer. “It touches every aspect of our lives — whether it’s individuals personally or democratic institutions globally. With such far-reaching consequences, transparency is critical to oversight, and lawful whistleblowing is a critical component of oversight and holding companies accountable.”


Former Facebook employee Frances Haugen revealed as ‘whistleblower’ behind leaked documents - The Washington Post

George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and John Lewis Statues Go Up in N.Y. - The New York Times

George Floyd Statue Vandalized in Union Square

"Sculptures of Mr. Floyd, Breonna Taylor and John Lewis are on display in a Manhattan park known as a site of protests. “These monuments have meaning,” Mr. Floyd’s brother said.

A sculpture of George Floyd, one of three by the artist Chris Carnabuci that are being displayed in Union Square.
Earl Wilson/The New York Times

In Union Square, Terrence Floyd — a brother of George Floyd, whose murder in May 2020 by a police officer prompted confrontations over police brutality and racial injustice — spoke softly into a microphone.

“These monuments have meaning,” Mr. Floyd said on Friday night as he stood among large sculptures of his brother, Representative John Lewis and Breonna Taylor.

The statues were covered in black cloth, and the growing crowd of people held cellphone cameras, ready to capture the moment when Mr. Floyd and others revealed the sculptures, which are nearly six feet tall.

In that moment, there were no signs, no pain-filled chants and no gas masks — dramatically different from a little over a year ago, when Union Square was often a central location for nights of protest. With the sculptures, a site of unrest became a place to reflect.

But two days later, around 10:15 a.m. on Sunday, a man with a black backpack rode a skateboard up to the statue of George Floyd and splashed the face with gray paint, the police said. The police were investigating the incident, which they said was caught on surveillance video.

“It’s incredibly disappointing how the statues were defaced in such a short amount of time, and it just goes to show you how far we still have to go to reach our goal of unity,” Terrence Floyd said Sunday in a joint statement with the nonprofit We Are Floyd Foundation.

Chris Carnabuci, the artist who made the sculptures, said Sunday that while the vandalism was not a complete surprise, “It is quite upsetting to us all.” He said the exhibit aimed to inspire civil discourse and provide a space where different opinions could be heard.

“Vandalism of any sort is not an action that is productive or meaningful,” he said. “Actions like this remind us that we have a long way to go, and we will never stop fighting.”

Union Square is the latest stop for the George Floyd sculpture, which spent a couple of weeks on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn over the summer. Less than a week after its unveiling in Brooklyn, it was defaced with the logo of a white supremacist group.

In an earlier interview, Mr. Carnabuci, 57, said he had decided to paint it and the other statues so if someone tried to deface them again, they would be easier to restore.

He also explained why he had chosen Union Square as the backdrop for the installation, called “#SeeInjustice,” which will be on display until Oct. 30.

“It has this storied history of — we’ll call it protesting or social gatherings,” he said. “There was a George Floyd protest at Union Square. Back in the late 1800s, there were protests that went on there. It’s gone on for over 100 years.”

On Thursday afternoon, a day before the official presentation, crowds of people shuffled around the sculptures, searching for the perfect angle to take pictures. 

Matias Mayol, 49, a tourist visiting from Argentina, said that the artwork had given him goose bumps.

Though he was familiar with Mr. Floyd through the news media in Argentina, he said he had never heard of Ms. Taylor, a Black medical worker who was shot during a botched police raid on her apartment, and he was stunned to learn about her story.

He was also unfamiliar with Mr. Lewis, a stalwart civil rights activist who was beaten by police officers and sustained a skull fracture during the 1965 “Bloody Sunday” protests as he and hundreds of others tried to march from Selma, Ala., to Montgomery. Mr. Lewis died of pancreatic cancer in July 2020.

Mr. Mayol said there was something ethereal about the statues. “I stopped because I like the color, and they look like angels,” he said. “They are up in the sky and looking at us to see changes.”

So Hess, 22, of Los Angeles said she felt the message would have had more impact if it highlighted all the people harmed by the police, though she understood why the artist had chosen Mr. Floyd and Ms. Taylor.

“It would be better if, like, every single person who died from police violence last year got their own stand, and the whole park would be covered,” she said. 

The killing last year of Mr. Floyd, 46, by Derek Chauvin, a white Minneapolis police officer who was subsequently fired and convicted of murder, inspired Mr. Carnabuci.

Already feeling emotionally drained from the pandemic lockdown, Mr. Carnabuci said he had felt “helpless” while watching the protests unfold. His wife encouraged him to put his sorrow into his art, and he said he had wanted to capture the moment in a meaningful way.

“We actually started thinking about making an exhibition and bringing the pieces around to sort of keep the awareness up,” he said. “And even raise some money for foundations that are geared toward those in need.”

Mr. Carnabuci worked with Andrew Cohen and Lindsay Eshelman, founders of Confront Art, an organization that aims to connect artists with social justice causes to create public art.

But first, Mr. Carnabuci wanted the blessing of the Floyd family. Terrence Floyd approved. “He never wavered in his support and his love for the project,” Mr. Carnabuci said. “And it also gave us something to work for, which is essentially building the program that would benefit his foundation.”

Mr. Floyd said the meaning behind Confront Art’s name was a major reason he felt comfortable in working with the group.

“It’s literally art that’s confrontational,” he said Friday night. “This can’t be avoided. This shouldn’t be avoided. It has to be known.”

Quick response codes will soon be displayed on each sculpture’s base, Mr. Carnabuci said, so people can donate to charities benefiting efforts in the names of the subjects of the statues: We Are Floyd, the Breonna Taylor Foundation and the John and Lillian Miles Lewis Foundation.

Earl Wilson/The New York Times

For some passers-by, the statues stirred anger and frustration.

Yolanda Burns, 59, of Manhattan said the sculptures were an important reminder that little had changed since the racial unrest and protests of the summer of 2020. “This is 2021 — who expects this to still be going on?” she said. “It seems like it’s going to be a lifelong thing, so I want to make sure that my daughter understood the people whose lives have been sacrificed.”

Jason Woody, 37, of Richmond, Calif., and his partner, Maria Weatherborne, 40, of San Francisco, met at a George Floyd protest last year. Dressed in Black Lives Matter cycling regalia, both said they hoped the sculptures would increase awareness and help end systemic racism.

“I think there’s a way that everybody can find a way to get engaged into making things better,” Mr. Woody said.

Winnie Hu and Ashley Southall contributed reporting."

George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and John Lewis Statues Go Up in N.Y. - The New York Times

Haitian Immigrants in New York Describe Perilous Escape - The New York Times

In Their Words: Haitian Immigrants in New York Describe Perilous Escape

"Dieu Nalio Chery, a photojournalist, fled Haiti after gangs threatened his life. His latest subjects are others who, like him, are far from home.

Regine Joseph moved to New York in May to flee violence. “Every day I heard they killed someone from the bank, they kidnapped someone from work, violent demonstrations, or gangs in the streets,” she said.

As a young man, Dieu Nalio Chery fell in love with photography while working in his uncle’s photo studio in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. But after a powerful earthquake devastated the country in 2010, he turned what had been a freelance pursuit into a profession, going to work for The Associated Press in Haiti.

For the next decade, he crisscrossed the island nation, documenting major news events and focusing on human rights issues as they emerged. In a country with a literacy rate of 61 percent, Mr. Chery’s photographs were a potent means of informing the public. Last year, he was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for photography for his images of unrest there.

Then in July, he had to flee Haiti after gangs threatened his life. He is now living in New York on a cultural exchange visa and has turned his attention to documenting Haitians who have been living in the city since the federal government extended special protections to them under the Temporary Protection Status, or TPS, program.

His subjects had previously been threatened with deportation, and he wanted to capture their fears and dreams at a moment when they are relieved to be in the United States as Haiti grapples with the continuing upheaval caused by another earthquake and the assassination of the country’s president.

“It is a boon for those undocumented Haitians who can now legally work, be educated and receive health care in the U.S.” Mr. Chery, 39, said. “I am one of the examples of people who left Haiti under threat and insecurity. I didn’t pass the same way with these people, but I am one of them. I feel what they are feeling.”

Here are his subjects’ stories in their own words, translated from Haitian Creole, condensed and edited for clarity.

“I will never forget this trip.”

Jerry Mondestin, 23

I spent one month on the trip because I didn’t have a visa to go straight to Mexico. We were around 100 Haitians together. Sometimes we took buses and walked. The worst part of this trip is between Colombia and Panama.

I left them and walked with five friends, but the road was very difficult. I walked up to the mountains and crossed rivers, and there was a lot of mud. I saw a dead body in the river, but I drank that water later anyway. It was my only option until I crossed the forest.

When I arrived in Mexico, the authorities took me along with the others to jail, and after 13 days they gave us papers to go to immigration for legal entry papers.

On July 23, I crossed the border via Yuma, Ariz. The U.S. authorities put us in jail, and after 10 days they released us with legal entry papers.

“In Haiti, it’s a struggle every day.”

Joanne Joseph, 38

Even if I am safe here, I am suffering because my father and my sister, are still in Haiti, and the situation of Haiti is more complicated than you can imagine.

First, it’s a different lifestyle, a different culture. Here in New York, everything is very accessible. Opportunities are limitless.

In Haiti, it’s a struggle every day. Even some of the things as simple as going to a grocery store, going to the bank, going to a gas station to fill the tank of your car, can be complicated with the kidnappings that can happen anytime to anyone.

“Here in New York it’s different. I have peace in my mind.”

Anette Telemarque, 72

I prefer to stop watching the images of Haitians from the Texas border because they affected my health situation. But from the little I saw and from what I’ve heard, it’s like the slavery time; it’s an inhuman treatment.

Sign up for the New York Today Newsletter  Each morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining, style and more.

You could get killed by a bullet from nowhere when you are in Haiti, even inside your home. You don’t need to be in the street to be a victim of the insecurity. They can kidnap you at any time; they don’t need to know who you are to kidnap you. They kidnap everybody, rich or poor.

I was suffering in Haiti because I didn’t have a minimum of freedom. Every time I had to go out, I thought about the kidnapping, the gangs in the streets.

And with the spreading of the coronavirus, people in public transportation don’t want to wear masks. I was at risk everywhere. But here in New York, it’s different. I have peace in my mind.

“I look at my daughter and I smile, and I tell her that she will have a better future.”

Athis Wester, 28

I was really scared to walk inside the forest. I paid a group of Cubans to guide and to secure my family in the forest to avoid robbery and rape.

In the middle of the forest, I asked God to take my life rather than going back to Haiti because I felt weakness after I saw fresh dead bodies on the road and I thought that I suffered enough to be alive.

I think that I am a hero after dealing with this journey. I can’t say it is the best thing that happened in my life, but benefiting from the TPS is one of the best accomplishments in my life.

I am very happy after this long trip, where I spent all the money that I worked for during almost five years in Chile. I look at my daughter and I smile, and I tell her that she will have a better future.

“I was lucky a bit because the people we paid to guide us had weapons to secure us.”

Darny Civil, 25

Planning for the trip, I needed a minimum of $3,000 for each person. I must pay for buses, boats, a guide to cross the forest, and I have to pay police and military, who I describe as legal thieves. It was exaggerated in Bolivia, where the police had to fight with us to check our pockets and bags and took everything they wanted.

Arriving in Colombia was the beginning of the hell, where you have to buy a machete, oil against snakes, a tent, serum for rehydration and food before starting to cross the forest. I was exposed to all kinds of danger. Some people had worse experiences than me, like men watching thieves rape their wives. I was lucky a bit because the people we paid to guide us had weapons to secure us.

Dealing with all these bad experiences and then arriving in Texas to face deportation is worse than death.

Since the first day in the forest, I thought that I should not be on this trip, which is like going to face the devil with no expectation of what could happen to you. Every day, I walked from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Then we set up our tent to sleep. I was in a group of 13 Haitians; later it became more than 2,000 people.

I walked up a mountain for six hours with my heavy backpack and my wife, Elide, who was two months pregnant, under heavy rain. The road was muddy. But I was focused on the destination, even though we were suffering.

The worst experience for me was arriving under the bridge at the border with the caravan of thousands of people in the dust under the sun. I had to cross the river to buy food because my wife was starving, and I took the risk to cross to the side of Mexico to buy food, and the water was under my neck, and I don’t know how to swim.

“Some die of thirst or starvation. Children died while on the shoulders of their parents.”

Elide Altidor, 34

If you choose to make this trip, it is because you know what you want. Some people who were sick died on the way, because they didn’t have enough energy to resist. Some died of thirst or starvation. Children died while on the shoulders of their parents. Thieves in the forest raped the women. We saw dead bodies of Haitians along the way. That is a lot, and the list of dangers is longer than what you can imagine. I preferred to die in the forest than to go back to Haiti in the hands of gangs.

I will work hard, and if one day my country is stable, I will go back to Haiti because I love Haiti.

Your September Digest is ready"

Haitian Immigrants in New York Describe Perilous Escape - The New York Times

Sunday, October 03, 2021

“THEY'RE LYING!!!” Bernie Sanders’ EPIC Roast of Politicians Opposing Bi...

Supreme Court will likely kill Roe v. Wade and gun restriction laws this term The court is likely to exacerbate America's already existing fault lines.

Supreme Court will likely kill Roe v. Wade and gun restriction laws this term

“The court is likely to exacerbate America's already existing fault lines.

Image: Seized handguns in New York in 2013.

It’s almost opening day for the most important court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court. While there might not be a marching band present to usher in the first day of the new term on Monday, there will surely be some fireworks this Supreme Court season.

This year we barely had time to miss the Supreme Court.

This year we barely had time to miss the Supreme Court. Typically, justices sign our yearbooks in June with a perfunctory “HAGS!” (Have a Great Summer!) and disappear for months as they give well-paid speeches in far-off places. This year, they stuck around, busying themselves with many so-called shadow docketdecisions. They allowed Texas’ restrictive abortion law to go into effect and gave a big thumbs down to President Joe Biden’s attempt to extend the federal eviction moratorium and to his effort to end former President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy.

Now they return to their regularly scheduled programming. They’ve already set oral arguments in a number of key cases that could reshape our legal and political landscape and exacerbate society’s existing fault lines.

On Dec. 1, the court will hear arguments about the constitutionality of Mississippi’s law, which bans almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The law is at odds with current Supreme Court precedent, set almost 30 years ago in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the court upheld the “essential holding” of its landmark decision in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. The Casey court held that once a fetus is viable, states can ban abortions, but pre-viability, states can only implement restrictions that do not present an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.

Because fetal viability typically begins at about 24 weeks of pregnancy, there seems to be no way to honestly square Mississippi’s law banning abortions at 15 weeks of pregnancy, with the Casey standard. Twenty-four weeks is more than 15 weeks, and a ban is more than an undue burden. By agreeing to review Mississippi’s abortion law, at least four members of the court have almost certainly signaled that they’re comfortable overturning Roe and Casey. That number is likely closer to six, the same number that voted to allow Texas’ abortion law to remain in effect.

On Nov. 3, the court will hear arguments in the second most controversial and consequential question facing justices this term: whether the state of New York can mandate that people who want to obtain a license to carry a concealed gun show good reason, such as self-defense.

The Supreme Court, much to the chagrin of some of its more conservative justices, has largely shied away from taking big Second Amendment cases since it struck down a District of Columbia law in 2008 that banned the carrying of unregistered handguns and barred the registration of handguns, but allowed the chief of police to issue one-year licenses for handguns. The D.C. law also required that people who legally own registered firearms keep them in a nonfunctional state (for instance by binding them with trigger locks) in the home. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a majority of the court, famously concluded that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to a right given only to the militia, and that this right includes the ability to own a functional gun in one’s home for self-defense.

The court’s decision in the gun case it will hear Nov. 3 will tell us how much power states have to restrict a person’s ability to carry a gun outside of the home. In addition to New York, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island also place restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons outside the home. All of those laws could be on the chopping block.

The court will be addressing much more than abortion and gun control this term.

On Wednesday, the court will consider whether the government can prevent a prisoner at Guantánamo Bay from obtaining information in a suit against CIA contractors who tortured him. The legal issue in the case is whether the government can use the “state secrets” privilege to prevent the release of national security information. The court’s decision could affect other pending cases, such as the separate case of five men being charged in the U.S. Military Tribunal at Guantánamo Bay for aiding the men who perpetrated the Sept. 11 attacks.

The court will be addressing much more than abortion and gun control this term.

A week later, on Oct. 13, the court will hear arguments in a case concerning Dzhozhar Tsarnaez, who, along with his brother, is one of the two Boston Marathon bombers. Tsarnaez’s death sentence was thrown out by an appeals court because the trial court failed to ask potential jurors about the media coverage they had consumed about the case and excluded evidence from the sentencing phase about his brother’s involvement in a separate murder case. The Supreme Court will determine if the death sentence should be reinstated.

November will be First Amendment month at the Supreme Court as justices hear one case addressing the freedom of religion and two dealing with the scope of the free speech clause. On the first of that month, the court will hear the case of death row inmate John Ramirez, who claims, in part, that he has a constitutionally protected right to have his Baptist pastor put his hands on him and pray out loud while he is put to death. Texas has thus far denied those requests. The previous cases to reach the court in this area address whether a death row inmate can have a spiritual advisor present in the execution chamber, not what actions that advisor can take once inside.

On Thursday the court agreed to hear a challenge filed by a Christian group, Camp Constitution, against the city of Boston. Camp Constitution wanted to use a City Hall flag pole to raise its flag, which bears a Latin cross. “What about the separation of church and state?” you ask. Well, Camp Constitution complains that Boston allows tons of other groups to use its flag poles, such as those celebrating gay pride and Juneteenth. Both lower courts to review the case ruled in favor of the city.

In a case regarding the free speech clause of the First Amendment, on Nov. 2, the court will consider the Houston Community College System’s Board of Trustees public censure of one of its members for things he said about the other board members. That member claimed the censure violated his First Amendment rights, a claim the federal district court dismissed, finding that the censure was no more than a “statement” of the board’s dissatisfaction. The court of appeals disagreed. The case asks more broadly whether a local elected body has the power to censure one of its members as a result of that member’s speech.

And there is another yet-to-be-scheduled case dealing with the free speech clause, this one addressing the ever-expanding problem of money and politics. When Texas Sen. Ted Cruz loaned money to his re-election campaign in 2018, he admits he did so to challenge a federal law that caps at $250,000 the amount of money candidates can raise post-election to repay their personal loans to the campaign. Cruz loaned his campaign $260,000 the day before the election and wants to be able to raise money after the election to pay back his full $260,000 loan. He says the law violates the First Amendment by burdening political speech without a sufficient reason. The government says the law is necessary to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption that could occur when candidates fundraise after the election to help retire their personal debts to the campaign.

This is the Supreme Court’s first full term with its new six-to-three conservative majority.

This is the Supreme Court’s first full term with its new list of players and a solid six-to-three conservative majority. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in a few weeks after last year’s term began.

More from MSNBC Daily

Must reads from Today's list

Only fools make predictions, so here we go. Ten months from now, when the court’s term ends, Roe and Casey will no longer be the law of the land. They will either be expressly or implicitly eviscerated. States will no longer possess the authority to restrict people’s ability to carry concealed weapons outside the home, or that authority will be severely narrowed. Cruz, and his colleagues, will be able to raise as much money as they want after an election to repay their personal loans to their campaigns.

There are other consequential cases that the court will consider that could change our understanding of the contours of the First Amendment and the state secrets privilege. But if the only two cases the court heard all term were the abortion and gun control cases, we can already predict that thanks to at least five people in a country of almost 330 million, our world is about to look a lot different.“

Opinion | Jan. 6 Was Worse Than We Knew - The New York Times

Jan. 6 Was Worse Than We Knew

Mark Peterson for The New York Times

"By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

However horrifying the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol appeared in the moment, we know now that it was far worse.

The country was hours away from a full-blown constitutional crisis — not primarily because of the violence and mayhem inflicted by hundreds of President Donald Trump’s supporters but because of the actions of Mr. Trump himself.

In the days before the mob descended on the Capitol, a corollary attack — this one bloodless and legalistic — was playing out down the street in the White House, where Mr. Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and a lawyer named John Eastman huddled in the Oval Office, scheming to subvert the will of the American people by using legal sleight-of-hand.

Mr. Eastman’s unusual visit was reported at the time, but a new book by the Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa provides the details of his proposed six-point plan. It involved Mr. Pence rejecting dozens of already certified electoral votes representing tens of millions of legally cast ballots, thus allowing Congress to install Mr. Trump in a second term.

Mr. Pence ultimately refused to sign on, earning him the rage of Mr. Trump and chants of “Hang Mike Pence!” by the rioters, who erected a makeshift gallows on the National Mall.

The fact that the scheme to overturn the election was highly unlikely to succeed is cold comfort. Mr. Trump remains the most popular Republican in the country; barring a serious health issue, the odds are good that he will be the party’s nominee for president in 2024. He also remains as incapable of accepting defeat as he has ever been, which means the country faces a renewed risk of electoral subversion by Mr. Trump and his supporters — only next time they will have learned from their mistakes.

That leaves all Americans who care about preserving this Republic with a clear task: Reform the federal election law at the heart of Mr. Eastman’s twisted ploy, and make it as hard as possible for anyone to pull a stunt like that again.

The Electoral Count Act, which passed more than 130 years ago, was Congress’s response to another dramatic presidential dispute — the election of 1876, in which the Republican Rutherford Hayes won the White House despite losing the popular vote to his Democratic opponent, Samuel Tilden.

After Election Day, Tilden led in the popular vote and in the Electoral College. But the vote in three Southern states — South Carolina, Florida and Louisiana — was marred by accusations of fraud and intimidation by both parties. Various officials in each state certified competing slates of electors, one for Hayes and one for Tilden. The Constitution said nothing about what to do in such a situation, so Congress established a 15-member commission to decide which electors to accept as valid.

The commission consisted of 10 members of Congress, evenly divided between the parties, and five Supreme Court justices, two appointed by Democrats and three by Republicans. Hayes, the Republican candidate, won all the disputed electors (including one from Oregon) by an 8-to-7 vote — giving him victory in the Electoral College by a single vote.

Democrats were furious and began to filibuster the counting process, but they eventually accepted Hayes’s presidency in exchange for the withdrawal of the last remaining federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction and beginning the era of Jim Crow, which would last until the middle of the 20th century.

It was obvious that Congress needed clearer guidelines for deciding disputed electoral votes. In 1887, the Electoral Count Act became law, setting out procedures for the counting and certifying of electoral votes in the states and in Congress.

But the law contains numerous ambiguities and poorly drafted provisions. For instance, it permits a state legislature to appoint electors on its own, regardless of how the state’s own citizens voted, if the state “failed to make a choice” on Election Day. What does that mean? The law doesn’t say. It also allows any objection to a state’s electoral votes to be filed as long as one senator and one member of the House put their names to it, triggering hours of debate — which is how senators like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley were able to gum up the workson Jan. 6.

A small minority of legal scholars have argued that key parts of the Electoral Count Act are unconstitutional, which was the basis of Mr. Eastman’s claim that Mr. Pence could simply disregard the law and summarily reject electors of certain key battleground states.

Nothing in the Constitution or federal law gives the vice president this authority. The job of the vice president is to open the envelopes and read out the results, nothing more. Any reform to the Electoral Count Act should start there, by making it explicit that the vice president’s role on Jan. 6 is purely ministerial and doesn’t include the power to rule on disputes over electors.

The law should also be amended to allow states more time to arrive at a final count, so that any legal disputes can be resolved before the electors cast their ballots.

The “failed” election provision should be restricted to natural disasters or terrorist attacks — and even then, it should be available only if there is no realistic way of conducting the election. Remember that the 2012 election was held just days after Hurricane Sandy lashed the East Coast, and yet all states were able to conduct their elections in full. (This is another good argument for universal mail-in voting, which doesn’t put voters at the mercy of the weather.) The key point is that a close election, even a disputed one, is not a failed election.

Finally, any objection to a state’s electoral votes should have to clear a high bar. Rather than just one member of each chamber of Congress, it should require the assent of one-quarter or more of each body. The grounds for an objection should be strictly limited to cases involving clear evidence of fraud or widespread voting irregularities.

The threats to a free and fair presidential election don’t come from Congress alone. Since Jan. 6, Republican-led state legislatures have been clambering over one another to pass new laws making it easier to reject their own voters’ will, and removing or neutralizing those officials who could stand in the way of a naked power grab — like Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, did when he resisted Mr. Trump’s personal plea to “find” just enough extra votes to flip the outcome there.

How to ensure that frivolous objections are rejected while legitimate ones get a hearing? One approach would be to establish a panel of federal judges in each state to hear any challenges to the validity or accuracy of that state’s election results. If the judges determine that the results are invalid, they would lay out their findings in writing and prevent the state from certifying its results.

There is plenty more to be done to protect American elections from being stolen through subversion, like mandating the use of paper ballots that can be checked against reported results. Ideally, fixes like these would be adopted promptly by bipartisan majorities in Congress, to convey to all Americans that both parties are committed to a fair, transparent and smooth vote-counting process. But for that to happen, the Republican Party would need to do an about-face. Right now, some Republican leaders in Congress and the states have shown less interest in preventing election sabotage than in protecting and, in some cases, even venerating the saboteurs.

Democrats should push through these reforms now, and eliminate the filibuster if that’s the only way to do so. If they hesitate, they should recall that a majority of the Republican caucus in the House — 139 members — along with eight senators, continued to object to the certification of electoral votes even after the mob stormed the Capitol.

Time and distance from those events could have led to reflection and contrition on the part of those involved, but that’s not so. Remember how, in the frantic days before Jan. 6, Mr. Trump insisted over and over that Georgia’s election was rife with “large-scale voter fraud”? Remember how he called on Mr. Raffensperger to “start the process of decertifying the election” and “announce the true winner”? Only those words aren’t from last year. They appear in a letter Mr. Trump sent to Mr. Raffensperger two weeks ago.

Mr. Trump may never stop trying to undermine American democracy. Those who value that democracy should never stop using every measure at their disposal to protect it."

Opinion | Jan. 6 Was Worse Than We Knew - The New York Times