‘The degree to which government agencies effectively had full access to everything that was going on on Twitter blew my mind,’ Musk said.
- Twitter owner and CEO Elon Musk has claimed in a new interview how the U.S. government had complete access to users private messages on Twitter
- Musk stated how he was surprised when he learned of the revelation
- Musk then goes one step further and admits how government agencies had full access to everything that was happening on Twitter
Twitter CEO Elon Musk has claimed the U.S. government had access to users private messages on Twitter.
In a wide-ranging interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, set to be broadcast on Monday and Tuesday night, Musk made the startling claims noting how he was shocked to learn that the government had full access to private communications on the platform.
The billionaire tycoon told Carlson how unaware of the fact until he joined the company and expressed surprise at the degree to which government agencies were able to monitor social media.
‘The degree to which government agencies effectively had full access to everything that was going on on Twitter blew my mind,’ Musk said. ‘I was not aware of that.’
‘Would that include people’s DMs?’ Carlson probed.
‘Yes,’ Musk replied.
The extensive interview with Carlson is set to air over the next two nights.
Musk’s admission that agencies had full access to everything happening on Twitter, including direct messages, is likely to raise concerns among users who may have assumed that their private conversations were entirely private and secure.
While it is unclear how long the government had such access, Musk’s comments suggest the situation is far more widespread than many may have considered.
In addition to discussing government surveillance of social media, Musk also expressed concerns about the dangers of artificial intelligence.
In an alarmist view, Musk stated that he believes AI has the potential to cause the downfall of civilization.
‘AI is more dangerous than, say, mismanaged aircraft design or production maintenance, or bad car production in the sense that it has the potential — however small one may regard that probability, but it is non-trivial — it has the potential for civilizational destruction,’ Musk said.
| Law & the Courts – from 2017
Supreme Court justices continue to rack up trips on private interest dime
Supreme Court justices continue to take trips across the globe on the dime of private individuals and other entities, raising questions about whether those sponsoring the trips could have influence over those serving on the high court.
The Supreme Court’s nine justices disclosed taking a combined 64 trips in 2018 in which various aspects such as transportation, food and lodging were reimbursed by others, according to annual financial disclosures released Thursday by the Office of Government Ethics.
Since 2004, when OpenSecrets first began tracking Supreme Court financial disclosure data, justices have disclosed taking 1,306 trips reimbursed by others.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disclosed taking more trips than any other justice in 2018, totaling 14. She visited Tel Aviv, Israel where she was awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Genesis Prize Foundation. Shortly following the award ceremony, she disclosed being provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn.
Kahn has had business before the Supreme Court before. The high court handed Kahn’s company Amdocs Limited a win in November 2017 when it declined to take up a patent-related case.
The financial disclosures, which also reveal investments and other sources of income, offer vague information about reimbursements and gifts given to justices. They don’t include any estimated monetary value of the services provided, making it difficult to ascertain how much influence third parties could be garnering.
“Once again, the justices took dozens of trips across the country and around the world last year in which a third party paid for their dining, airfare and accommodations, with the public left in the dark about how lavish these trips may have been,” Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, an organization that aims to bring increased transparency to the Supreme Court, said in a statement on the disclosures.
Justice Stephen Breyer disclosed a dozen trips, three of which were supported by the wealthy Chicago-based Pritzker family. Breyer took two trips related to his position on the Pritzker Prize for Architecture jury, which honors architects each year. Breyer has served on the Pritzker jury since 2011 and became chair in 2018. He also disclosed taking a one-week trip to Ireland and Spain as part of the “Pritzker Fly-Around Program,” which paid for his transportation, lodging and meals. Breyer has taken 219 reimbursed trips since 2004, more than any other sitting justice.
Justice Samuel Alito disclosed six trips, including trips to Rome, Italy and Zurich, Switzerland for university conferences. Disclosing 13 trips, Justice Sonia Sotomayor traveled to a number of universities for award ceremonies and conferences. Among her seven disclosed trips, Justice Elena Kagan gave a number of speeches at universities.
New Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh each disclosed four trips. Gorsuch took a trip to Padua, Italy as part of a George Mason University educational program. He was the only justice to report a gift — a watercolor painting by Appeals Court Judge Terrence O’Brien valued at $1,000. Three of Kavanaugh’s trips were related to Federalist Society events.
Clarence Thomas took two paid-for trips, including one to the Texas chapter of the Federalist Society in Fort Worth, Texas. Chief Justice John Roberts also took two trips, during one of which he gave a lecture at the University of Minnesota Law School.
Check out OpenSecrets’ list of Supreme Court justice trips, dating back to 2004.
WATCH: ‘Constitutional Scholar’ Rep. Katie Porter Says Congress Should “Police The Supreme Court”
As the left continues its relentless quest for power, Democrat Congresswoman Katie Porter has revealed her latest plan to control the conservative Supreme Court. During an appearance on “The View,” Porter suggested that Congress has the power to police the Supreme Court – and “should” do so.
“Congress absolutely can and should police the Supreme Court,” Porter said on the show.
“Residual power for our government is in Congress, not in the executive branch, not with the President, and not with the Supreme Court. And that’s because we’re the closest to the people. People elect and un-elect us every two years.”
Clearly, Porter’s grasp of the Constitution is as shaky as her commitment to reality. While it is true that members of Congress are elected every two years, the Supreme Court is designed to be insulated from political pressures and represent the rule of law.
Porter continued to spout her dangerous ideas, saying “Congress can pass the Judicial Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court. And when we do, by the way, we need to learn from our own mistakes with our congressional codes of ethics, in which we have seen this exact same play, which is ‘oops, I’ll tell you about it later,’ and people get off the hook for it.”
Not content with just trying to regulate the Supreme Court, Porter then went on to claim that her radical agenda is somehow virtuous.
“What it does is it erodes trust in government,” she said. “It makes people think that Congress is corrupt, the court is corrupt, that they can’t trust their federal officials.”
Porter’s suggestion that Congress can pass a Judicial Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court is in fact already in practice. The Judicial Conference of the United States has already established ethical guidelines that apply to all federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices.
Last week, court documents from Porter’s divorce resurfaced, bringing back to light a number of wild allegations levied against her by her now-estranged ex-husband.
Read more on Porter here.
Court Filing: Kamala Harris, Merrick Garland Violate US Code, Have No Oath of Office on File
Kamala Harris, Merrick Garland, and other leading Democrats are in violation of US Code and have no sworn oath to the US Constitution on file as required by law, a new court filing reveals.
A new court filing reveals that Kamala Harris, Merrick Garland, and other leading Democrats in the Biden Administration, including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandra Mayorkis, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, have no oath of loyalty to the US Constitution on file, as required by law.
A writ of quo warranto filed in Washington, DC asserts that oaths of office for high-ranking members of Joe Biden’s cabinet are nowhere to be found, in blatant violation of the US Code that requires all elected officials to keep a sworn affidavit of their oath on file, proving their sworn continued allegiance to the United States and the US Constitution.
Filed by attorneys on behalf of petitioner Lisa McGee, the court motion is asking the US Attorney in the District of Columbia to require that a laundry list of elected and appointed Biden Administration officials produce their oath affidavits within 10 days, to prove that they’ve actually met the constitutional and legal requirements to hold office.
McGee had previously sought access to the oaths of office in question through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, but received nothing back, calling the lawfulness of the entire Biden Administration into question.
A press release from Ferguson Law, one of the firms acting on behalf of McGee, explains the gravity of the situation and reaffirms the sentiments of the legal filing.
The apparent non-existence of oath affidavits for high-ranking Biden officials “nullifies, or at a minimum, calls into question the legitimacy of their appointments or positions,” the statement reads.
“The absence of these mandatory oath of office affidavits shifts the burden to the appointees to prove to Ms. McGee and the US Attorney their bona fides. The production of these statutorily required affidavits is also required by law.”
“Missing Oaths of Office will render a majority of the Biden Administration Cabinet unlawful and their official acts from the date of appointment void,” the statement goes on to explain. “Failure to produce the affidavit(s) to the US Attorney will provide the necessary jurisdiction to the Federal District Court of Washington D.C. to issue said Writ Quo Warranto.”