Internet Security

You should install antivirus on your Android smartphone, but which one?

If your Android device isn’t getting updates, then the very least you can do is download and install a security app. But which one should you install?

If your Android device isn’t getting updates, then the very least you can do is download and install a security app. But which one should you install?
Read More

Be the first to write a comment.

Leave a Reply

Internet Security

The Unholy Alliance That Fuels American Nativism

In early December, conservative commentators tried to drum up social media controversy over a sweatshirt. The shirt, merchandise for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional campaign, read simply “Tax the rich” and was branded with the initials “AOC.” It sold for $58. “Only the rich can afford this idiotic sweatshirt,” tweeted Ben Shapiro, evidently unaware that adult-size sweatshirts…

In early December, conservative commentators tried to drum up social media controversy over a sweatshirt. The shirt, merchandise for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional campaign, read simply “Tax the rich” and was branded with the initials “AOC.” It sold for $58. “Only the rich can afford this idiotic sweatshirt,” tweeted Ben Shapiro, evidently unaware that adult-size sweatshirts at midmarket retailers routinely sell in this price range. Ocasio-Cortez had a swift rejoinder: Unlike the cheap imports sold by Donald Trump, for example, her merchandise was produced wholly in the United States, by unionized workers.This little tempest is a story about the border, although you might not think so at first glance. “The border,” in our cultural imagination, is a line on a map; chain link and steel bars; the landscapes of South Texas and the Sonoran Desert. This has remained true even as the actual physical geography of America’s borderlands has grown more capacious. The Supreme Court has continually upheld a so-called “Border Search Exclusion,” which extends within 100 miles of America’s land and sea borders, a swathe of territory that encompasses many of the country’s major cities and nearly two-thirds of its total population. Similar exceptions exist at other ports of entry. Do you live near an international airport? Sorry, Denver, you’re a border town. In recent years, restrictions on cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have been loosened or simply ignored, and this, too, has had the effect of extending the borderlands further into America’s interior, wherever there are migrant agricultural workers, meatpacking plants, or enterprising county sheriffs trying to appear tough on the crime of “illegal immigration.”In Blood Red Lines: How Nativism Fuels the Right, the journalist Brendan O’Connor attempts to craft a comprehensive model of the contemporary border. In this model, the walls and fences, cameras and drones, border patrols, and detention centers are only partial attributes of a broader set of interlocking laws, policies, and attitudes. The border is the legal and practical divide between citizen and noncitizen, between those to whom the state grants economic, social, and environmental rights and those for whom those rights and protections are denied. This system in turn establishes a brutal human hierarchy, in which the systems of global capitalism are free to extract labor and value from a growing class of near-stateless people who live and work without the benefit of legal or human rights. Blood Red Lines is the story of how capitalism makes common cause with the racist, reactionary forces of the nativist far right to achieve those ends.O’Connor began reporting on the far right in early 2016, when the Bundy family mounted an armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. His work since then led him from the don’t-tread-on-me inhabitants of the rural American West to the dark corners of the self-styled alt-right to the faux-academic spaces of billionaire-funded think tanks. He grew fascinated by the superficial contradiction between the forces of nativist militancy, with their apocalyptic warnings of population replacement and “white genocide,” and the interests of business and finance, whose profits depend on a ready source of cheap, exploitable immigrant labor. How do these tendencies coexist within the broad conservative movement? Who benefits from whom?In Blood Red Lines, O’Connor rides along with No More Death, an immigrant aid group in the valley of the Rio Grande that leaves food and supplies on migrant routes through America’s deadly southwestern deserts. He observes the casual violence inflicted on migrants crossing the border. (Both official U.S. border forces and a variety of self-styled vigilante militias make a practice of destroying food and water left for migrants at desert crossings.) No one has kept count of the number of human beings who have perished by drowning in crossing the Rio Grande or dying of thirst, heat, and starvation in the desert, but the numbers are in the thousands, perhaps the tens of thousands.He follows a variety of far-right figures, from street-brawlers like Matthew Heimbach, an American neo-Nazi whom O’Connor first met at the 2016 Republican National Convention, to more buttoned-up examples of the movement’s intellectual vanguard. He charts the shifting alliances of the far right and “alt-right,” with groups like the Proud Boys, the Traditionalist Worker Party (Heimbach’s own now-defunct organization), “Identity Evropa,” and the Patriot Front. These groups split and reform along impenetrable factional lines, and O’Connor’s coolly diagnostic treatment of their fault lines—should Jews be allowed to participate in the new social order or not, for example?—is chilling, even as the threat that these groups pose is frequently tempered by flashes of the absurd. (“Relatively cohesive factions of fascist groups are frequently undermined by the actions of beefy Trump loyalists showing up in hockey pads and Greek warrior helms,” he writes, in a prescient vision of the chaos at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.)At an airport hotel in St. Louis, Missouri, he reports that “white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, and European neofascists came together for a three-day-long conference—the forty-seventh iteration of the Phyllis Schlafly Gateway Eagle Council.” Events like these, pastiches of academic conferences, in which papers are delivered and roundtables organized, mix figures from the far-right former Congressman Steve King to representatives of European fascist parties, such as the German “Alternative für Deutschland” and the Italian Lega Nord, along with representatives of American anti-immigration groups, such as NumbersUSA and VDare. The anti-immigration community is surprisingly international! It shares, at root, a common fear of demographic replacement, of nonwhite immigration into the U.S. and a “fortress Europe” overturning what it views, in various guises, as a unified Western or “Judeo-Christian” civilization.Nativism has always had some purchase in American politics, but it took a great amount of capital to make it respectable.What links these groups with the interests of big business and finance? O’Connor focuses on two extraordinary figures who seem to bridge the divide. The first is John Tanton, a bird-loving ophthalmologist whose conservationism led him first to an interest in the idea of human overpopulation, an intellectual fad that gained some popularity in the 1960s and 1970s. Soon thereafter, inspired in part by books like the French novel The Camp of Saints, which imagines a dystopian end of civilization sparked by mass migration from the “Third World,” Tanton became an advocate for harsh and absolute restrictions on immigration, basing his arguments on a racist pseudo-environmentalism that blamed immigrants for the destruction of natural spaces and, increasingly, on an abiding personal belief in eugenics.Tanton was an indefatigable letter-writer and founder of organizations, a classic American crackpot if there ever was one, and so he might have remained, a minor figure and footnote in the glorious tradition of American political crackpots, but for O’Connor’s second central figure, the heiress Cordelia Scaife May, a Pittsburgh-based philanthropist who was an heir to the Mellon family’s immense banking and industrial fortune. Scaife May was one of the richest women in America, worth as much as $825 million. Like Tanton, she was an avid bird-watcher and environmentalist, and like him, she was rabidly anti-immigration. Through a decades-long friendship and correspondence, alternately flattering and obsequious, Tanton became her adviser and her muse, working with her to found numerous anti-immigrant organizations and think tanks and, in so doing, to create a vast and, more importantly, respectable national architecture for anti-immigrant activism.These organizations had nonthreatening names like the “Federation for American Immigration Reform” and the “Center for Immigration Studies.” They could be quoted in news stories and cited by lobbyists and politicians. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, they laid the intellectual groundwork for an increasingly carceral and militarized American immigration policy and border apparatus, a project embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike. The Southern Poverty Law Center now classifies many of these organizations as white nationalist hate groups, but it is no exaggeration to say that they have been some of the most effective political advocacy organizations of the last half-century. Nativism has always had some purchase in American politics, but it took a great amount of capital to make it respectable.Reading Blood Red Lines, I found myself frequently swept along by the scope of its argument while sometimes frustrated by the narrowness of its focus on these two characters. This is not a criticism of the reporting. It is hard to imagine a more searing indictment of the political economy of the American Republic than the fact that Scaife May—the unemployed, reclusive inheritor of an exploitative, century-old banking fortune—could have so singular an influence on American public policy. But she is also a highly idiosyncratic example of American capitalism, and her centrality to O’Connor’s narrative may come at the expense of the broader point he is trying to make about the intersection of capitalism and nationalism.Blood Red Lines would have benefited from a commensurate interest in the actual businesses that O’Connor identifies correctly as the primary beneficiaries of America’s “semi-permeable” border: big agriculture, building and construction, meatpacking, service and hospitality, as well as the various state and pseudo-state security forces that both pour and reap tens of billions of dollars from border enforcement every year. These businesses and agencies always hover around the edges of his narrative, but they never quite cohere as major players in the construction and maintenance of border policy. They appear more as its unintended beneficiaries. When Trump bragged about building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, he made sure to include the caveat, “We’re going to have a big, fat, beautiful door on the wall.” It is one thing to police, surveil, detain, and brutalize immigrants who seek the political and economic opportunities of America for themselves, quite another to impede the flow of necessary cheap labor, goods, and capital. Trump reassured agribusiness that regardless of new restrictions of immigrant work visas, he would not obstruct the flow of seasonal workers. He would not shut down meatpacking plants or raid construction sites, although security forces would occasionally engage in a terrorizing deportation action to keep worker communities cowed and compliant. Meanwhile, the business of controlling immigration thrived. Private prison companies and a skein of opportunistic social service nonprofits flocked to contracts for new border detention facilities. Military contractors supplied U.S. Customs and Border Protection and ICE with the latest in tactical equipment. Private “intelligence” firms like Peter Thiel’s Palantir were awarded lucrative contracts.In O’Connor’s view, the alliance between business and the far right has produced a system of “tiered citizenship,” in which the neat binary of citizen or noncitizen gives way to a kind of caste system with a sliding scale of rights and privileges. The vagaries of U.S. visa and immigration policy have long established precisely such a hierarchy for immigrants living and working in the U.S. Under the Trump administration, however, we have seen further attacks on our most basic assumptions about who is and is not a “full” citizen of the U.S., with high-profile attempts to revoke the citizenship of naturalized Americans and attacks on the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of birthright citizenship. Other recent developments that on their surface seem to have little to do with immigration and citizenship per se actually gesture in the same direction. California’s Prop 22, for example, creates a new class of legal nonemployees, “gig workers” whose labor can be extracted without any of the benefits and privileges that regular employees enjoy. Taken together, these constitute a sustained attack on individuals’ basic rights to live, work, and reap the benefits of their own labor in the U.S.There is no crisis at the border; the crisis is the border. Take no comfort if you temporarily find yourself on the right side.O’Connor calls this system, in which the interconnected forces of the state and capitalism maintain a permanent, laboring underclass through brutality, violence, and legal exclusion, “border fascism.” It’s a compelling but imperfect term. It is true that one of the principal historical features of fascist politics and fascist regimes is an alliance between business interests and nativist politics, and it is also true that fascism has always sought some version of the “tiered citizenship” that O’Connor identifies as a central goal of the American right. But because these features are so central to historical examples of fascism, I found that I questioned whether the use of “border fascism” as a novel term reveals much, or if, in raising the specter of the violent twentieth century, it obscures the formation of something genuinely new.O’Connor has restrained himself from writing a pure polemic and has tried to let his facts and reporting speak for themselves. He is nevertheless also furious, and he invites you to be furious, too. He succeeds. Human rights and dignity should not be conditional on a person’s place of birth, nor negotiable based on the whims of a government captured by the most corrosive elements of society, whether those are white nationalist agitators or factory farms in need of contingent and precarious labor. Blood Red Lines makes an important contribution to the political debate over immigration by refusing to debate on the terms of those who would see immigration—and citizenship—savagely curtailed.In an era when recurrent crises of capitalism combined with the accelerating effects of climate change drive millions—perhaps hundreds of millions—to leave their homes in the greatest mass migrations in human history, the questions of how to welcome and accommodate new immigrant populations may be the central political issue of the next century—or two. This is a call to continuous action on the left. As O’Connor insists: There is no crisis at the border; the crisis is the border. Take no comfort if you temporarily find yourself on the right side.
Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

Dominion Voting Systems’ Legal Rampage Against Trump’s Grifters

Every year, my colleagues and I get to go through “libel training.” Every year, I also make the insufferable joke to my co-workers that we’re going to be trained to commit libel. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that exciting. A lawyer who’s worked with The New Republic for many years presents a PowerPoint on the basics…

Every year, my colleagues and I get to go through “libel training.” Every year, I also make the insufferable joke to my co-workers that we’re going to be trained to commit libel. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that exciting. A lawyer who’s worked with The New Republic for many years presents a PowerPoint on the basics of American defamation law. He describes what counts as defamation and what doesn’t, what can insulate us from liability and what can increase it, and some of the gray areas where caution might be warranted.The annual lesson is a useful reminder that we have a responsibility, both legal and moral, to use our platform wisely. (I believe it’s also required by TNR’s insurance.) From a global perspective, we’re actually pretty lucky on this front. The First Amendment makes it extraordinarily difficult to bring a successful defamation lawsuit against someone in American courts. Australia and Britain, by comparison, have much lower legal thresholds for libel claims to succeed. This is one reason, among others, why the #MeToo movement spread further in American society than it did in many other countries, where survivors’ stories could be stifled with legal threats.But the U.S. threshold for defamation claims is not insurmountable. Mike Lindell, the far-right CEO of MyPillow, may soon find this out the hard way. Dominion Voting Systems filed a lawsuit against him this week for his central role in spreading what it refers to in its suit as the “Big Lie” that Donald Trump actually won the 2020 election, which among other things implicates the company as a participant in this unhinged conspiracy to thwart American democracy. “Despite having been specifically directed to the evidence and sources disproving the Big Lie, Lindell knowingly lied about Dominion to sell more pillows to people who continued tuning in to hear what they wanted to hear about the election,” Dominion said in the complaint.Dominion is suing the MyPillow CEO not just for lying about the election but for trying to monetize those lies, as well.Lindell is one of multiple right-wing figures who have recently found themselves on the other end of a defamation lawsuit in recent weeks over this “Big Lie.” But what makes Lindell’s case interesting is how it doesn’t simply rest on that wrong. Dominion is suing the MyPillow CEO not just for lying about the election but for trying to monetize those lies, as well. Along the way, the beleaguered voting-machine company provides a useful window into how the right-wing media grift really operates.Dominion’s lawsuits are clearly written to be read by a lay audience. Its 107-page complaint against Rudy Giuliani, which was filed a few weeks after the attack on the Capitol, doubles as a partial history of the postelection chaos. It weaves Giuliani’s incendiary claims about election fraud with how those claims resonated among Trump supporters—and how Giuliani sought to hawk various products along the way, including “gold coins, supplements, cigars, and protection from ‘cyberthieves.’” Taken together, the insurrection on January 6 feels almost inevitable, in hindsight, as Giuliani and others repeatedly warned their listeners that the nation was in peril and that American democracy had been stolen.Giuliani did not disavow his past claims after January 6, but he at least had the good sense to be less conspicuous about them. Mike Lindell took a different approach. Dominion’s 121-page complaint against him documents in exacting detail how Lindell’s actions unfolded. The MyPillow CEO claimed for months that Trump’s victory was stolen from him—and from his supporters—by Dominion, the Democrats, a few foreign governments, and a dizzying array of other co-conspirators. To say there is no evidence to support his claims is to suggest that he meant for them to be falsifiable. They are pure and unadulterated nonsense. Time and time again, he claimed that the evidence would bear out his extraordinary claims. That evidence invariably turned out to be false or nonsensical. Every election official and court of law in the country that scrutinized the “Big Lie” found it to be wrong.Dominion devotes ample space in its complaint to documenting how Lindell’s claims were not just wrong, but recklessly and intentionally wrong in their view. The company had no choice if it wanted to meet the legal threshold for defamation. What’s even more interesting is how Dominion wove in the economic forces at play. Lindell, in its telling, is not just some random guy with an unusually large platform. He’s a key advertising sponsor on the networks that aired his sensational claims, creating a conflict of interest for the media outlets that hosted him—and a profit opportunity for himself.To that end, Dominion also charged him with engaging in deceptive trade practices. Lindell, Dominion argued in its complaint, “willfully made them in the course of his business as the CEO of MyPillow because he and his company could derive—and did in fact derive—financial benefits from making those false statements, namely, sales of MyPillow products that occurred because Lindell was exploiting and disseminating defamatory falsehoods about Dominion.” No such claim was raised against Giuliani in the company’s complaint against him.Lindell, who is better known as “the MyPillow guy,” became an early ally of Donald Trump and used that connection to leverage his brand even further. He advertised prolifically on Fox and other right-wing networks, even as other sponsors abandoned them. Lindell’s ubiquity made it even more remarkable when he openly clashed with Newsmax hosts over his election-fraud lies. Dominion’s complaint recounts the showdown:Five days later, Newsmax gave Lindell an interview to discuss the fact that Twitter had banned Lindell’s account for spreading election disinformation and then had banned MyPillow’s corporate account because Lindell had used it to circumvent the ban on his personal account. Newsmax knew that the discussion of those bans was an invitation to have Lindell repeat the Big Lie that had gotten Lindell banned from Twitter in the first place. For weeks prior to that, Newsmax had broadcast defamatory falsehoods about Dominion. And Newsmax was fully aware at this point that the Big Lie was in fact a lie, as evidenced by Newsmax’s own prior “clarifying” segment on the topic. Newsmax had broadcast that segment because it was worried about being sued for defamation—not because it cared about the truth. If Newsmax cared about the truth, it would not have broadcast the Big Lie again after issuing the “clarifying” segment. But, unwilling to lose MyPillow ad dollars and seeking to protect its credibility with people it had already misled into believing the election was stolen, Newsmax bowed to the pressure and gave its financial backer a global platform to repeat the Big Lie that Newsmax knew was false—and to market MyPillow. Foreseeably, Lindell—introduced with the chyron “CEO, MyPillow”—said “we have all this election fraud with these Dominion machines. We have 100% proof.” Newsmax anchor Bob Sellers interjected by reading a legal disclaimer that was clearly drafted beforehand by Newsmax lawyers in a calculated attempt to shirk responsibility for what Newsmax knew Lindell would say on air. Lindell shouted over Sellers, saying that Twitter had banned him “because I’m reviewing all the evidence on Friday of the election fraud with all these machines.” Despite Sellers’s on-air plea to Newsmax to “get out of here,” Newsmax did not cut Lindell’s mic, and Sellers walked off set.The Newsmax-Lindell blowup went semi-viral on social media and received some news coverage. What received less attention, however, was a follow-up appearance made on the network later that evening by Lindell to, according to Dominion, “smooth things over, market MyPillow, and lend further credibility to Lindell and the Big Lie about Dominion.”Rob Schmitt acknowledged the earlier interview and told Lindell, “obviously you were on the network earlier in the day and we made some waves there. We’ll leave it at that. But you and Newsmax have always had a good relationship.” Newsmax again promoted the Big Lie by giving Lindell a platform to say, in reference to the earlier interview where he had said he had “100% proof” of “fraud with the Dominion machines,” that he would have “something coming out on Friday that is going to really help, a documentary I have put together.” When asked how the Twitter ban had impacted MyPillow’s business, Lindell said “Everyone is buying, and we are so busy, we are so busy, we are hiring. We have over 102 products, it is not just pillows anymore. Customers have always stepped up right now. It’s amazing. Just like Newsmax did.” Schmitt responded, “No kidding, my parents have one of your pillows in fact.” Lindell then pitched MyPillow and told viewers they could still use “the promo code ‘Newsmax’ on MyPillow.com to save up to 66%.”When Lindell later bought large chunks of airtime on One America News Network, or OAN, the network tried to distance itself from what would undoubtedly be false claims by running a legal disclaimer before his broadcasts. But Dominion argued that this maneuver was disingenuous, at best. “In stark contrast to OAN’s barely legible fine-print disclaimer that the film contained ‘opinions’ ‘not intended to be taken or interpreted by the viewer as established facts,’ on its official Twitter feed, OAN explicitly endorsed and promoted the film as a ‘report breaking down election fraud evidence & showing how the unprecedented level of voter fraud was committed in the 2020 Presidential Election,’” Dominion noted in its complaint.For Dominion itself, the impact of these lies is immense. “Because of death threats and other threatening messages prompted by the lies told by Lindell and his allies, Dominion has made significant expenditures to protect its people from harm—including by employing on-site police and security,” the company told the court. “Since the beginning of the viral disinformation campaign, Dominion has spent more than $565,000 on private security for the protection of its people.” The company itself has also suffered business damages from the reputational harm it suffered over the past few months. Dominion told the court that it projected a loss of $200 million in potential profits over the next five years and that its resale value, which once ranged between $450 million and $500 million, had been effectively “destroyed.”What other remedy, beyond these kinds of lawsuits, is available to companies like Dominion?What other remedy, beyond these kinds of lawsuits, is available to companies like Dominion? The First Amendment means that Congress can’t simply pass a law banning right-wing outlets from lying to their audiences. (This would also be a mistake for other reasons, even if the First Amendment did allow it.) Activist groups have tried to fight speech with speech by targeting Fox News with boycotts for more than a decade. Their efforts may have had some impact on individual hosts and shows, but they failed to tilt the network as a whole toward more responsible coverage. Fox’s corporate owners announced a 31 percent jump in advertising in the most recent quarterly report, increasing both revenue and profits even as it lost ratings share to right-flank rivals like OAN and Newsmax after the election.Litigation, however, is a uniquely potent threat to right-wing purveyors of falsehoods. It imposes an outer bound of conduct where basic ethics, civic values, and common sense will not. Lou Dobbs, who spent months disputing the election results without evidence, lost his Fox Business Network show one day after Smartmatic, another voting-machine company, filed a lawsuit against him and his network. Other right-wing outlets have scrambled to retract or rewrite articles that fed into the “Big Lie” before January 6. Some conservative networks have even run special segments disavowing their previous coverage under the threat of legal action.Lindell, for his part, has welcomed the possibility of a lawsuit. “I dare Dominion to sue me, because then it will get out faster,” he recently told Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, referring to the purported evidence of wrongdoing he has thus far failed to deliver. This does not seem like a wise legal strategy, but it’s also not uncommon among his fellow “Big Lie” adherents. Reflexively doubling down is what got them to this point in the first place. Rudy Giuliani made a similarly audacious claim and then spent a week evading a process server, according to Dominion. Sidney Powell reportedly sat silently in a car as someone tried to serve her with a similar lawsuit, as if it were a Tyrannosaurus rex and she could escape Jurassic Park undevoured as long as she didn’t flinch. This is a jarring glimpse into how the right-wing media grift operates. There are individual journalists who are conservative and do good or even great work. But the idea of “conservative journalism” has proven somewhat hollow, especially over the past few years. As my colleague Alex Pareene once noted, conservative media outlets tend to trend toward misinformation and propaganda over substantive reporting for the simple reason that it’s easier and more congruous with the conservative movement’s goals. The Trump era laid bare how this dynamic worked: Virtually every great scoop of the last four years came not from Fox, OAN, or Breitbart, but from mainstream networks and newspapers. Trumpworld couldn’t stop complaining about “fake news” while leaking to the same reporters it disparaged.I am not optimistic that this barrage of lawsuits will lead to a deeper reckoning among the purveyors of right-wing slop. It’s simply too profitable to tell legions of American viewers that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sabotaged Texas’s power grid earlier this month for these outlets to stop any time soon. And there is still a vast array of lies and half-truths that right-wing figures can spread without rising to the level of legal action. The First Amendment, for all its glory, is also merciless. As an American journalist, I want that threshold to remain high. But I would be lying if I said it wasn’t somewhat satisfying to watch large swaths of the conservative media ecosystem reckon with the deadly consequences of its actions over the past few months.
Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

An Oath Keepers leader arrested for participating in the Capitol riot said she met with Secret Service and was providing ‘security’ to legislators and other key figures

Summary List PlacementA woman arrested for her alleged participation in the January 6 riot at the US Capitol said she was at the riot to provide security to legislators and other important people and had met with Secret Service agents.  In new court filings this weekend, lawyers for Jessica Watkins, a leader with the far-right,…

Summary List PlacementA woman arrested for her alleged participation in the January 6 riot at the US Capitol said she was at the riot to provide security to legislators and other important people and had met with Secret Service agents. 
In new court filings this weekend, lawyers for Jessica Watkins, a leader with the far-right, anti-government militia group Oath Keepers, argued that Watkins was not a participant in the insurrection but was instead working security to speakers at former President Donald Trump’s rally that preceded the insurrection that left five people dead, CNN first reported.  
“On January 5 and 6, Ms. Watkins was present not as an insurrectionist, but to provide security to the speakers at the rally, to provide escort for the legislators and others to march to the Capitol as directed by the then-President, and to safely escort protestors away from the Capitol to their vehicles and cars at the conclusion of the protest,” the Saturday court filing said.
“She was given a VIP pass to the rally,” it continued. “She met with Secret Service agents. She was within 50 feet of the stage during the rally to provide security for the speakers. At the time the Capitol was breached, she was still at the sight of the initial rally where she had provided security.”
In a statement to Insider, a spokesperson US Secret Service said it did not employ the assistance of any private citizens on January 6.
“To carry out its protective functions on January 6th, the U.S. Secret Service relied on the assistance of various government partners,” the statement said. “Any assertion that the Secret Service employed private citizens to perform those functions is false.”
In the filing, attorneys for Watkins, who has been jailed since mid-January, said she believed Trump would evoke the Insurrection Act and use the US Military to stop President Biden from assuming office. Her lawyer said she and others  “would have a role” in assisting the former president in his attempt to remain in office.  
“However misguided, her intentions were not in any way related to an intention to overthrow the government but to support what she believed to be the lawful government,” Watkins’ attorney Michelle Peterson. “She took an oath to support the Constitution and had no intention of violating that oath or of committing any violent acts.”
As Insider reported Friday, nine members of the far-right Oath Keepers have been charged with conspiracy to obstruct Congress with the January 6 riot. Three, including Watkins, had previously been charged, but six new charges were announced by the Justice Department on Friday. 
Prosecutors said in the indictment Friday the defendants planned to besiege the Capitol as early as November 3 and coordinated plans on social media for weeks beforehand the insurrection in DC.
Watkins, an Army veteran who served in Afghanistan, also this weekend petitioned for release on safety grounds due to her treatment as a transgender woman. She claimed she was “treated harshly” and is at “particular risk in custody” because she is transgender.
So far, more than 250 people have been charged in the Capitol insurrection. Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Inside London during COVID-19 lockdown
Read More

Continue Reading
Internet Security

Kuch To Hai: Krishna Mukherjee reveals about her dream to play a Naagin one day!

News Kuch To Hai: Krishna Mukherjee reveals about her dream to play a Naagin one day! By TellychakkarTeam 20 Feb 2021 12:37 AM Mumbai Follow us on Google news to get the best breaking news MUMBAI: Krishna Mukherjee, who was last seen in Yeh Hai Mohabbatein, returned to television with hit franchise Naagin’s spin-off Kuch Toh…

News
Kuch To Hai: Krishna Mukherjee reveals about her dream to play a Naagin one day!

By TellychakkarTeam
20 Feb 2021 12:37 AM

Mumbai

Follow us on Google news to get the best breaking news

MUMBAI: Krishna Mukherjee, who was last seen in Yeh Hai Mohabbatein, returned to television with hit franchise Naagin’s spin-off Kuch Toh Hai. The actress recently revealed that it was her dream to be a Naagin on the small screen one day and she’s happy being a part of the show.Krishna also shared about how she bagged the role and that she was in her hometown when she was offered Kuch Toh Hai. She shared that she didn’t audition for Kuch Toh Hai and bagged the role because of her previous work. Krishna also spilled the beans about her favourite Naagin on television and how her parents did not allow her to return to Mumbai during the pandemic.Is there any pressure of carrying forward the successful franchise of Naagin, Kuch Toh Hai?Of course, we are a little nervous. But there is no pressure, we understand that the previous seasons have been successful and now it is our turn to give our best. There’s no pressure on us because we are starting as fresh and we don’t want to compare ourselves to anyone. We are just going to give our best. The love I got from Yeh Hai Mohabbatein and the love Harsh Rajput got from Nazar because we worked hard on our projects we are expecting the same. We are going to work equally hard for this.It was my dream to be seen in the Naagin franchise or play a Naagin and I am very excited and happy to be part of it. I am really thankful to Ekta Kapoor ma’am, Mukta ma’am and the channel that they gave me such a big opportunity and they showed the trust in me that I can do this and take it ahead. I am really happy by God’s grace, I hope this show does well. Till now everything is going smooth, I just hope it does well and people like it. I did not audition for Kuch Toh HaiNo, it was not a conscious decision to stay away from the small screen. Initially, it was lockdown and the pandemic. I was not in Mumbai, I was in my hometown with my parents and they were not ready to make me travel to Mumbai during the pandemic. I did give auditions from there, but to be honest with you I did not give too many auditions. I only tried for projects which I thought would interest me. I did not audition for this, they saw my previous work and they finalised me. They called me for the mock shoot and when I got a call from the production house I was in my hometown. They told me to come the next day for the mock shoot and I informed them that I am not in Mumbai. Then next I took a flight from my hometown and still I was confused whether it will work out or not because such things happen in an actor’s life. After three days they told me I am finalised and doing this show. I first thought they were joking and that’s the reason I did not inform my family or any of my friends that I’ve bagged this show. Everyone came to know after watching the promo and then I informed everyone that I was doing Kuch Toh Hai. It is a big opportunity for me and it took time for me to register.Also read: Kanika Mann, Karishma Tanna, Kritika Kamra, Mahira Sharma and Sargun Mehta make some very UNIQUE and BOLD statements in SUNGLASSESI have realised that you can survive with minimum and basic thingsBy God’s grace I was with my family and I felt really bad for people who were away from their family. They had to deal with problems and difficulties and when you don’t have anyone’s support things become worse. When you have someone to give you a hug or just to tell you that things will be alright you get strength to fight back. For me I had a great time, I know there was panic everyone and people were going through bad times, but I really enjoyed my time with my family. As I always stayed away from my family I hardly got time to spend with them as I was mostly busy shooting but because of the lockdown I got to connect with them again. I leant a lot of things while staying with them again and I felt blessed to be with my family. I leant to be patient and stay positive during the lockdown. I have realised that you can survive with minimum and basic things.There was no insecurity, but I was missing my workThere was no insecurity of not getting work but when you open your social media account and you see other people working, you start missing your work as you also want to work. Because you are so used to working that you miss your sets, work. Who doesn’t want to work. In my head I knew that if not today, I will get work tomorrow.Mouni Roy is my favourite NaaginIt is a very difficult question. Honestly, if you look at the word Naagin I feel Mouni Roy fits the bill perfectly. I like both Surbhi Jyoti and Surbhi Chandna, they are dear friends. They were really good. But when in my mind I think about Naagin two people who immediately come to my mind are either Sridevi or Mouni Roy. And both Mouni’s seasons were successful.Well, the actress is clear about her dreams and surely has a long way to go!Also read: Parvin Dabas, Yatin Karekar and Pavitra Lokesh to come together for a film titled Abhinav; deets inside Stay tuned to this space for more updates from the show.Credits: TOI 

Share

Tags
Kuch to Hai Krishna Mukherjee Krishna Yeh Hai Mohabbatein Harsh Rajput Ekta Kapoor TellyChakkar

Read More

Continue Reading