OMG Politics, I'm over it already Mk III, The Search for Spock
- Thread starter Tiltsta
- Start date
- Status
mongooz
.
mongooz
.
how long do we give him before......."YOU'RE FIRED!!"
Scott Pruitt’s $43,000 soundproof phone booth violated spending laws, federal watchdog finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0d35913c4472
"The nearly $43,000 soundproof phone booth Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt had installed in his office last year violated federal spending laws, the Government Accountability Office said Monday."
"In an eight-page letter to lawmakers, GAO general counsel Thomas H. Armstrong said the agency failed to notify lawmakers that it was exceeding the $5,000 limit for agency heads to furnish, redecorate or otherwise make improvements to their offices. In addition, Armstrong wrote, the agency also violated the federal Antideficiency Act, “because EPA obligated appropriated funds in a manner specifically prohibited by law.”
"Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), one of several lawmakers who requested the GAO review, said in a statement Monday “there are few greater examples of government waste than a $43,000 phone booth. Now we know that the purchase wasn’t just unnecessary and wasteful, but actually illegal. The American people deserve so much better than the culture of corruption, cronyism, and incompetence that is pervasive in the Trump administration and the Pruitt EPA.”
Scott Pruitt’s $43,000 soundproof phone booth violated spending laws, federal watchdog finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0d35913c4472
"The nearly $43,000 soundproof phone booth Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt had installed in his office last year violated federal spending laws, the Government Accountability Office said Monday."
"In an eight-page letter to lawmakers, GAO general counsel Thomas H. Armstrong said the agency failed to notify lawmakers that it was exceeding the $5,000 limit for agency heads to furnish, redecorate or otherwise make improvements to their offices. In addition, Armstrong wrote, the agency also violated the federal Antideficiency Act, “because EPA obligated appropriated funds in a manner specifically prohibited by law.”
"Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), one of several lawmakers who requested the GAO review, said in a statement Monday “there are few greater examples of government waste than a $43,000 phone booth. Now we know that the purchase wasn’t just unnecessary and wasteful, but actually illegal. The American people deserve so much better than the culture of corruption, cronyism, and incompetence that is pervasive in the Trump administration and the Pruitt EPA.”
It means nothing it the big picture, but this made me chuckle: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook
Sean Hannity named as lawyer Michael Cohen's third, mystery client
Sean Hannity named as lawyer Michael Cohen's third, mystery client
mongooz
.
the article goes on to say that pruitt needs that sound proof booth so he can conduct top secret conversations.
why does the director of the epa need to be discussing top secret stuff on the phone?
none of the other directors before him needed such a device. what's he trying to hide here?
GDSmithTX
Corporate cog
https://splinternews.com/new-study-shows-facebook-was-overrun-with-suspicious-ad-1825294314
New Study Shows Facebook Was Overrun With 'Suspicious' Ads Weeks Before the 2016 Election
A new study out this month found the problem of untraceable dark money ads on Facebook is far worse than previously thought.
A team at the University of Wisconsin, led by Professor Young Mie Kim, captured and studied 5 million paid Facebook ads that appeared in the final weeks leading up to the 2016 election. The study, which will be published in the journal Political Communication, used a tool installed on Facebook users’ web browsers, which works “like an ad blocker, but instead of blocking ads, it detects and collects them,” with 9,519 active participants. The Campaign Legal Center said the study was “the first, large-scale, systematic empirical analysis that investigates Facebook political advertising.”
The findings are shocking. The researchers found 228 groups who purchased political ads between Sept. 28 and Nov. 8 and identified 122 of those as “suspicious,” meaning there was no publicly-available information about them either because the group’s Facebook page had been banned or because no information about the group ever existed on the site or elsewhere. Groups like this are popular tools for shady political activity, and as we previously reported, Facebook isn’t the only platform that makes this very easy: Twitter has an ad feature that allows advertisers to create fake profiles.
That means almost half the ads that appeared in users’ feeds came from untraceable sources. At least one out of every six of these groups were traced back to Kremlin-linked Russian groups, according to the study, but the sources of the rest of these groups remains unknown. [snip]
According to the Issue One/CLC analysis, “the volume of political ads sponsored by groups that never filed a report with the FEC was four times larger than that of groups that were registered as political committees or had filed expenditure reports with the FEC.” That means there were four times as many ads that had zero disclosures about spending than those that did.
Dark money spending in US elections was been a problem since long before anyone started worrying about Russian interference, and this study shows the ease with which groups who want to influence voters—without leaving fingerprints on the final product—can use Facebook to do so. And the problem is only getting more urgent: Digital ads are expected to make up 22% of 2018 midterm ad spending.
_____________________________
New Study Shows Facebook Was Overrun With 'Suspicious' Ads Weeks Before the 2016 Election
A new study out this month found the problem of untraceable dark money ads on Facebook is far worse than previously thought.
A team at the University of Wisconsin, led by Professor Young Mie Kim, captured and studied 5 million paid Facebook ads that appeared in the final weeks leading up to the 2016 election. The study, which will be published in the journal Political Communication, used a tool installed on Facebook users’ web browsers, which works “like an ad blocker, but instead of blocking ads, it detects and collects them,” with 9,519 active participants. The Campaign Legal Center said the study was “the first, large-scale, systematic empirical analysis that investigates Facebook political advertising.”
The findings are shocking. The researchers found 228 groups who purchased political ads between Sept. 28 and Nov. 8 and identified 122 of those as “suspicious,” meaning there was no publicly-available information about them either because the group’s Facebook page had been banned or because no information about the group ever existed on the site or elsewhere. Groups like this are popular tools for shady political activity, and as we previously reported, Facebook isn’t the only platform that makes this very easy: Twitter has an ad feature that allows advertisers to create fake profiles.
That means almost half the ads that appeared in users’ feeds came from untraceable sources. At least one out of every six of these groups were traced back to Kremlin-linked Russian groups, according to the study, but the sources of the rest of these groups remains unknown. [snip]
According to the Issue One/CLC analysis, “the volume of political ads sponsored by groups that never filed a report with the FEC was four times larger than that of groups that were registered as political committees or had filed expenditure reports with the FEC.” That means there were four times as many ads that had zero disclosures about spending than those that did.
Dark money spending in US elections was been a problem since long before anyone started worrying about Russian interference, and this study shows the ease with which groups who want to influence voters—without leaving fingerprints on the final product—can use Facebook to do so. And the problem is only getting more urgent: Digital ads are expected to make up 22% of 2018 midterm ad spending.
_____________________________
Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
Tig
Fucktangular
One of these is a forgery.They're the source of the "hot dog is a sandwich" argument.
They just don't have the idea that if you're a fucking moron there is nothing you can Tweet that can't be counter-Tweeted.
I might need to DVR it.So...who's watching Hannity tonight?
Devil is Dill
Doubleplusgood
No Hannity tonight, special report on the Panda Menace instead.
Help!I'maRock!
Mediocringly Derivative
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
Is it Infrastructure Week again?
- Status