While You Were Offline: Tim Cook Pwned President Trump

Another week, another avalanche of things bombarding the collective soul. “Like what? ” you ask. For starters, everyone is mourning the death of actor Luke Perry, thinking about the legacy of Michael Jackson, and know … … if Ivanka Trump is getting off too easily as the investigation net stiffens all over the other Trump children. Meanwhile, the economy is slowing down as the national deficit explodes and corporate tax income drops dramatically. Actually, that &# x27; s a pretty quiet week by 2019 criteria. Irrespective, there &# x27; s a lot going on. Here &# x27; s just a taste.

Tim Cook Pwns President Trump

What Happened : Some people would be embarrassed that the leader of the free world couldn &# x27; t recollect their call. Some people are not Apple CEO Tim Cook.

What Really Happened : We &# x27; ve all been there: You &# x27; re in a public set and forget the name of the person you &# x27; re want me talking to and merely decide to try and take a guess and hope no one placards. Of course, when you &# x27; re the President of the United States and you &# x27; re talking to the man in charge of one of the most important corporations in the nations of the world in front of the press at the White House, that sort of thing isn &# x27; t supposed to happen. President Trump does, however, get some points for his guess.

As needed to be be expected, the internet couldn &# x27; t defy the obvious jokes.

You &# x27; re not alone in wondering just what happened to stimulate Trump select this specific name option, although some people have hypothesis.

Tim Cook, though, had a pretty good sense of humor about what could, in different circumstances, have been a particularly embarrassing experience, as his Twitter profile revealed a day later.

The Takeaway : Wait, aren &# x27; t the Apples the ones who own all the Beatles music? What identify am I supposed to go by in order to do that? Or, wait, do I own all the music if I own Apple, and therefore Apple Music? Tell me what I have to do !

The Ongoing Relationship Between President Trump and Fox News

What Happened : A closer look at the relationship between President Trump and Fox News brought up some issues neither party likely wants people to think too hard about.

What Really Happened : It &# x27; s never been a secret that the President of the United States has a favorite television news network, but a tale the coming week threw the relationship between Donald Trump and Fox News in sharp-witted relief.

Jane Mayer &# x27; s part was explosive, and quickly became a conversation piece across the internet, for obvious reasons.

As needed to be be expected, a piece like this provoked a lot of response.

No , no, wait.

This could get messy for the president. Yet, the opportunities that Trump interfered in Department of Justice business was somehow less controversial, it seemed, than this other bit of fallout.

To the surprise of no one, one particular Fox News spectator was very upset about the decision.

It &# x27; s worth remembering: The chairperson can’t drag debates from networks for the general election–

–but, really, should anyone be that surprised at empty threats and posturing at this level?

The Takeaway : This is probably unrelated, but White House deputy chief of staff Bill Shine, a former Fox News executive, stepped down on Friday.

The House Judiciary Committee Isn &# x27; t Playing Around

What Happened : Congress mailed some notes suggesting that it might, perhaps, want to investigate some immorality on the one of the purposes of the president after all. That didn &# x27; t go down well with everyone.

What Really Happened : Last-place week, in a moment that folks have appreciated coming since the Democrat took back the House in November, came to pass.

Yes, the House Judiciary Committee sent 81 people or institutions requests for documents and information as the opening gambit in an incredibly wide-ranging investigated by potential corruption in and around Trump &# x27; s orbit. The roster of those contacted was public, and it built for interesting learn, as many pointed out.

As if that wasn &# x27; t enough of a sign that the Judiciary Committee wasn &# x27; t playing around, the week comprised further developments to that end.

Goldman wasn &# x27; t the only hire, as it turned out.

Aware of the scrutiny he was now under, Jerry Nadler, who &# x27; s in charge of the House Judiciary Committee, took his lawsuit to the people.

At first, the president didn &# x27; t seem too bothered by the oversight–if ready to offer an all-too-familiar refrain in response.

But such attitudes didn &# x27; t last, as the official White House public proclamation on the matter made clear.

President Trump took up his own induce on Twitter.

The Takeaway : When President Trump starts acting up, it &# x27; s clear what the next step is going to be: Hour to bring out the one person who he’s clearly afraid of. Madam Speaker?

A Self-Own for the Ages

What Happened : As House Democrats attempted to prove they weren &# x27; t bigoted and instead demonstrated they are reactionary, House Republicans made an unanticipated leap towards a political self-own for the ages.

What Really Happened : Much attention was paid last week to recent statements from Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, in which she suggested that Americans supportive of Israel were “push[ ing] for allegiance to a foreign country, ” something being taken by many as an accusation of dual patriotisms and, subsequently, an anti-Semitic arguing. It followed an earlier controversy over a( now deleted) tweet from the newcomer congresswoman last month which proposed that Republican support for Israel was entirely financially motivated.

In an attempt to move past the issue–and interval itself from accusations of anti-Semitism–Democratic House leadership was presented with a plan.

Yes, the House would vote against anti-Semitism, because that doesn’t legitimize criticism of Omar at all.( Spoiler: It does .) This was, it &# x27; s fair to say , not a particularly popular decision with everyone.

Online defense of Omar even prompted the establishment of a hashtag, #IStandWithIlhan.

As a answer, the voting rights was delayed as various interested parties tried to be heard on the matter.

And what did the president reckon?

Finally, on Thursday, a poll was scheduled–but simply after its own language of the voting rights had been changed from one specifically denouncing anti-Semitism to one condemning all forms of dislike, a transformation that didn &# x27; t go unnoticed.

By the time the voting rights was being held, the narrative had become one in which Democrats were stumbling and splintering now that they were in ability, with the two parties mired in having to address that it wasn &# x27; t anti-Semitic in the first place. Things truly didn &# x27; t appear good for the Democrat … and then, astonishingly, everything flipped when the voting rights actually has just taken place, thanks to a nothing less than a Republican meltdown.

Perhaps we shouldn &# x27; t be too surprised; after all, Republican had already voted down their own bill against anti-Semitism.

The Takeaway : Really, let &# x27; s just go with this.

Time Is a Flat Circle, Unless We &# x27; re Talking About Time Served

What Happened : In instance anyone thought that legal drama terminated when someone was found guilty, Paul Manafort reappeared to confound beliefs one more occasion. All this, and a cliffhanger, too!

What Really Happened : Former Trump campaign chairperson Paul Manafort &# x27; s legal woes continued to be the narrative that never intent last week, as everyone prepared for his sentencing in Virginia on Thursday. As the proceedings came down to the wire, Manafort decided to put his convicting memoes to work.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller &# x27; s sentencing memo, however, was definitely not treading lightly on the subject, or sparing Manafort &# x27; s feelings.

If that didn &# x27; t look too good for Manafort, many believed that it was simply a sign of what was to come in his actual sentencing on Thursday. Well, one of his sentencings.

OK, so that is probably not a good sign. So what was this sentencing about? Turns out, the( relatively) minor stuff.

That didn &# x27; t intend the convicting was without drama. Indeed, the whole thing felt somewhat dramatic.

The stunningly light sentence surprised many–and made quite a few think about the privilege in sentencing decisions, although others argued that it wasn &# x27; t that unusual–but, as underwhelming as many people complained the information was, perhaps everyone is hastening to judgment a little too early.

The Takeaway : Still. Less than four years, which is significantly less than lawyers were asking questions? You do have to wonder just what could have been working in the kindnes of Paul Manafort, don &# x27; t you?

Read more: https :// www.wired.com/ story/ internet-week-2 11 /

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *