Connect with us

Politics

Technical Glitches Cause Iowa Caucus Chaos

Published

on

  • Democratic officials in Iowa confirmed Tuesday that the delay in announcing caucus results was due to a technical error in an app meant for caucus chairs to report results.
  • According to reports, the technical glitch is only one part of the problem— human error and communication problems with the party also played a role.
  • The app was developed by the for-profit tech firm Shadow, which has worked with 2020 presidential candidates including Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg.
  • Before results had been reported, candidate Pete Buttigieg declared himself the winner, prompting outrage on social media.

Technical Glitches

The Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) blamed a technical glitch for the delayed results of the Iowa caucuses that threw the party into disarray Monday night.

In a statement Tuesday morning, IDP Chairman Troy Price said that the election results were held up by technical problems with an app caucus chairs were using to send results to the party.

“We have every indication that our systems were secure and there was not a cyber security intrusion,” Price said, noting that the systems were tested by independent cybersecurity consultants.  

When the results came in, Price said, it was clear there were “inconsistencies with the report,” which required the party to investigate.

“As part of our investigation, we determined with certainty that the underlying data collected via the app was sound,” he continued. “The application’s reporting issue did not impact the ability of precinct chairs to report data accurately.”

The party later announced that they will release the results at 5 p.m. Eastern. 

Shadow App

While the IDP contends that the error was caused by a “coding issue,” most reports indicate that is not the full story.

It is true that the main problem came from a technical issue with the app. 

According to reports, this was due to the fact that the election data was reportedly transferred from the app into another system built by the same vendor. But when party officials looked at the numbers, they found that the second system the data was sent to only gave them partial results.

The vendor allegedly discovered a coding error in that system which they fixed.

However, the other part of the problem not noted in the party’s statement was the element of human error.

Numerous reports have found that the app was not properly tested at a statewide scale, and that not all precinct chairs were taught how to use it before the election. 

Election officials have also told reporters that they had problems logging in to the app or even downloading it.

But this was not the first time that questions have been raised about this app.

The IDP first announced in January that it was going to use an app. The party, however, refused to say the name of the app or give any details about it, effectively preventing the public or experts from looking into it more.

Cybersecurity experts expressed concern that because of the secrecy, the app had not been properly evaluated or tested and was rolled out way too fast.

To that point, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said Tuesday morning that the department’s cyber agency offered to test the app, but Iowa declined.

Amid the Iowa debacle, it has now been confirmed that the app was developed by an independent, for-profit tech firm with the name Shadow.

Shadow, originally called Groundbase, was acquired by Acronym, a nonprofit digital firm in 2019. According to state finance records, the IDP spent about $63,000 on services from Shadow in November and December of last year.

The same app was reportedly set to be used in the caucuses in Nevada on February 22, although officials in Nevada said Tuesday that they no longer plan to use the app.

Shadow, for its part, responded to all of this in a statement on Twitter Tuesday afternoon. 

“We sincerely regret the delay in the reporting of the results of last night’s Iowa caucuses and the uncertainty it has caused to the candidates, their campaigns, and Democratic caucus-goers,” the company said.

Acronym also responded in a statement on Twitter Monday night, where it said that it did not provide any technology to the IDP or other Democratic Party organizations.

However, many people pointed to a tweet Acronym posted in January 2019, where it announced that it had bought the company Groundbase to form Shadow.

“We’ve acquired SMS tool Groundbase & are launching Shadow, a company focused on building the technology infrastructure needed to enable Democrats to run better, more efficient campaigns,” the company wrote.

Pete Buttigieg Connection

As more information about Shadow came out Monday night, it was revealed that 2020 presidential hopeful Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s campaign had worked with Shadow in the past, according to election filings.

This raised questions about the mayor, especially after Buttigieg seemed to declare victory in Iowa, despite the fact that no official numbers had been released.

“Tonight, an improbable hope became an undeniable reality,” he said in a speech to supporters. “We don’t know all the results, but we know by the time, it’s all said and done, Iowa you have shocked the nation. Because by all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious.”

That statement received backlash, especially after the candidate defended his statement while speaking on Morning Joe Tuesday morning. 

Buttigieg’s also released his campaign’s internal numbers from Iowa returns that showed him in the lead, prompting #MayorCheat to trend on Twitter.

Regarding Shadow, Buttigieg’s campaign said in a statement that they “have contracted with this vendor in the past for text messaging services to help us contact voters. Totally unrelated to any apps they built for the party.” 

Notably, elections filings show that other candidates such as Joe Biden and Kirsten Gillibrand also had contracts with Shadow, as did other state Democratic and Republican parties. 

See what others are saying: (Vox) (CNN) (Fox News)

Politics

House Votes To Censure Rep. Gosar, Remove Him From Committees Over AOC Video

Published

on

Gosar remained defiant in remarks delivered on the floor where he defended the video and refused to apologize.


Republicans Stay Defiant Amid Censure Debate

The U.S. House of Representatives voted Wednesday to censure Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Az.) and remove him from his committees after he tweeted an anime video last week that showed him killing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)

The video, which has since been removed by Gosar, was a parody of the popular anime show “Attack on Titan.”

At one point in the clip, Gosar, along with Reps. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Co.), are seen battling and then killing a titan version of Ocasio-Cortez.

That post garnered widespread backlash, but Gosar continued to defend it and refused to apologize.

During the heated debate leading up to Wednesday’s vote, the lawmaker again expressed no regret and remained defiant.

“I rise today to address and reject the mischaracterization and accusations from many in this body that the cartoon from my office is dangerous or threatening. It was not,” he said. “I reject the false narrative categorically.”

“I do not espouse violence toward anyone. I never have. It was not my purpose to make anyone upset,” he continued. He then went on to insist the video was just a rebuke of President Joe Biden’s immigration policy and compared himself to Alexander Hamilton.

Many Republican leaders — who have largely refused to condemn the video — also defended Gosar and dismissed the post as a joke.

While some said they do not condone violence, few members of the party criticized the lawmaker. Rather, most focused their attacks on Democrats, arguing that they were abusing their power and silencing conservatives.

Democrats and Ocasio-Cortez Condemn Incitement of Violence

Democrats slammed Republicans’ continued refusal to reprimand Gosar. They said there must be consequences and that they were forced to act because his party would not.

Many also argued that they must speak out against actions that could incite the kind of violence that unfolded during the Jan. 6 insurrection. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), for instance, described the situation as “an emergency” that amounted to “violence against women” and “workplace harassment.”

“When a member uses his or her national platform to encourage violence, tragically, people listen,” she said, adding that “depictions of violence can foment actual violence, as witnessed by this chamber on Jan. 6, 2021.”

The Speaker additionally noted that there are legal implications for Gosar’s video because it amounted to a threat against a member of Congress, which is a criminal offense.

Ocasio-Cortez echoed the sentiments expressed by Pelosi during her speech on the floor.

“What I believe is unprecedented is for a member of House leadership of either party to be unable to condemn incitement of violence against a member of this body,” she said. “It is sad. It is a sad day in which a member who leads a political party in the United States of America cannot bring themselves to say that issuing a depiction of murdering a member of Congress is wrong.” 

“What is so hard about saying this is wrong?” she continued. “It’s pretty cut and dry. Does anyone in this chamber find this behavior acceptable?” 

“Our work here matters. Our example matters. There is meaning in our service. And as leaders in this country, when we incite violence with depictions against our colleagues, that trickles down into violence in this country.” 

Ultimately, the vast majority of House Republicans voted against the resolution to censure Gosar. Only Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Il.) supported the measure, which passed 223 to 207.

While removing Gosar from his committees effectively takes away a major platform for him to effect legislation, the censure is basically just a public condemnation. Still, the move is significant because it represents the first time in more than a decade that a member of the House has been censured and only the 24th instance in American history.

Gosar, for his part, appeared to be unmoved by the decision. Just an hour after the vote, the lawmaker retweeted a post praising him that also included the same video of him killing Ocasio-Cortez.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (NPR)

Continue Reading

Politics

Former Trump Aide Steve Bannon Surrenders to FBI After Contempt of Congress Charges

Published

on

The charges stem from Bannon’s failure to comply with a subpoena from the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.


Bannon Faces Contempt Charges

Former White House advisor Steve Bannon surrendered to the FBI Monday morning on two contempt of Congress charges.

Bannon, who previously served as an aide to former President Donald Trump, was indicted by a federal grand jury on Friday after he defied a subpoena to testify and provide documents to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.

“I don’t want anybody to take their eye off the ball…We’re taking down the Biden regime every day,” he said when briefly addressing the media as he turned himself in to the FBI’s Washington, D.C. field office.

Bannon made his first court appearance Monday afternoon, though he did not make a plea and was released from custody. His arraignment is set for Thursday morning.

If convicted, each count of contempt carries a maximum of one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. Contempt of Congress charges are incredibly rare. According to The Washington Post, only three such charges have been brought in the last three decades.

Ongoing Legal Battle

While the proceedings against Bannon will likely be quick, they are only one part of what is shaping up to be a lengthy battle over executive privilege.

Trump has repeatedly attempted to block the Jan. 6 committee from obtaining requested documents, testimonies, and other materials under the argument that they are protected by executive privilege — which he asserts still applies to him and his former aides.

In addition to provoking a fraught legal back-and-forth over key records, the former president’s efforts have additionally prompted multiple previous top officials to refuse to comply with subpoenas.

Some top Democrats have said that Bannon’s indictment will encourage other witnesses to cooperate, but at the same time, it has reinvigorated Trump’s allies in Congress.

While some have threatened payback if Republicans take the House in 2022, others have also weaponized support of Bannon as the latest show of loyalty for Trump, effectively centering the matter as a key issue for the midterm elections.

On Saturday, Trump himself released a statement condemning all Republicans who either voted for the infrastructure bill or the contempt charges against Bannon, listing each by name and promising to back anyone who primaried them in the upcoming elections.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (NPR)

Continue Reading

Politics

Judge Blocks Trump’s Effort To Keep Records From Jan. 6 Committee

Published

on

The former president’s lawyers quickly appealed the decision, and experts have said the legal battle over the records could extend into next year.


Trump’s Attempt To Withhold Documents Rejected

A federal judge issued a ruling Tuesday rejecting former President Donald Trump’s effort to block records from being handed over to the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Trump has launched numerous attempts to prevent the committee from obtaining key documents, testimonies, and other evidence lawmakers have requested, claiming the materials are protected by executive privilege.

Last month, he went as far as to file a lawsuit against the panel and the National Archives to prevent the committee from seeing those documents.

In his suit, Trump claimed that executive privilege still applied to him even though he is no longer president, and despite the fact that President Joe Biden also declined to exercise executive privilege over the records.

The former president argued that the requested information has “no reasonable connection to the events of that day” or “any conceivable legislative purpose.”

In her Tuesday ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan broadly rejected those arguments, writing that “the public interest lies in permitting […] the combined will of the legislative and executive branches to study the events that led to and occurred on January 6, and to consider legislation to prevent such events from ever occurring again.”

Chutkan additionally argued that Congress’ ability to obtain information as part of its constitutional oversight authority outweighs Trump’s remaining secrecy powers, especially because Biden agreed that investigators should see the records.

“[Trump] does not acknowledge the deference owed to the incumbent president’s judgment. His position that he may override the express will of the executive branch appears to be premised on the notion that his executive power ‘exists in perpetuity,'” she added. “But presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president.”

Ongoing Legal Battle

Immediately after the ruling, Trump’s lawyers appealed and moved to block the release of the records until their appeal can be heard.

According to various reports, the appeals court set an initial written briefing deadline for Dec. 27. Legal experts, however, believe the battle will likely continue into next year and will ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court. 

A drawn-out legal process will only continue to benefit Trump, whose strategy of stonewalling and stalling the investigation has so far proven effective at hindering lawmakers.

Additional delays would further aid the former president if litigation continues past the 2022 midterm elections when Republicans hope to retake the House. 

In a statement on Twitter, Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich indicated that the legal fight is just now starting.

“The battle to defend Executive Privilege for Presidents past, present & future—from its outset—was destined to be decided by the Appellate Courts,” he wrote. “Pres. Trump remains committed to defending the Constitution & the Office of the Presidency, & will be seeing this process through.”

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading