From the: THE NEW YORK TIMES: "Rebuked Twice by Supreme Court, North Carolina Republicans Are Unfazed"

Who:

Article's Author: Michael Wines

• Roy Cooper - former 2001 Attorney General of North Carolina and present Democrat governor of North Carolina since November 2017 (75th North Carolina Governor)
• Pat McCrory - Incumbent Republican governor from November 2013 to November 2017 (74th North Carolina Governor)
• Dallas Woodhouse - the Republican Party's executive director of North Carolina
• Robin Hayes - the Republican Party's chairman of North Carolina
• Allison Riggs - senior staff lawyer at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice - a Durham advocacy group that sued Republican leaders over the election law
• Jim Hunt - North Carolina's 69th and 71st governor

What:

Michael Wines reports: "On May 15, 2017, the Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina elections law that a federal appeals court said had been designed 'with almost surgical precision' to depress black voter turnout." A week later, the Supreme Court reviewed and disposed maps of which two congressional districts were determined to limit black voter influence. Cases like these are in the judiciary branch's boiler as gerrymandering - the act of drawing or re-drawing district lines by congressional representatives, at the congressional and state legislative districts are under review by the judiciary system. 

If you believe that North Carolina Republicans have seen the end to their democratically restrictive re-districting and law-making, consider again - as Republican party officials stated that they would simply write another election law after having their first election law struck down at the Supreme Court level. Being reprimanded at the federal level appears not to cause much reluctance in the political strangle of North Carolina Republicans in their state-level politics. Republicans have dominated state offices since 2010, until Roy Cooper reclaimed the governor's office from Pat McCrory which served as a red flag for Republicans who redoubled their efforts to take hold over the state government and state courts. 

Republicans respond by pointing the finger back at Democrats for foul-play. Dallas Woodhouse claims, "We have an enormously powerful legislature, and this state has a long history of suspicion of executive power. It's often that we have reined in appointments when one side controls the legislature and the other doesn't." Mr. Woodhouse justifies the state-level efforts of control are meant to boost state-level influence which is hesitant toward aligning with executive power - dividing the influence of U.S. government between the federal government and the state-level government. Robin Hayes says, "The one with the most votes wins, and if you believe in what you're doing then you consolidate your available resources." Mr. Hayes appears to be alluding to core democratic values; however, by stating that consolidating your resource as a means of generating clout, Mr. Hayes is promoting the anti-democratic act of inconveniencing eligible voters from voting. Democrats respond by saying Republicans don't just tweak the rules, they throw the whole rule book out the window. 

Allison Riggs discusses the current state of affairs in regards to voting in North Carolina: "What we're seeing in North Carolina is an effort at political entrenchment that is unparalleled. It requires a complete disregard for the will of the voters and political participation, and a disregard for the independence of the judiciary." Ms. Riggs explains that what is different about this sort of control by the Republicans is that Republicans have developed a grid-locking political strategy that suppresses any progress made by any elected officials of a different partisanship. This grid-lock is expected even at the judicial level by North Carolinian Republicans.

The veto-proof Republican majorities in the State House and State Senate have essentially and effectively weakened Mr. Cooper and his influence in North Carolina even before he took office. In December, a special session stripped Mr. Cooper from the powers to appoint state employees and university trustees, choose a cabinet without legislative approval, and install majorities on state and local election boards. The last stripped power has been stayed, pending a trial.

North Carolina legislators are now taking aim to grid-lock Republican control at the state judicial level. In December, when voters elected a Democratic majority to the nonpartisan Supreme Court, the legislature expanded the jurisdiction of the Republican-led Court of Appeals to prevent cases from a path to a Supreme Court hearing; effectively cutting the line toward official judicial review over potentially significant cases for justice short. In April 2017, the North Carolina Republican legislators voted to shrink the Court of Appeals  barring the replacement of three retiring judges and denying Mr. Cooper from nominating successors to those three retiring judges. The North Carolina Republican legislature also voted to change lower-court elections from nonpartisan to partisan elections - requiring that judges run under party labels. This attempt was aimed at putting more Republican loyalist in judicial roles using the Republican legislators'  established clout. Another instance of Republican grid-locking occurred when two Republican legislators filed a bill to split Charlotte's Democratic-leaning Mecklenburg County judicial district into three new ones - gerrymandering judicial districts. In an undermining attempt to "satisfy" Democrats in Congress, Republicans adopted an amendment to a bill that would fund opioid-abuse programs by ending summer schools in one Democratic senator's district, abolishing a job in the office of Governor Cooper and redirecting financial aid for aspiring teachers from counties represented by Democratic senators to Republican counties. For example: State Senator Erica Smith-Ingram's rural Democratic district lost $350,000 designated for college preparatory and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics summer schools for low-income students.

These grid-locking exertions of power by the North Carolinian legislature can be seen as retaliative forces against a historically dominating Democratic Party. Since 1877, only four Republican governors have held office. In 1976, Jim Hunt demanded resignations of 169 political appointees who were incumbents from the previous Republican administration. In 1989, the Democratically-controlled legislature stripped the Republican lieutenant governor of virtually all powers. In 2000, Democrats added three seats to the Court of Appeals. These actions by the Democratic Party members do not exclude Democratic representative officials from playing into similar manipulative politics of control and influence as those actions by their Republican counterparts.

When:

Published: Friday, May 26, 2017

May 15, 2017 - Monday: The Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina elections law that was determined to depress black voter turnout

Where:

North Carolina

Why:

In a Supreme Court case that reached national attention on May 15, 2017, the Court struck down a North Carolina elections law that a federal appeals court said had been designed 'with almost surgical precision' to depress black voter turnout." A week later, the Supreme Court reviewed and disposed maps of which two congressional districts were determined to limit black voter influence. These gerrymandering tactics are being applied at the judicial level of government - redistributing judicial power by asserting Congressional authority over districting lines - causing significant concern at all judicial levels.

Opinion:

Cases like the case represented by North Carolina in this article need to be paid attention to as representative cases requiring awareness of state-level politics in order to fulfill true political understanding. 

To understand the United States' three branches of government, let's review. We have the executive branch which exerts influence on a national or federal level. The legislative branch exerts influence primarily through state-by-state discourse and litigation. The judicial branch exerts influence primarily on a local level - unless cases in matters of law reach state and federal levels. These distinguishing factors are important to understand, but don't think that it permits you to be ignorant of any levels to which you feel you do not belong because you as a political agent representing yourself and your loved ones are a significant member of all three forms of government and have the power to influence all three forms of government.

It is important then to understand what is going on in all three forms of government thoroughly so that you know what rights you are entitled to. 

Unfortunately, we do not have a perfect system so knowing your government and understanding your great responsibility to government also means protecting yourself from deceitful legislation, policy, and/or restrictions. It is my hope that one day, we can come up with a governing system that does not require its citizens to participate in defensive governing, but rather generous governing -- that is, government where rights are gained through legislation by the progress of humanity and technology versus government that is aimed at protecting people from being violated or cheated; because if we need a government to protect us from being violated or cheated, this means our government has failed in some way. 

For example, the Internet has provided us a freedom that is different in liberating us than our actual existence in reality - as we are able to do and say anything we want so long as it is constrained to the limits of the Internet. This sense of freedom would be in danger if we assumed a legislative measure that prevented a person from having their own their own social media account -- that is, we believe it to be a right for a person to claim ownership over their social media presence. Defensive government, with respect to the online presence scenario, would be legislation that prohibits the social media identity theft. Yes, we do need protections against social media identity theft; but this is a service to be provided as a privilege, not a right. These services can be handled by enforcement agencies, bureaucracies, and/or the businesses that formed the social media platform. On the other hand, if we were to make it a right that every citizen can own one account for each social media platform; that would constitute generous governing.

Let's get back to the article. We have a group of citizens - African-Americans, who are being taken advantage of by the Republican-led North Carolinian legislature through gerrymandering. When any legitimate citizen is being taken advantage of -- that is illegal. But it seems that Democrats are responsible for using the same tactics; so we must ask, is this a matter of restrictive government inflicted upon the populous - or the voters. If yes, this is illegal. Considering our advances in technology, we should be able to rid the consequences of gerrymandering district lines by now. Please read from my other blog known as "The Foreground" to discover an election system that I have been developing, found here: https://theforeground.blogspot.com/2016/07/unelectable-2016-election-system_31.html?m=1.

Securing an Internet election system will not be a problem if we specifically design a password that is un-hackable. I have designed one. Our current password encryption system uses a keyboard-limited password or fingerprint/iris-detection systems. The password system that I have designed revolves around platforms that are updated every day - for instance, Google's search engine results (web results or images) or YouTube videos. So instead of using keyboard character passwords that are limited to 128 ASCII characters, we can use the limitless search engine results or YouTube videos as password characters. By relying on a platform that is updated consistently, we can secure the votes of an election by developing an automated bot that would consistently update the database password, which is made up of a series of search engine results or YouTube videos, at specific time intervals. No one will be able to discover this password because it is ever-changing and infinite -- dependent upon user interaction with the Internet by continually altering the search engine results or YouTube video database. It is highly important that we script an algorithm that is reliant upon the randomness of user interaction with the platform; for example: when the specified timed interval has ended, our password  will be updated by resourcing new search engine results or YouTube video uploads and be updated by altering the original password.

Now, how do we secure the database when someone is posting their votes?  We're going to want to allow citizens to vote at their own convenience in order to have high voter turnout so here we can use picture identification, Social Security, voter ID, supplied addresses - home and voting location, and voice recognition at any computer or device that has access to the Internet and access to equipment necessary to fulfill these voter requirements i.e. camera for picture identification. Providing this same information will allow the voter to see the results of the entire vote or election. Posting one's vote to the database will require some logic on the interface to the server which checks for the legitimacy of the voter's credentials. If the voter is valid, then the server should obtain the current database password at that specific time interval the time interval recorded at the start of the voter's their voting process. This limits voting to specified elapse timers because of the reliance on an automated system to update to the database password routinely. At the end of the elapse time the password will be updated, effectively re-locking the database.

From the: THE NEW YORK TIMES: "Media Leak? It's Ingrained in U.S. Psyche"

Who:




Article's Author: Scott Shane

• Donald Trump - 45th President of the United States of America
•  Steven Aftergood  - the director of the Project on Governmental Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientist
• John Lloyd  - a veteran British journalist and founder of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University
• Max Frankel  - The New York Times top editor
• Salmon Abedi  - the Manchester Arena bomber on May 22, 2017
• John McLaughlin - a former acting director of the C.I.A.
• George W. Bush - 43rd President of the United States of America
• Barack Obama - 44th President of the United States of America
• James Comey - former F.B.I. Director fired by Donald Trump after discovering possible collusion of the Russian government in 2016 United States Presidential election

What:


"Is there something particularly American about leaking? Some national allergy to protecting government secrets?" The rhetorical question is asked by Scott Shane in this article to characterize a social inference about the American attitude and whistle-blowing - the act of making public information which is considered private and reserved to secrecy from ordinary citizens.


As President, Donald Trump seems to portray a caricature of governmental secrecy - portraying more of what is known in common idioma as a faulty wind-bag. "He blithely passed on to the Russians sensitive counterterrorism intelligence from Israel - and publicly seemed to confirm the breach after his staff denied it. Speaking by phone to widely scorned president of Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, Mr. Trump revealed the presence of two nuclear submarines off North Korea, a highly unusual disclosure." These two examples of Presidential information handling provide a glimpse into the nature at which Donald Trump seems to pass high-ranking information along to officials who may perhaps cause hesitation from many citizens who had access to such information before leaking.




The attitude that is cultivated in the United States which prizes the act of leaking or full-press coverage of events and stories is protected by our U.S. Constitution. "To sum up what distinguishes the United States in a nutshell: It's the First Amendment," said Steven Aftergood, "The concept of a free press has been integral to the American idea since its inception. That's not true even of other democracies. The press here even has the right to be irresponsible, which it sometimes is." Steven Aftergood justifies the characterization of the American leaker culture by calling upon the First Amendment right to free press as an embedded philosophy which rules our press and grants press authors the liberty of printing anything regardless of top secrecy this coming with the stipulation that although providing the public with the truth when the truth is often difficult to discern, also results in the lack of accuracy or mishandling of the truth. John Lloyd states, "the counter-secrecy culture in the United States was shaped not only by the First Amendment, but also by the 'quite radical' interpretation of the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, which prohibited the government from ordering that leaked information not be published." In the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, it was ruled that the government may not prohibit the publication of leaked information from the 1971 Pentagon Papers. While serving as The New York Time's Washington bureau chief, Max Frankel, stated in an affidavit a classic statement of the journalists' position on leaks: "Without the use of 'secrets' there could be no adequate diplomatic, military and political reporting of the kind people take for granted, either abroad or in Washington." Mr. Frankel's affidavit presents the proliferation and affluence of a free press when there exists no government secrets which prevent the true and genuine nature of reporting with an honest perspective and intention for matters of diplomacy, military coverage, and political reporting.




The larger story of America and leaks is more complicated, especially since the 2001 terrorist attacks. It was only through the illegal leaks of classified information did the public initially learn of the C.I.A.'s secret prison and use of torture, the N.S.A.'s eavesdropping without court orders and the details of American drone strikes. In fact, Barack Obama ran for president in part against what he considered the excesses of counterterrorism programs under George W. Bush, as disclosed by leaks- but Mr. Obama's administration then prosecuted far more leakers than all previous presidents combined. It was during the Obama administration that Edward Snowden was charged of two counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and theft of government property - considered him a traitor to the United States of America.




Although, not shy of being vocal when facing the public about what seems to be going on in his mind at whatever mood he's in which may accidentally take the form of a leak, Donald Trump has regularly expressed his resentments about the F.B.I., James Comey, and congressional investigations between his associates and Russia. Contrasting these resentments, the president shocked Israelis by sharing highly sensitive information with visiting Russian officials about an Islamic State plot. After his aides refused to confirm that the source of the intelligence was Israel. The case with the Philippines came when the Philippines released a transcript of a call between Mr. Duerte and Mr. Trump to which some military officials were dismayed to see that the American president had discussed the general location of the two nuclear submarines, part of a stealthy Navy force called "the Silent Service."




When:




Published: Friday, May 26, 2017

May 22, 2017 - Monday: Terrorist Attack - Manchester Arena bombing by Salmon  Abedi during an Ariana Grande concert




Where:


The United States of America and the United Kingdom.




Why:




In Britain for example, instead of the First Amendment, the British have the Official Secrets Act, which allows the government to ban in advance the publication of government secrets and prescribes punishments not just for leakers, but also for the journalists who publish the information. The article was written in part as a result of the reaction of the British government - specifically the Greater Manchester Police officials who were angered by the United States leaking the name, Salmon Abedi - the Manchester Arena bomber on May 22, 2017, before the British coroner could match an identification card found at the scene to the bomber's body. Their frustrations were justified by the British officials who feared that publish Salmon Abedi's name would have prompted relatives and possible co-conspirators to evade the police, although that appeared not to have happened. John McLaughlin did not blame the British for temporarily halting routine intelligence sharing in response to the leaks, saying, "It's particularly damaging in a terrorism case."




Opinion:




I love and cherish the fact that we live in a society and culture that embraces the right to free speech, expression, assembly, and press - even to the extent that it allows vitriolic demagogues like Donald Trump to run vicious campaigns against the better interests of Muslims, women, semites, African Americans, and whatever other hated group persecuted at those crap-shoot of a campaign rally. The right to a free press is our best effort at generating truthful information and accurately portray the society we actually exist in. I have hesitations when discussing the purpose of secrecy even in highly classified cases or terrorism cases. Considering a social phenomena I believe would take place if terrorist information were unleashed to the public so that everyone is informed and aware of the security there would be more security throughout the world as now you have agents within every citizen of the globe against terrorism - prepared and calm citizens versus unprepared hysterical citizens. Of course this ask that citizens be secure and prepared; and being prepared, stronger in there dealings with terrorism situations as the number of terrorism interactions will instinctively grow but not any more than if these situations weren't kept secret. We would just need to train a global public and individual citizen to understand that sometimes terrorism happens but if we are better prepared, then we can be safe in any scenario. Now as far as classified cases, I believe the only reason we hold secrets is to cover something up or prevent someone from knowing something bad. We should allow these secrets to become public as they are relics of an antiquated system and the sooner we realize the flaws of our current existing system as evidence by secret information the sooner we can achieve a truly utopian society. Yes, some scars are deep, but we are resourceful and can find resolution to anything - preventing these problems from happening again by first training people to understand the repercussions or taxations of re-imbursement and by disallowing the ability to cover up for a mistake - disallowing the disregard of culpability.




As far as dissemination of leak-worthy news, that should be handled with care as we wouldn't want leaked information to result in dramatic terrorist reactions across the globe. This information should be organized by the agencies that secure this information and released to publishing houses with strict adherence to time-sensitive intervals and with citizen security and protection through terrorism preparation campaigns.




Donald Trump presents a completely different issue. We have a President who appears to have a pre-determined agenda lacking intel on a multitude of scenarios and appearing to be in collusion with entities that have shared unstable relations with the United States. My opinion, he is both inexperienced in governmental, social, and political affairs and probably just doesn't know much political or social history about the United States and its national and international affairs causing him to either unintentionally leak significant information or intentionally release information which others could view as a leak.

From the: THE NEW YORK TIMES: "How Twitter Is Being Gamed to Feed Misinformation"

Who: 

Article's Author: Farhad Manjoo

• Twitter - a social media platform that limits users to a 140-character count message. "Though the 140-character network favored by President Trump is far smaller than Facebook, it is used heavily by people in media and thus exerts perhaps an even greater sway on the news business...The service is insidery and clubby. It exacerbates groupthink. It prizes pundit - ready quips over sustantive debate, and it tends to elevate the silly over the serious."
• Facebook - "Facebook is the world's most popular social network, and millions of people look to it daily for news." In the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, "Facebook came in for a drubbing for its role in propagating misinformation" - or as Trump coined the phenomena, "Fake News."
• Seth Rich - a staff member at the Democratic National Committee
• Samuel Woolley  - the director for research at Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project
• Emilio Ferrara - a researcher at the University of Southern California
• Alessandro Bessi - a researcher at the University of Southern California

What:

Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are blamed for the propagation of Donald Trump-popularlized coinage "fake news" - the misinformation found in the unfiltered and unrestrained atmosphere and dialectical exchange of the entire interconnected online community. This article mainly focuses on Twitter's involvement in the social and politicized propagation of messages as "information" using Facebook as a comparative network with its own flaws of "fake news" dissemination.

Twitter is considered to be "insidery and clubby" - an environment that is meant for an elite or expert to generate clout through a mass of followers. Generally, significant messages or Tweets are only generated by those elites or experts; and it is those Tweets that receive the most clout through Retweets, Comments, and Likes by followers. Farhad Manjoo writes about the sort of disinformation ecosystem found on Twitter: "At the top end...enter raw materials of propaganda: the memes cooked up by anyone who wants to manipulate what the media covers, whether political campaigns, terrorist groups, state-sponsored trolls or the homegrown provocateurs who hang out at extremist online communities...Then way down at...the 'other end,' emerge the packaged narratives primed for wide-spread dissemination to you and everyone you know. These are hot takes that dominate talk radio and prime-time cable news, as well as the viral Facebook posts warning you about this or that latest outrage committed by Hilary Clinton." On an extremist to mainstream spectrum, on Twitter, you have facecitious sometimes satirical, sometimes absurd or slap-stick content with a little tie-in to social-political commentary being propagated through the Twitter-space mixed in with the tried and "hopefully" true lead-ins by journalist who are promoting their stories by gauging audience receptivity. There is a non-discriminant nature of the Twitter-space where both forms of content: the facetitiuous and the headliner Tweets are progated and digested with the same popularity - as long as everyone is in the "KNOW" - ignorant of key pieces of truth and detail or only retaining a surface-level understanding of the topic - an exchange of substantitial influence for mass viewership.

Samuel Woolley states about the influence of automated bots, "Bots allow groups to speak much more loudly than they would be able to on any other social media platforms - it lets them use Twitter as a megaphone...It's doing something that I call 'manufacturing consensus,' or building the illusion of popularity for a candidate or political idea." Twitter also presents another danger - it's highly prone to automated bots or fake accounts. These allow a specific individual who has control over these bots to flood the Twitter landscape with similar, repetitive, or consecutive messages - generating false popularity by saturating the Twitter's Trending Topics list.


When:

Published: Thursday, June 1, 2017

Where:

The World Wide Web - specifically in realms of social media, Twitter and Facebook.

Why:

The role of Twitter had seemed to grow more intense during the 2016 presidential campaign. Twitter now functions as a space where journalist can hang out and pick up their next stories, "meet sources, promote their work, criticize competitors' work and workshop takes." With Twitter, journalist are able to "gut-check" or test out a few story lead-ins and get a consensus on the world-perspective or receptiveness on the topic being led in. "If you can get something big on Twitter, you're almost guaranteed coverage everywhere."

A specific case pointed to in the article where Twitter propagated a conspiracy theory was the idea that the murder of Seth Rich - a staff member of the Democratic National Committee, last year was linked to the leaking of Clinton's campaign emails. This conspiracy story was push loudest by Fox News host Sean Hannity, but it was first the automated bots on Twitter who helped accumulate attention toward the conspiracy story. Emilio Ferrara and Alessandro Bessi found that about a fifth of the election- related conversation on Twitter last year was generated by bots.

Opinion:

Twitter is a great resource to get connected and stay connected to people you are inspired by, adore, and support. I've been known to openly Thank Biz Stone for his company, to which he "Liked" my message back. Not only is it uplifting that we have the resource to connect us to innovators, culture-shapers, leaders, and whoever else helps connect you to the human network, but we have an open and honest medium for updates on that person's life whether it be for business-related reasons or just plain interest. I find it be easy to pick out the automated bots or fake accounts on Twitter. Twitter has a "Verified" account feature which not all Tweeters have enrolled in, but that serves as the best defense against fake accounts. I also think it's important to pay attention to what is being Tweeted. If it is repetitive or seems a bit absurd or offers a piece of news, always cross reference from other news sources because Twitter and Facebook are not meant to be engines of news. The last bit of advice I'd like to add is to keep your following list small, only following those accounts you know are real and make an impact in your life. I personally have motivations for what I want to do with my life and that determines who I follow. I like to think that through Twitter, I can connect with people who share my values and present my ideas to people who could really make a positive impact, and then hopefully connect those people to other people I follow - unified by our common set of values.

May 18 - Donald Trump Welcomes Juan Manuel Santos to White House - Speech Analysis

Video from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH_-ucHzw7c

This is a video of Donald Trump's speech welcoming Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos to the White House on May 18, 2017. After tweeting the following Tweet below at: https://twitter.com/ay_alet, Donald Trump removed this video from his Twitter Feed. The following text was Tweeted on my account using the video from Trump's Twitter feed:

[TWEET]

Does anyone else think the President of the United States should memorize his speech? I'm going to analyze his speech on the following character representations of failure: redundancy, demur, portmanteaus, prevaricate language, redress claims, disrespect to the Nobel Peace Prize and the Individual Who Earned the Prize; reluctance, disenchantment, betrayal, disrespect, exasperation, abandonment through visual cues; anti-development pledge; audience recognition of misrepresentations; and equivocal in qualitative and quantitative accuracy.

Equivocal Rhetoric - Redundancy: (1:28 - 1:34, 1:35 - 1:38, 2:03 - 2:06, 2:46 - 2:47, 2:59 - 3:00, 4:15 - 4:20, 4:43 - 4:44)Equivocal Rhetoric - Demur: (4:18 - 4:19, 2:46 - 2:47, 5:48 - 5:51)

Equivocal Rhetoric - Portmanteaus: (1:35 - 1:38)

Equivocal Rhetoric - Prevaricate Language: (2:46 - 2:47, 5:34 - 5:35, 5:40 - 5:43)

Equivocal Rhetoric - Disrespect to the Nobel Peace Prize and the Individual Who Earned the Prize: (5:56 - 6:02)

Visual Cues - Reluctance: (2:55 - 3:27, 3:51 - 4:12, 3:56 - 3:58, 4:44 - 4:46, 5:04 - 5:06, 5:07 - 5:18, 5:51 - 5:53, 5:54 - 6:00)

Visual Cues - Disenchantment: (2:55 - 3:27, 4:39 - 4:42, 4:46 - 4:49, 5:19 - 5:22, 5:26 - 5:28, 5:32 - 5:35, 5:46 - 5:50, 5:52 - 5:58)

Visual Cues - Betrayal: (1:46 - 1:47, 3:39 - 3:40, 3:51 - 4:12, 3:56 - 3:58, 4:30 - 4:34, 4:44 - 4:46,  4:46 - 4:49, 5:26 - 5:28, 5:40 - 5:45, 5:44 - 5:46, 5:54 - 6:00)

Visual Cues - Disrespect: (1:46 - 1:47, 3:27 - 3:31, 3:39 - 3:40, 4:30 - 4:34, 5:19 - 5:22, 5:44 - 5:46, 5:36 - 5:39, 5:40 - 5:45, 5:46 - 5:50, 5:56 - 6:00)

Visual Cues - Exasperation: (4:30 - 4:34, 5:19 - 5:22, 5:26 - 5:28, 5:36 - 5:39, 5:54 - 5:58)

Visual Cues - Abandonment: (2:55 - 3:27, 3:51 - 4:12, 3:56 - 3:58, 4:39 - 4:42, 5:04 - 5:06, 5:07 - 5:18, 5:44 - 5:46, 5:23 - 5:25, 5:26 - 5:28, 5:36 - 5:39, 5:40 - 5:45, 5:54 - 5:58)

Anti-development Pledge: (2:18 - 2:19)

Audience Recognition of Misrepresentations: (1:28 - 1:34, 2:15 - 2:17, 4:50 - 4:52)

Equivocal in Qualitative and Quantitative Accuracy: (2:25 - 2:29)

This is what Trump sees: 3:26 - 3:32

[END TWEET]