Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/315876-trump-bans-epa-employees-from-giving-social-media-updates

by europa • 9 years ago

335 289 9 years ago

1984 here we go

FreakyT• 9 years ago

It's downright impressive how comic-book-evil this administration is. Next up, the white house will presumably be moved to a volcano base with overly large ventilation shafts.

gdulli• 9 years ago

It would be hard for Trump to get such an ambitious project done given his reputation for not paying contractors.

serge2k2• 9 years ago

The nearby native inhabitants are going to pay for it.

serge2k2• 9 years ago

I don't really see evil. I see a combination of incompetence and hard right-wing policy.

I really don't like the latter, but at least you can argue it (e.g. pulling out of TPP is a perfectly reasonable position to take).

The former is just... ugh. Huge numbers of unfilled positions, firing all the ambassadors with no replacements, completely unqualified cabinet nominees (DeVos, Carson, Perry).

ams61102• 9 years ago

Trump is not hard right-wing. I'm not sure what he is, time will tell, but he's not that.

krapp• 9 years ago

They're not evil, they're "alternate good."

philangist• 9 years ago

They're not wrong, they're alt right.

shshhdhs• 9 years ago

I was curious if a case could be made for First Amendment rights, but I just re-read it...

"Congress shall make no law regarding..."

I guess Executive Orders can bypass all of that.

brianwawok• 9 years ago

Presedential power has grown a LOT in the past 50 years. I still think we have a strong enough constitution to prevent a Hitler, but not as sure as I would have been in the previous generation.

iainmerrick2• 9 years ago

It almost entirely depends on the willingness of Congress to enforce the rules, and more importantly the spirit of the rules.

I say "amost" because the Supreme Court has a part to play, but it's in a bad shape right now (highly polarized, split 50-50, with an opening for just about any old stooge to be helicoptered in).

woofyman• 9 years ago

The president can't issue unconstitutional executive orders but has great powers over the executive branch which this falls under.

AnimalMuppet• 9 years ago

Right. He can't stop you from saying what you want to say. He can stop you from saying what you want to say on an official Federal government platform.

For that matter, many employers can do that. I can say whatever I please, but not with my company name on it.

Avshalom2• 9 years ago

He absolutely can, they just might not hold up three years later when it finally makes it to the supreme court (or they might depends on who's there)

jlebar• 9 years ago

It's important to remember that the Constitution is, in effect, more than just the text as you read it. All parts of the law, but particularly the Constitution, are "interpreted" by the judiciary, and these interpretations have the force of law. In particular, the First Amendment as interpreted by the courts is a lot more complicated than just what it says.

For example, your strict reading would suggest that the states could make a law restricting freedom of speech (&c). But the Supreme Court ruled in 1925 that the First Amendment precludes such actions by the states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York

wiml• 9 years ago

I think this order's authority probably comes from the fact that Trump is the head of the Executive branch, not from any legislative power. That is, they're in a boss/employee type relationship.

oppositelock• 9 years ago

Just like a private company can have speech codes without running afoul of the first amendment, so can the US Government for its employees. That's all it is - not some law, but an employer mandate.

The first amendment applies to law governing speech.

vacri5• 9 years ago

TFA even points out that the tweeting is only verboten if associated with the gov dept.

Weird that it's EPA-only, though.

throwaway911113• 9 years ago

I'd say it's more analogous to a boss telling you not to post with the company account.

mychael• 9 years ago

Twitter accounts belonging to government agencies represent the government, not individuals. Individuals and the press are the ones whose free speech is protected.

cyberferret6• 9 years ago

I am looking for reasonable explanations for this, but keep coming up blank. I grew up in a country where this sort of censorship and fact hiding was the norm, and hated it.

I now live in a country that is much freer, but for the first time since 1938, no longer has an active US ambassador, with no replacement in sight, since President Trump fired all US ambassadors to foreign countries on the afternoon of his inauguration... [0]

[0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trum...

barney542• 9 years ago

Here's an explanation--the new management of the agencies want to review the social media policies.

Avshalom2• 9 years ago

social media policies

social media policies is sci-fi way of saying "people saying things" though.

cyberferret6• 9 years ago

In my line of business, I get to inherit web and mobile apps from other developers all the time.

One thing I never do is to completely shut down the app and take it offline while I scour through the code to ensure everything is ok. Not unless there is a glaring problem or security hole that is already evident.

It is ironic that the person giving the orders to restrict his subordinates from tweeting can still continue tweeting his stream of consciousness stuff carte blanche...

kafkaesq8• 9 years ago

The new management of the agencies want to review the social media policies.

With the aim of installing Orwellian-style thought control practices† at every level, affecting every last publicity statement, blog post, and tweet. You forgot that part.

† Based on what his press secretary (and other lackeys) attempted to have us believe about the size of the inaugural day crowds (and the millions of people who voted fraudulently in the past election) -- in addition to things Trump himself has said about climate change, and a whole bunch of other issues -- that's not hyperbole; that's quite literally what's happening.

nikdaheratik6• 9 years ago

Except that there is no management, because they haven't staffed the administration as fast as usual, so they just put out a gag order instead of risking someone going "off message". It's incompetence coupled with ineptitude.

px1999• 9 years ago

I've worked in government (thankfully not US federal) and when departments review their specific operations/policies, they rarely grind to a halt, it's business as usual while things get evaluated/decided and policies built behind the scenes.

The only reason that you'd do something this public is to make it a spectacle and give people the impression that you're doing important busy work at all levels; or to try to assert/show dominance.

dashundchen3• 9 years ago

Except it's not just social media: It's freezing the grants and business of the EPA. [1] It's stopping the publication of federal ag research [2]

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...

[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-usda-idUSKBN1582...

DanielBMarkham• 9 years ago

Meta: people say they keep looking for explanations. Explanations are offered. Then the explanations are downvoted and an argument ensues.

It may be fine that you don't understand or like the explanations, but saying "I really don't understand X" and then punishing anybody who tries to explain it isn't much of a way to have a reasonable public discourse. (This wasn't directed at you, just at the community at large. I've seen several of these comment questions and they never end well. Might be time for a politics pause for a day or two)

codeddesign• 9 years ago

Agreed. Anything remotely neutral about the new administration is met with a mob and pitch forks.

Discussion is good. Saying you don't understand because you don't agree with answers is like saying you don't understand why a homosexaul is homosexual.

Last time I checked, that's called "bigotry"

throwaway911113• 9 years ago

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the article does not offer any explanation.

vacri5• 9 years ago

On HN, you cannot downvote a direct reply to your comment, so you can't punish an explanation provided to you.

mememachine• 9 years ago

they probably disagree

jquery7• 9 years ago

The existing social media managers are openly hostile to the new boss, with irrelevant-to-their-organization tweets going out about the inauguration crowd-size?

To your latter point regarding the fired ambassadors, it's the most scandalous thing since 2008, when Obama did the exact same thing - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/12/obama-gives-poli...

cyberferret6• 9 years ago

Point taken, but I believe when Obama did it, there was already someone appointed to take the outgoing ambassadors place immediately (at least, here, it was the case).

A changing of the guard in these roles is (as the article I posted pointed out) the norm.

However, In the current case, no one knows who the replacement is, or when he/she will be taking on the role, thus leaving us officially without an ambassador for the foreseeable future, and also resulting in the longest gap in 70 odd years that we have not had an official ambassador.

cyberferret6• 9 years ago

The existing social media managers are openly hostile to the new boss, with irrelevant-to-their-organization tweets going out about the inauguration crowd-size?

But wasn't it the Parks agency that tweeted about the crowd size, not the EPA?

And is the current administration simply going to shut down or fire everyone who shows any form of push back towards the regime? Isn't that what they do in places like, oh say, North Korea?

whyileft2• 9 years ago

1. The National Park Service hosted the event. Seems like it would make sense to post public information about the crowd size when there was a lot of public debate and misinformation about it. I understand your frustration thinking they would always look out for the president's best interest, but this was a pretty clear fact they were posting, not some kind of political opinion.

2. December 3, 2008. That's when that article was published about giving notice and starting to find replacements. Same as every other president does.

3. Serious question. Are you paid to do what you are doing right now? I have a really hard time understanding why you would post that link which is specifically framed to spread misinformation as it is about a completely different point in the presidency. Seriously, this is your country. Why would you intentionally attempt to misinform your fellow citizens?

EDIT: I expect a response. You said Obama did the "exact same thing". Which is an outright falsehood and posted an link that is from a different period to intentionally misinform people. In some countries what you just did would be considered a crime.

rsync• 9 years ago

"To your latter point regarding the fired ambassadors, it's the most scandalous thing since 2008, when Obama did the exact same thing"

Don't all new presidents appoint a fresh new batch of ambassadors ? I assumed it was always done that way ...

Are there cases of cross-presidency ambassadors ?

prirun• 9 years ago

Who gives a shit? Do ambassadors actually DO anything?

nether• 9 years ago

Everyone these days is ostensibly "pro-science," just as many anti-vaxxers claim to be "pro-vaccine." The administration merely wants to review the scientific integrity of the EPA's work, and prevent the likelihood of any erroneous, possibly non-scientific data from being spread.

bobwaycott6• 9 years ago

Who has the administration added to the candidate pool that has the necessary skill and qualifications to verify the scientific integrity of the EPA's work? This is really reaching for a rationalization.

nikdaheratik6• 9 years ago

The explanation is basically the Trump administration wants to control all media messaging (as most administrations do), but is so far behind on staffing the posts at EPA and others that the secretary level people who should be in place to handle this haven't been nominated in most cases, let alone confirmed.

The fact that their solution to their own failure to get people in place is to make things worse by releasing a blanket gag order is another self-inflicted PR wound. If the "gag order" is in place after they have media people in place, or if it lasts more than a month or so, then I'd be worried.

ianai2• 9 years ago

I hope that's "all" that's going on here. That's horrible, but it smells a lot more like signalling complete shutdowns.

ra1n85• 9 years ago

Well thought and explained. The sausage making of a (particularly dramatic) presidential transition is on display.

Amygaz• 9 years ago

Who needs PR people and gag order when every day we get Spicer who barfs everything about what Trump believes is true or not?

DrScump2• 9 years ago

  but is so far behind on staffing the posts at EPA

He's been in office five days. How rushed of a hiring process are you seeking?

dashundchen3• 9 years ago

Except it's not just social media. It keeps getting repeated as "social media ban" but there is more to it.

It's also freezing the distribution of grants and any new business of EPA for a week, if not longer. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...

This is while Trump attempts to appoint Scott Pruitt to the head of the EPA. He's a noted opponent of the EPA who frequently litigates against it on behalf of the fossil fuel lobby, denies man-made climate change, and would like to dismantle the agency's power altogether. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-...

fixxer2• 9 years ago

Meh. This is pretty common in the private sector in various forms, either explicit or implicit. I wouldn't call this censorship. They can still, I presume, communicate their concerns with oversight groups.

kej• 9 years ago

Maybe the government ought to be held to higher standards than the private sector?

gvd4• 9 years ago

I actually think the fact that many people in the US coming from less free/developed countries is a problem (not the fact that they are here). They might come here thinking..wow this is great..this must be how it's supposed to be (together with the existing citizens who constantly hear they live in the greatest/free-est country on the planet). While when e.g. a Northern European comes here they are amazed by what kind of shit-show it sometimes is in this country.

I think it prevents real change from happening. Questioning why things are they way they are. Should some of the fundamental just be changed/replaced? What country do we want to live in? Do we want people worrying about going bankrupt because they got sick or went to school? Do we want to worry about drinking lead poisoned water? etc etc.

Sorry, I went way off topic. Trump apparently also want to defund PBS/NPR. I see a clear pattern here. None of these ideas will save substantial money and will erode democracy. Who else is going to educate the busy citizen about world events? CNN/Fox?

jakeogh4• 9 years ago

NPR is one of the worst propaganda outlets. It insulates it's listeners from opposing viewpoints to a degree that I think is unhealthy, I'm often in awe of the sophistication of it. When they have a opposition expert on, it's very rarely someone I consider credible. They misrepresent the viewpoint of the opposition, and it's hard to believe it's not deliberate. I watched them (along with the rest of the MSM to be fair) lead their flocks to war many times now. Like FOX, xNBC, CNN (worse than even NPR) they represent the global government faction. Each plays it's part, but it's not really different. Government should not be funding the media at all.

http://fair.org/extra/psyops-in-the-newsroom/

true_religion7• 9 years ago

I don't know how saying governemnt officials should speak through a specific medium is 'censorship'.

Any organisation will want to control its message, and having your officials use a channel that's 140 characters maximum leads to only being able to talk about issues in the most flimsy of ways.

Personally, I think there should be less Twitter and more published in-depth reports.

vhost-• 9 years ago

Why does trump get to use twitter, but the EPA can't?

drak0n1c• 9 years ago

The firing of ambassadors is not very surprising. WikiLeaks revealed that many of Obama's ambassador appointments were basically sold to the biggest donors as a form of fundraising for the DNC. This became a hot campaign topic.

http://observer.com/2016/09/wikileaks-guccifer-2-0-obama-sol...

some-guy• 9 years ago

Also happening with the National Parks Service [0].

[0] http://gizmodo.com/national-park-service-banned-from-tweetin...

monksy3• 9 years ago

Not sure I disagree with that order. The NPS intentionally retweeted a political statement. (Showing the crowds for Obama's inauguration and Trumps) It was a very stupid thing to do.

Pyxl101• 9 years ago

Came here to make the same point:

It's not appropriate for the official social media account of a government agency to tweet political content that criticizes the current President. That's going too far, and I'm not surprised at all that they were told to shut it.

mjmsmith2• 9 years ago

It's only a "political statement" because the President continually repeats the most obvious lies, to the extent that he appears to be mentally ill.

Paul Ryan said today that there was no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud. Since the President still keeps telling obvious lies about the subject, was that a "political statement" on Ryan's part?

facetube8• 9 years ago

How in the world is a picture of actual reality a "political statement"? How on Earth can an unedited photo of something that really happened be construed in this way?

BryantD• 9 years ago

Voice of America factchecked the claim that Trump's inauguration was bigger: http://www.voanews.com/a/factcheck-size-of-trump-inaugural-c...

tristanj2• 9 years ago

Title appears to be clickbait. The original AP story [1] says this restriction applies to the agency's social media accounts. It does not say this restriction applies to employee's personal social media accounts, as thehill.com implies. This is the relevant section from the AP article:

Emails sent to EPA staff and reviewed by The Associated Press also detailed specific prohibitions banning press releases, blog updates or posts to the agency's social media accounts.

[1] https://www.apnews.com/5ada25fc57b44a0989e681d6dc2a3daf/Trum...

Malician• 9 years ago

I read the headline in the same manner as the AP section.

tristanj2• 9 years ago

Judging from other comments, a lot of people did not interpret it as you did. People are asking if this is a 1st amendment violation and if this is censorship.

bluetwo2• 9 years ago

OK, I just watched for at least the 20th time some republican tell a TV audience that EPA regulations have gotten "way out of control" and no one will ask "EXACTLY WHICH REGULATIONS?"

hawkice2• 9 years ago

To be fair, the audience for that comment isn't aware of _any_ EPA regulations and has no curiosity about it. They see the EPA not as a complex organization with multiple goals and many tools to help them achieve those goals, but as a part of something fundamentally wrong-headed.

bluetwo2• 9 years ago

Yep. But the only way to fight bad propaganda is with good questions.

ryanx4352• 9 years ago

Do you guys seriously have no self awareness? You seem to view trumps supporters not as a complex group of people with multiple goals but as part of something fundamentally wrong-headed.

The hypocrisy is dumbfounding

sqeaky• 9 years ago

This is surprisly reasonable compared to what I thought it was going to say when I heard about it first from others. The first I heard it was "A total media blackout" on the EPA and other departments.

This article just says, that buzzfeed says, that goverment employees can't post on Twitter and Facebook claiming their personal opinion is policy. Unless I misread something, let me know if I did, or if this article is just wrong.

Edit: Other sources indicate other kinds of communications are stopped also, it seems that it could be totally nefarious or just part of some kind of re-organization. Are scientific papers block or not? Everything seems confused, but the general tone seems to be hugely negative, what do know for certain?

nikdaheratik6• 9 years ago

As far as private accounts go, there are already social media policies in place just as in most other large organisations. They already have policies that govern scientific papers as well and those haven't been overridden. The administration just doesn't know how to communicate what it wants (which is for no one to talk to the media without "their people" in place), and to make it worse they don't have a timetable on when their media people are in place because they don't have people who know what they are doing running the transition. This gives government employees who have their own agenda (and not necessarily left-vs-right wing either) the ability to control the message by leaking to the press.

belovedeagle• 9 years ago

From what I can tell, there was a notice that public-facing communication be put on hold. Then EPA employees started howling that since peer reviewed articles are public, the administration had just ordered a gagging of all scientific endeavors. The administration put out a clarification that of course scientific articles weren't banned, upon which the media jumped on this as evidence that "aha! So you did ban science and now we made you back down!"

I'm no fan of Trump but this behavior by the left is absolutely idiotic.

facetube8• 9 years ago

Who is "the left"? Be specific.

dashundchen3• 9 years ago

It's more than a social media blackout, it's getting spun to exclude they're holding up EPA operations and grants, and restricting the publishing of Department of Ag research.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13477258

ajmurmann• 9 years ago

This is so terrifying. Fixing environment that was destroyed takes a very long time. Public land and parks that were given to companies can probably never be taken back. Not to talk about mountains that were mined. All this might be gone forever for some silly, antiquated mining or similar.

ryanx4352• 9 years ago

Lol. By your logic, we should revert all farmland west of the Appalachians back to native prairie because it used to be public land before people moved there.

abootstrapper• 9 years ago

No, OP's logic is that we can't revert farmland west of the Appalachians back to native prairie because it's practically impossible to "undevelop" land back to its natural state. Thus we should focus on protecting currently undeveloped land.

rokosbasilisk2• 9 years ago

Just to add a reality check, the epa isnt some noble organization , they are highly political and often incompentent.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/10/431223703/...

diogenescynic• 9 years ago

Regardless, the EPA has done vastly more good than harm[1] and the remedy for bad speech is always more speech--not censorship.

1:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-epa-first-40-...

guelo2• 9 years ago

That chemical spill was a disaster caused by an accident when the EPA was trying to manage the wastewater from a gold mine. The wastewater was created by unregulated gold mining in the 20s. Trump wants to return us to those days when industry was unregulated and created the pollution that has taken decades to clean.

rokosbasilisk2• 9 years ago

Can you prove that. It sounds like he's doing exacting what obama did before.

Im pro environment but Im not naive to think you can separate corrupt politics from this.

refurb• 9 years ago

That mine spill was a major cock-up by the EPA. They even admitted it was. They were warned it could happen.

It's not helpful to try and explain that away.

13years• 9 years ago

Actually, prior to the EPA property rights were the method of pollution control. However, under property rights there was 0 pollution allowed. Courts began to consider that some pollution must be allowed to allow the economy to thrive.

So the EPA came into formation not exactly for the purpose to stop pollution, but to decide just how much is allowable.

nikdaheratik6• 9 years ago

As opposed to every other government organisation in Washington which are all totally apolitical, and totally competent.

The focus isn't on what the EPA does or doesn't do, but on what the administration is trying to do, whether that actually matches up with how business is usually done in the organisation, and how this looks to the rest of America.

vmeson2• 9 years ago

We went through this sort of censorship of government scientists and departments in Canada with the conservative Harper government: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzz...

The US should not put up with any, even a temporary form of such censorship of the parts of the government that are doing scientific research and environmental stewardship. There should be another march in a week or two to support scientific freedom. Trump does not determine scientific truth, peer review and the scientific method does.

dghughes• 9 years ago

Yes it's amazing we put up with it for so long and then voted for Harper again!! My guess is it was apathetic young voters and frightened Boomers who lost 1/3 or half of their retirement savings in 2008 just as they were going to retire.

Harper even changed Government of Canada to the Harper Government too bizarre at the time even more bizarre looking back.

There was supposedly a secret portrait library of all portraits of Harper viewing by appointment only.

vkou• 9 years ago

The Liberal party being in shambles for... 8 years probably had more to do with a Harper victory then his accomplishments did.

acomjean• 9 years ago

Fwiw at the march in Boston there were chants for science...honestly something I thought I'd never hear.

stephancoral• 9 years ago

At the protest in NYC people were shouting "CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL"

Very sad that's something we need to be screaming in the streets.

dnautics4• 9 years ago

Peer review most certainly does not determine scientific truth.

FLGMwt• 9 years ago

Arguable, but lack of peer review certainly should inspire a lack of confidence in results.

cantankerous• 9 years ago

This is a vacuous statement. Science is an inductive exercise and suffers from the problem of induction. It's difficult to make the case that real truth can come from it at all. In lieu of this, peer review is a very good heuristic for sifting out bunk science.

divanvisagie• 9 years ago

What?

ajkjk• 9 years ago

It does a better job than anything else you can come up with.

ojii• 9 years ago

There's a plan for that apparently: https://twitter.com/ScienceMarchDC

aplomb• 9 years ago

Best guess is the group in the EPA isn't toeing the line he set, so he's keeping a lid on things while he cleans house.

jaynate• 9 years ago

The irony of Trump mandating a no-social-media policy is palpable.

davesque• 9 years ago

I've heard people say that this was a reaction to some tweets that an employee sent out about the inauguration crowd sizes. If so, that would be a pretty heavy-handed way to discipline that single employee.

RantyDave• 9 years ago

Free speech gone in less than a week. Say what you like but he gets shit done.

cool_look2• 9 years ago

(forced to use a side account to comment on this)

You have to look at it from the Trump teams point of view. They honestly don't see that the 'free speech' argument holds water. They see it as abuse of a public position to spread falsehoods.

Basically EPA employees in the Trump Team's view are perpetuating climate alarmism ( again in the TT view ).

So they are stopping that.

Just flip it around just for a second. I'll choose an equivalent that would cause liberals to shut down the twitter of an official.

Imagine a Department of Health official was tweeting photos of aborted foetuses and keeping a tally "350 aborted this month. #whatawaste".

There would be calls to stop that official speaking out.

jamestnz• 9 years ago

Yes, but there's a difference. Abortion is in many ways an issue of personal conscience, rather than a simple scientific determination.

Climate change on the other hand, isn't controversial in reality. It's been made controversial because some people have an interesting way of deciding what is true or false.

There seems to be a certain mindset that treats wishful thinking as equivalent in power to empirical evidence. So they start with what they want to be true, and work backwards from there. For example: "It's inconvenient for my business interests if climate change is true. Therefore it must be false."

Some people even work themselves all the way to: "... and therefore climate change is a conspiracy invented by jealous scientists to screw over successful capitalists like me".

cool_look2• 9 years ago

thats why my dreamt up example included just factual statements "350 this month".

doesnt make it better though, does it ?

kartan• 9 years ago

That argument holds for everything. It is the full relativism: there is not good or bad, there is not true or falsehood, there are just opinions.

That reasoning is flawed, as true facts exists and there are ways to get to that facts like the scientific method. And morality exists, not every action is just relative.

The last part is that oil industry has paid big to silence science about climate change. "Conflict of interest" is another big point against Trump teams "point of view".

skynode2• 9 years ago

Why was this even posted here on HN? I don't think it's okay that HN should become a microcosm of the political economy of the United States. Well, for whatever it's worth, I hope California gets serious about secession.

chmaynard2• 9 years ago

Why was this even posted here on HN?

That's why YC added the Hide button. With one click, you can simply hide posts that don't interest you.

jquery7• 9 years ago

I flagged the post. Hiding the post is good for the user, but not good for the community. Political posts on HN are fine, but should be relatively limited--otherwise they would begin to dominate and ruin HN--and avoid alarmism (which this article did not). In most cases, when politics is encouraged as a topic, it becomes an echo-chamber as the winning partisans downvote the minority until the minority is completely gone (see /r/politics).

chmaynard2• 9 years ago

This reminds me of the observation during the 2016 campaign that "Trump is the kind of person who brings a flamethrower to a stick fight".

talmand8• 9 years ago

I didn't know we had so many HN commenters that are experts at the inner workings of Presidential transitions and for a fact know what's going behind the scenes of the current transition. In some cases they somehow know individual thoughts and motivations of people they likely don't know.

liberte82• 9 years ago

I'm consistently amazed at the number of Trump supporters on this site.

Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates

Related Stories