Trump Appoints Unqualified Guy Who Hates Section 230 To Top Justice Department Role
from the why-is-he-in-government-at-all? dept
In 2018, we wrote about a law professor named Adam Candeub, who was one of the lawyers for white supremacist Jared Taylor, suing Twitter in a doomed lawsuit for kicking him off its platform. I had a confusing email exchange with Candeub which I wrote about in that piece, which suggested that he was either unaware of Section 230 at the time he filed the lawsuit, or simply confused about the long list of decisions around 230 that made the lawsuit an obvious loser (which is what happened). Candeub and his co-counsel were very angry about my article, and insisted that their alternative interpretation of Section 230 would win the day.
Since being proven wrong, Candeub has spent a tremendous amount of energy trying to twist and torture Section 230 interpretations into his own belief of what they should be. Back in May, Candeub was hired by the Trump administration to be deputy assistant secretary, where he helped guide Trump's ridiculolus executive order on 230 a few weeks later. It recently came out that he, and new FCC commissioner Nathan Simington, abused their government jobs to try to get Fox News to attack Section 230, telling a producer of Fox News host Laura Ingraham's show that doing so may help get Trump and down-ballot Republicans elected in the fall.
In normal times, federal government officials are supposed to represent everyone, and not just their own political party. They are not supposed to engage in campaigning or electioneering on the public's dime, and they certainly aren't supposed to be working with the press to help elect their own party. Yet, that's exactly what Candeub and Simington did. In response, Simington got his FCC commissionership (despite basically no relevant telecom law experience) and Candeub... has now been promoted to a senior level Justice Department job:
Adam Candeub, the acting head of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, has been named deputy associate attorney general starting Monday, according to two officials and a third person familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to discuss the plans. The political appointment does not require congressional confirmation.
The concern, as noted in Politico, is that he's going to use the remaining month in office to cause problems for the internet:
Candeub has played a central role in carrying out Trump’s executive order targeting social media companies like Twitter and Facebook over allegations they censor conservative viewpoints. The executive order asked federal agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission, to narrow the scope of a crucial set of liability protections that shield online companies from lawsuits over the user content they host. One of Candeub’s advisers at the NTIA, Nathan Simington, was confirmed last week to a five-year term as an FCC commissioner.
Trump has taken increasing aim at the legal shield, a 1996 law known as Section 230, in the twilight of presidency, including vowing to veto a must-pass defense spending bill that overwhelmingly sailed through both the House and Senate because it does not repeal the protections. And he’s rallied his allies across federal agencies and in Congress against the law, which has been widely credited with enabling the creation of today’s thriving online industry.
Candeub, who first joined NTIA earlier this year, has a long history of bashing the social media giants over allegations of an anti-conservative bias. In 2018, Candeub represented a white nationalist in a lawsuit against Twitter alleging the social network censored him.
The article further notes that in writing the NTIA's petition to the FCC (in response to the executive order that he helped craft), Candeub worked closely with the DOJ, which has itself continued to attack Section 230 (despite the fact that Section 230 has an exemption for any federal criminal laws, and thus does not impact the DOJ at all):
Candeub actively consulted with the Justice Department during this summer’s efforts to draft the administration’s social media petition to the FCC. He also ran draft copy by White House adviser James Sherk, according to emails obtained by POLITICO through a Freedom of Information Act request.
“I’m feeling heavy breathing,” Candeub wrote in one July 13 email pressing DOJ counsel Lauren Willard and DOJ's Chris Grieco for feedback on the petition, citing pressure from Sherk.
It's not clear what Candeub can do in the month he has left, but it certainly is alarming that he's been put in this position. He has shown over his few months in office that he has no interest in representing the American people as a public servant, but rather in trying to twist a law that stymied a high profile lawsuit he was involved in, and he's implicated in an email to try to do that twisting to help his political allies. There is no way he should be in any government role, let alone a powerful one at the Justice Department.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: adam candeub, commerce department, doj, ntia, section 230
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Psst! Hey Georgia... All you have to do is elect your 2 Democrat senators in the upcoming runoff and all of this can be fixed. If you fail then we get more years of Trump's legacy of shitting all over the American people by proxy.
One simple thing: Vote!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, since Senate confirmation is not necessary, Biden can replace him at will. The basic reason would be lack of desired qualifications, and the underlying threat would be "gross abuse of power in attempting to subvert a news media outlet's 1A rights", something that might carry a penalty heavier than simply no longer working in a government position. This threat should be enough to assure a quiet resignation, but sadly, at this point no one can be sure about such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good Catch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this good or bad compared to normal Trump behavior? I mean I think his normal reaction to needing to appoint someone is: to not appoint anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's why Candeub was previously an acting director, which is another method favored by Trump. Appoint an acting-something, and no confirmations! All the win.
But appointing no one at all is less bad than appointing these utter fuckwits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"But appointing no one at all is less bad than appointing these utter fuckwits."
"Fuckwit" is one thing, but considering the history of that guy. I mean, sure, a lawyer might end up representing a white supremacist simply out of obligations of neutrality...but this is Trump's circle we're talking about. I don't expect any law "professional" in that particular group to take a case they don't heartily agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hey buddy... the International Society for the Protection of Fuckwits would like a word with you. As in, don't demean our guys, the one's your talking about aren't good enough to be Fuckwits, not by a long shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good lord, why does this transition have to take the longest. Just 35 more days till the Trump administration is gone for good (at least for now). I’m well aware that Joe Biden will be problematic for the internet, but you know what? I’d rather fight one war with Biden than a thousand wars with Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bidens first problem will be wrenching control of the administration away from Trump, as Trump is busy stuffing it with his yes men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In addition to my comment above, possibly/probably directed to a different AC... Where a Senate confirmation was required, the answer is to stuff the underlying bureaucracy with Assistants, Deputies and such, and let them quietly keep the head cheese out of the loop. Better yet, feed said honcho with false info, and when it's leaked to the "Fake Republicans" (i.e. The Trump Cult desiring to be called Republicans), the leaking head can be removed for failing his sworn Oath Of Office. Etc, yadda yadda, you get the drift.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are assuming that President Trump will go quietly rather than declaring martial law in order to create the necessary conditions for a free and fair presidential election, one that does not suffer from such fatal deficiencies as the current one that ended up handing probably the worst candidate in American history the victory, by allowing millions of fraudulent votes to be counted.
Where a "fraudulent" vote is defined by being cast by a person that would in a proper election have been successfully blocked from voting by one of the many great ways this has been done in history by our proud ancestors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow, you've gone full RWNJ. Never go full RWNJ.
Do you have any proof to back up your assertions or are you just off you meds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your allegations of vote fraud have been debunked. Your guy lost. Build a bridge and get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...I mean the sarcasm is pretty fucking obvious, but then, I remember people used to argue with the guy talking about "delicious, delicious paint chips", too.
It's still a dumb post, but not because he's seriously claiming the election was stolen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sarcasm doesn't translate well in text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sarcasm in text often does translate well, but only when you can make a sarcastic hyperbolic comment which goes beyond what the people you try to parody would actually say.
Trump and the current GOP have become immune to parody simply because there is no depth comedians can sink to in their attempt to satirize which isn't something the people being parodied might say for real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"You are assuming that President Trump will go quietly rather than declaring martial law in order to create the necessary conditions for a free and fair presidential election..."
Yeah coz that's totally what happens after a coup, they just give it back...
"...one that does not suffer from such fatal deficiencies as the current one..."
Over 50 court losses including the SC say you're wrong. But you know better than all them right?
"...that ended up handing probably the worst candidate in American history the victory..."
Come back and see us when Biden has his own Wikipedia category page like Trump's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trump_administration_controversies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Jesus fuck, still with the "President Trump is going to declare martial law" conspiracy theory?
It's like a fucking doomsday cult. "Okay, so we were wrong when we said the world was going to end. But we were just off by a couple of months, we swear; it's gonna happen any day now!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
After reading the first paragraph I was ready to flag you. After reading the second paragraph I realized that I was honored to read probably the epitome of sarcasm. My hat's off to you sir/madame!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apologies for the assumption on my part. Sometimes it's a bit hard for me to read sarcasm in text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"You are assuming that President Trump will go quietly rather than declaring martial law"
Yes, people are assuming that there's still enough intelligence and humanity for the orange toddler not to attempts to accept reality and completely destroy democracy as the final failure of the worst administration in history. I know it's a long shot given recent events, but since he's even lost the support of Putin and McConnell in recent days, people are hoping that his last act of office won't be actual treason that set fire to the remaining embers of the country's dignity.
"allowing millions of fraudulent votes to be counted"
You keep saying this, but you're never presented any evidence and even the justices installed by Trump himself to do his bidding are getting tired of laughing his people out of court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When you have to declare martial law in order to win, you’ve lost any right to claim the high ground. This also assumes that the military will listen to such a clearly illegal order, which is even less likely.
I.e. President Trump
[asserts facts not in evidence]
You mean like a poll tax? Or racist tests? Or because of your gender? Yeah, those were the days. Seriously, have you completely forgotten our history? We blocked lots of people from voting for completely arbitrary reasons unrelated to ensuring a fair and free election. We also didn’t require state IDs back then, and we trusted the officials who did verification of the signatures the first time around. In fact, mail-in and absentee ballots preceded photo ID laws. We also took weeks to count all the votes and transmit them to the legislatures to appoint electors.
Basically, if I was feeling uncharitable, I could reasonably interpret your statement as saying that any vote cast by anyone other than a white, male, property-owning citizen aged at least 21 years is “fraudulent” by your own definition without excluding any mail-in or absentee ballots, including ones that arrived after Election Day. However, I am feeling charitable, so I’ll just assume you were being careless when you chose to define “fraudulent”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Where a "fraudulent" vote is defined by being cast by a person that would in a proper election have been successfully blocked from voting by one of the many great ways this has been done in history by our proud ancestors."
Emphasis mine - this appears to be the tell that David is being sarcastic and that it's not just Baghdad Bob trying to steal a nickname again (although, to be fair, Baghdad Bob would also not be able to produce that level of actual literacy).
David, as PaulIT so often says, sarcasm is dead and Poe is in session. You really need the /s because no matter how insane the argument you present is it still isn't something which wouldn't be spouted in earnest from a pro-Trump moron.
You can't parody a clown. This is why, after the initial attempts, most talk shows stopped even trying, making Trump that one president no one even can make a parody of. Any attempts to do so just look and sound like the real thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"David, as PaulIT so often says, sarcasm is dead and Poe is in session. You really need the /s because no matter how insane the argument you present is it still isn't something which wouldn't be spouted in earnest from a pro-Trump moron."
Bear in mind that this is one of the news stories I've been pointed toward reading today:
https://abc13.com/mark-anthony-aguirre-former-houston-police-department-captain-arrested-aggr avated-assault-liberty-center/8802235/
A former police chief ran an air conditioning repair van off the road and held him at gunpoint, claiming that the van had fraudulent ballots stored inside. He also claimed to have been paid $266,400 from "Liberty Center for God and Country" for the task of finding fraudulent votes.
This happened in October. Imagine how much further unhinged these people are now. Why would anyone assume that David's post wasn't a genuine post from the kind of person deranged enough to still believe in Trump, or being paid off by people who might profit from the myth of electoral fraud being kept alive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"This happened in October. Imagine how much further unhinged these people are now."
I'm trying. I've had to invent a new set of imaginary numbers just to redefine the absolute zero on the sanity scale.
It only really starts making sense once you start thinking of these people as a large mass of grievance-addicted junkies simply doing whatever it takes to dodge withdrawal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Would that be those darn mail-in ballots that you do not hear a peep about from the GOPtards where they helped Trump win a state? Funny that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG! PLEASE DO, But...
"It recently came out that he, and new FCC commissioner Nathan Simington, abused their government jobs to try to get Fox News to attack Section 230,"
Anyone realize what FOX knew that these 2 idiots DIDNT?
That their OWN news site could be SUED, if 230 was removed.
NO law is 1 sided. And if it affects 1, it can affect ALL.
DO IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OMG! PLEASE DO, But...
I'm sorry, do what?
Are you perhaps arguing that we should scrap 230 just to take down Fox (and presumably all of that organization, not just the news portion)? If so, you've forgotten that news media outlets are covered by the 1st Amendment, which trumps 230 in full. (And that includes any "talking heads spouting their opinions.) The only attack vector that Fox might be exposed for is a comment section, but in a predominately video format, I don't see much happening on that front.
(Addendum: If you think that all laws apply equally, then you need to visit the sad tale of Southwest Airlines. I'll let you do the research.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OMG! PLEASE DO, But...
I watched as delta took all the retirement funds and went bankrupt.
Iv watched as companies took an OLD idea, thats Buried DEEP, that an economy that increases by 3% per year is doing well. AND FORGOT that wages are included in that, NOT just salaries.
I was a teen, when 'trickle down theory' Appeared from REAGAN. ANd even in my TEENS, I knew he was an idiot.
I love when people Blame the president for stuff, esp. stuff started 1-2 presidents BEFORE he got to office, and That there are 500+ Other idiots that are doing MORE thent he president to mess things up, after about 1970's when they Voted themselves REAL wages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Is he in the cult? Yes? That's all that's required.'
When it comes to Trump's GOP the only qualifications needed for any office are 'are they on our side, and can they be expected to do what we want them to?'
Given his history of either gross ignorance or dishonesty related to 230 paired with his animosity towards it I'm sure he was seen as a perfect fit for any position, as all of those are highly desirable traits for that lot, so it's not surprising at all that Trump would try to give him as much power as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Is he in the cult? Yes? That's all that's required.'
When it comes to Trump's GOP
I don't get the idea that Trump will be the next kingmaker in the GOP. Rubio and Cruz seem to be betting on that, as well as this this guy Candeub.
In the last 4 years Trump has shown that he has the attention span of a mayfly with ADHD (see: TikTok ban), plus it seem pretty clear he didn't really want to be president, he just wanted to masturbate his ego. Also, he expects fealty but he doesn't return loyalty.
So, the idea that he will be supporting your run for president (except perhaps Ivanka) or that he will keep supporting your career, seems speculative at best but is more likely delusional. Once he's no longer president and there is no "Legal Defense Money" flowing in anymore, he'll look for other ways to make money or get the attention he craves. God knows what that will be but I feel somebody else's interests do not figure highly in that equation.
It's also not like this blind devotion doesn't have any downsides. By espousing his rhetoric, you pretty much make it impossible for you to attract center leaning voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Is he in the cult? Yes? That's all that's required.'
I think you overestimate his cultists. Yes Trump has the attention span of a five-year old on a crack bender most of the time but he's really good at riling up his cult and can easily swing them from support to vilification of a person should that person stroke his ego right or not grovel sufficiently for his tastes.
Pair that with him driving off more sane/non-scum people from the republican party(something they're going to have a fun time fixing, assuming they even want to) and literally millions if not tens of millions of people thinking that he's still the legitimate president and you've got a large chunk of the party/cult easily manipulated by him even after he leaves office, such that even after he's out he'll likely still have a large potential influence on the party, such that even then republicans will have to be careful not to criticise anything the Dear Leader said/did/is saying/is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Is he in the cult? Yes? That's all that's required.'
"In the last 4 years Trump has shown that he has the attention span of a mayfly with ADHD (see: TikTok ban), plus it seem pretty clear he didn't really want to be president, he just wanted to masturbate his ego. Also, he expects fealty but he doesn't return loyalty."
And his base doesn't give a shit. There are 70+ americans with a serious case of grievance addiction who do not care about anything but whether their chosen Totem is able to provide them their next fix.
Look at ANY of his rallies. It's not a bunch of people making a political statement, it's a herd of junkies feeling their chosen drug sinking in.
That's the base Trump keeps tapping. The fact that grievance and hatred are physically addictive. And like most dealers he partakes of his own wares.
Rubio and Cruz can't do that. They can't whip a horde of alt-right cultists into a frenzy of hatred and disdain against the other. What they peddle is far too soft for a voter base which has had four year's worth of getting used to the hard stuff.
Yeah, the GOP might try to freeze Trump out. They're probably none too keen on their version of Frankenstein's monster taking over the lab and kicking them to the side.
But if they do they'll lose the entire voter base currently hooked on Trump because none of those are willing to go back from the hard crack of openly chanted hatred to the weed and painkiller offered by the "normal" GOP standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Is he in the cult? Yes? That's all that's required.
"There are 70+ americans with a serious case of grievance addiction who do not care about anything"
Heh, I wish you were right to omit the million there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Is he in the cult? Yes? That's all that's requi
Aaahh...must be the last shreds of my wishful optimism making a last-ditch frantic effort before expiring.
Mea Maxima Culpa; 70+ million junkies hooked on the brain biochemistry of grievance, it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaaand, repeat
Trump Appoints Unqualified Guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aaaand, repeat
Who would have thought, when this all started, that the oil exec and the guy nicknamed "Maddog" would be the high-water mark for competence and integrity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aaaand, repeat
"Who would have thought, when this all started, that the oil exec and the guy nicknamed "Maddog" would be the high-water mark for competence and integrity?"
Anyone who actually followed Trump's career? I mean, his life before was clarifying enough but when he started running with the Birther movement it became pretty damn clear what sort of person he was and the quality of the people he was likely to surround himself with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Qualified people don't want to work for an unqualified boss. When things go well, they get the credit, when things go poorly, you get blamed, and with Trump you get fired on twitter.
Unfortunately this will be the new normal for republican presidents, Trump has exposed all the loopholes, how much is just based on gentlemans agreements not to do bad things, and once the bar has been lowered for appointments, it's never getting raised again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember when Martha Stewart spent some time in the clink? There were lots of memes about how to decorate your jail cell, etc. - remember those?
I foresee Trump being featured on the cover of Jail Times with a stupified look on his face, asking "Does this jumpsuit make me look less orange?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trump: "I want to see Biden in jail!"
Biden: "Why does Trump think I'd go to visit him in jail?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Qualificatoin
The only qualification needed for appointment to a US Government position is citizenship. No other "qualification" matters or is relevant. That was the whole idea when the nation was formed in the late 1700s: citizens serving the republic and eventually returning to their professions after a time of service. No experts wanted or needed. As Eisenhower said no technocrats, no "learned" doctors, none of that is a good thing..
So if Trump appointed a guy who dislikes (with ample good reason) Section 230 you should join the vast majority of us who are cheering for him and for 230's demise. He's qualified. Technocrats are just totalitarians masquerading as aged hipsters. We can only hope more are appointed to help with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Qualificatoin
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"No experts wanted or needed. As Eisenhower said no technocrats, no "learned" doctors, none of that is a good thing."
So you're actually advocating the person appointed to lead in a subject needs to not know about the subject...Why oh why am I not surprised to see our resident Stormfront refugee come and advocate that you shouldn't hire smart people.
"...you should join the vast majority of us who are cheering for him and for 230's demise."
That vast majority of 30%? Wow. You realize you guys are, by now, no longer distinguishable from comedians trying to maliciously parody you? That's how dumb you sound.
"Technocrats are just totalitarians masquerading as aged hipsters."
Ah, yes...the people who know how an object works, when telling you that object won't work the way you want it to, is a "totalitarian".
Man, cause and effect are totalitarians. Who knew?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is excellent.
Trump has really only accomplished a handful of truly worthwhile things as POTUS:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is this supposed to be a positive Yelp review, Hamilton? Because you're still terrible at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]