Opens profile photo
Follow
Click to Follow JaneMayerNYer
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Staff writer at the
@newyorker
| Author of Dark Money | Twitter neophyte
Washington, DCnewyorker.com/contributors/j…Joined April 2012
862 Following
286.4K Followers

Jane Mayer’s Tweets

Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Peter Thiel’s influence on Elon seems more and more visible.
Quote Tweet
Jeff Bercovici
@jeffbercovici
Seems like an apt moment to note it was invasion of privacy grounds that Peter Thiel, Musk's longtime colleague and increasingly his ideological ally, used to kill Gawker. That's the playbook.
11
449
Jane Mayer Retweeted
Larry Sabato
@LarrySabato
Just released: Supreme Court down to 36% public approval--an all-time low since
@QuinnipiacPoll
started asking the question in 2004. Other pollsters have had similar recent findings. Gee, I wonder why? What could it be? Calling on the collective wisdom of Twitter!!
403
4,347
Jane Mayer Retweeted
Susan Glasser
@sbg1
In which
@JaneMayerNYer
recalls Kyrsten Sinema’s ‘fuck off’ ring, we share the scoop on the State Dinner’s scandalous lack of hors d’oeuvres, and
@eosnos
has us ponder Trump’s epically bad campaign launch. Do listen if you can to our latest pod:
Quote Tweet
The New Yorker
@NewYorker
On a new episode of the Political Scene, @eosnos, @JaneMayerNYer, and @sbg1 break down the week in Washington: Raphael Warnock’s win in Georgia, Kyrsten Sinema’s party switch, and Donald Trump’s myriad legal troubles. Listen here. nyer.cm/rCwCczZ
3
128
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Update: this will almost surely pass with carve outs for “media” and “opinion” reporting on matters of “public concern.” But it still adds new layers of secrecy around justices, judges, their spouses, and much more. Sponsors say it won’t stifle the press. Hope they’re right.
72
1,371
Show this thread
Jane Mayer Retweeted
Free Law Project ⚖
@FreeLawProject
Congress is voting on an unconstitutional bill today that will make it so federal judges can censor CourtListener. If this bill becomes law, we'll have to fight it in court or take down vital accountability information from our site. This is not OK.
Quote Tweet
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Lawmakers have just added a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act protecting Supreme Court spouses from having to reveal any outside employer, in the name of security. If it passes, Ginni Thomas’s professional entanglements would effectively be state secrets.
Show this thread
10
276
Show this thread
Jane Mayer Retweeted
Brian Fallon
@brianefallon
This provision had noble intentions but in the breadth of its language, would have the unintended consequence of further shielding the justices’ outside entanglements at a time when we need more transparency at SCOTUS, not less.
Quote Tweet
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Lawmakers have just added a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act protecting Supreme Court spouses from having to reveal any outside employer, in the name of security. If it passes, Ginni Thomas’s professional entanglements would effectively be state secrets.
Show this thread
15
283
Jane Mayer Retweeted
Daniel Schuman | @danielschuman@mastodon.social
@danielschuman
Replying to
@JaneMayerNYer
and
@mcorley
We just sent up a communication to the hill calling for members to vote NO on the NDAA unless the trojan horse security bill is removed.
Quote Tweet
Daniel Schuman | @danielschuman@mastodon.social
@danielschuman
.@demandprogress is urging members of the House to vote NO on the #NDAA because of a Trojan horse "Judicial Security" bill that's really internet censorship for info about federal judges.
Subj: Vote NO on NDAA b/c "Judicial Security and Privacy" Provision Undermines Court Ethics & Accountability The NDAA, set for consideration under suspension today, contains language that undermines Supreme and federal court ethics & accountability in language never seen before yesterday. Unless that language is removed, we urge you to vote NO on the NDAA when it comes up under suspension today. The Judicial Security and Privacy Act-- Allows judges, their family members, and federal courts to order websites and data brokers to remove information off the internet and out of their databases, including a judge's birthday and the name of an employer of the judge's spouse, with failure to do so subject to a fine + damages for noncompliance. Makes internet companies like Google and Facebook liable when third parties post this information on their websites and don't take it down upon demand through a sneaky in an exemption to section 230. (The language is convoluted)
3
120
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
See below: the move to hide information on the employment of Supreme Court justices’s spouses began with Sen. Menendez reacting to the murder of a N.J. Judge’s son. But more secrecy will potentially shield more corruption,
Quote Tweet
Josh Gerstein
@joshgerstein
Seems like a version of what I have written on a few times as it meandered through Senate politico.com/minutes/congre politico.com/news/2020/12/1
13
207
Jane Mayer Retweeted
Josh Gerstein
@joshgerstein
Quote Tweet
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Lawmakers have just added a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act protecting Supreme Court spouses from having to reveal any outside employer, in the name of security. If it passes, Ginni Thomas’s professional entanglements would effectively be state secrets.
Show this thread
7
85
Jane Mayer Retweeted
Fix the Court
@FixTheCourt
You can find the clearly unconstitutional provision Jane’s referring to, which would keep the identity of #SCOTUS spouses’ employers secret, on p. 2544 of the 4,408-page bill rules.house.gov/sites/democrat
Quote Tweet
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Lawmakers have just added a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act protecting Supreme Court spouses from having to reveal any outside employer, in the name of security. If it passes, Ginni Thomas’s professional entanglements would effectively be state secrets.
Show this thread
36
591
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Here’s the language in the proposed bill describing information that could be withheld about Supreme Court justices’ spouses and other family members:
Image
26
293
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Lawmakers have just added a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act protecting Supreme Court spouses from having to reveal any outside employer, in the name of security. If it passes, Ginni Thomas’s professional entanglements would effectively be state secrets.
2,501
23.1K
Show this thread
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
They said they wanted to unify the country but their office was a toxic war zone
Quote Tweet
Daniel Lippman
@dlippman
NEW: Centrist group No Labels has a cutthroat culture, where staffers are routinely fired or pushed out, have little trust in management and a workplace that can be difficult for minority and female staffers, 14 former employees and 4 other people told me. politico.com/news/2022/12/0
Show this thread
8
209
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Wow. Quite a feat. Imagine how hard it is to violate Fox’s journalistic ethics codes.
Quote Tweet
Molly Jong-Fast
@MollyJongFast
Eric’s wife loses job latimes.com/entertainment-
59
1,227
Jane Mayer Retweeted
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
The Federalist Society claims to defend the Constitution. Donald Trump, the ex-president with whom the Society worked so closely, has just attacked the Constitution in an incendiary way. Do the Federalist Society or its members have a word to say in defense of our Constitution?
1,950
18.9K
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Trump’s dinner with a Hitler fan isn’t a one-off— for more on the GOP’s decades’ long appeasement of extremists from the John Birch Society on, tune in to the
@NewYorker
podcast:
Quote Tweet
The New Yorker
@NewYorker
Following Donald Trump’s meal at Mar-a-Lago with the Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, @sbg1, @JaneMayerNYer, and @eosnos talk about the Republican Party’s relationship with the far right. Listen on a new episode of our Political Scene podcast. nyer.cm/4CENdIw
4
193
Jane Mayer Retweeted
Susan Glasser
@sbg1
Such a great pod conversation today with
@JaneMayerNYer
@eosnos
ranging from the John Birchers of old to the Mar-a-Lagoers of today. Hope you can listen to our latest Political Scene podcast:
Quote Tweet
The New Yorker
@NewYorker
Following Donald Trump’s meal at Mar-a-Lago with the Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, @sbg1, @JaneMayerNYer, and @eosnos talk about the Republican Party’s relationship with the far right. Listen on a new episode of our Political Scene podcast. nyer.cm/4CENdIw
4
103
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
An academic who previously endorsed school vouchers says data is being ignored for political reasons: the policy is disastrous.
Quote Tweet
Josh Cowen
@joshcowenMSU
Ducey is a #schoolvouchers hero. Read @JaneMayerNYer reporting on links between ALEC, Heritage and the Bradley Foundation on #BigLie here @NewYorker 👇 newyorker.com/magazine/2021/ And me on the links between those three groups and vouchers @DianeRavitch 👇 dianeravitch.net/2022/11/15/jos
16
216
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Is this a joke? Twitter is urging me to “follow more accounts.” (I follow hundreds). Then, it’s top suggestion for new accounts I “might want to follow” is Elon Musk. #Desperate.
38
575
Jane Mayer
@JaneMayerNYer
Oh no! Return of the Cyber Ninjas?
Quote Tweet
Brahm Resnik
@brahmresnik
UPDATE Cochise County Board votes to hire Cyber Ninjas attorney Bryan Blehm to handle court case over refusal to approve election results. Appears he'll be paid by unnamed outside sources. First court hearing: 1 p.m. Thursday. twitter.com/brahmresnik/st…
14
123