News
Roger Stone says his email accounts were how the hackers got into the Trump campaign
Happy Tuesday. Here’s your Tuesday Tech Drop, the past week’s top stories from the intersection of politics and the all-inclusive world of technology.
‘But [his] emails!’
Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to Donald Trump who helped to push the fake electors scheme, told the Washington Post that one of his email accounts was reportedly compromised by a cyberattack that was targeting the Trump campaign. The news surrounding this hack has been moving quickly, so let’s review the sequence of events so far.
- Aug. 10: Politico reports it received internal Trump campaign documents from someone calling themselves “Robert,” describing some of their contents but not sharing them.
- Aug. 10: Team Trump says it has been hacked and accuses Iran of perpetrating the hack without offering proof. Meanwhile, the campaign tries to shame news outlets not to publish anything resulting from the hack — the polar opposite of Trump’s stance on hacks that targeted Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016.
- Aug. 12: NBC News confirms the Washington Post reports that the FBI is probing the hack, alongside similar attempts made on the Biden-Harris campaign. Officials from what is now the Harris-Walz campaign said there is no evidence that any hacking attempt on it has been successful. The Post also interviews Stone, who says multiple email accounts of his were hit with cyberattacks. The Post’s sources allege Stone’s email was used to send Trump campaign officials a bogus link that could compromise the recipient’s emails, too.
The juicy story here is that one of the most mischievous and aggressively outspoken figures in Trump’s orbit was the one whose private communications appears to have compromised — and possibly compromised others in the Trump campaign, as well.
But a notable subplot is the media’s markedly different response to hacked campaign documents when they come into their hands directly, as compared to the 2016 feeding frenzy over private communications stolen from the Clinton campaign and made public by Wikileaks. The Associated Press is out with a story on the media outlets that have thus far chosen not to publish documents they’ve received as a result of the hack.
Remember when Trump literally called on Russia to “find” missing Clinton emails and declared his love for WikiLeaks?
Now Trump is benefitting from a restraint that neither he nor the media have afforded other politicians in a similar situation. Joy Reid called out this double standard on Monday’s episode of The ReidOut.
Seniors learning about A.I.
Across the country, seniors are getting some training about the budding age of artificial intelligence — learning how the technology can benefit them and how it can be used to deceive and manipulate them. Class is in session.
Read more from in the Associated Press.
Musk was warned
Elon Musk received a warning from the European Union ahead of the digital debacle he hosted for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on his social media platform X on Monday. The E.U. warned Musk not to run afoul of its rules around the spread of illegal content and disinformation on large social media platforms — a fitting warning, given his role in spreading the disinformation that recently fueled far-right riots in the U.K.
Read my colleague Anthony Fisher’s take on the Trump-Musk conversation here on MSNBC.com.
Team Trump tries to take TikTok by storm
The Trump campaign wants to make its candidate into a TikTok star as part of an effort to rehabilitate his public image — but Vice President Kamala Harris’ popularity with young people on the app is throwing a wrench in their plans.
Read more at The Washington Post.
Nadler pushes for X probe
New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler has called on Republican House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan to probe allegations of political censorship on social media platform X. Elon Musk, who has endorsed Trump, has allowed the platform to spread misinformation about Harris, while liberal accounts supporting her have been suspended and labeled as spam in what some believe is an effort to help Trump.
Read more at The Verge.
OpenAI warning
OpenAI, the creators of popular artificial intelligence-enabled chatbot ChatGPT, issued a warning about people becoming emotionally dependent on its voice mode. It’s an eerie warning, and we should all be cautious of the ways we can grow attached to our devices. But there’s reason to question this sort of Big Tech fatalism: A.I. experts have warned that this kind of apocalyptic, future-oriented focus can mystify the conversation around real harms artificial intelligence can — and does — pose in the present.
Read more at The Hill.
Khanna’s crypto outreach
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., has been acting as a sort of liaison between crypto enthusiasts and the White House, seeking to thread the needle between promoting regulation and assuaging concerns from the largely wealthy, regulation-resistant power brokers in the crypto community.
Read more at CryptoSlate.
Trump’s A.I. lie
Trump’s latest lie about Harris — that her campaign used A.I. to generate images of her crowds — is an attempt to convince his followers to reject reality and lay the groundwork to question the election results should he lose this November. Read my latest blog post on it here.
News
A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).
Alex Wong/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wong/Getty Images
As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.
The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.
After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.
What caused the hissy fit? Did Sotomayor really fail to tell him she would have an oral dissent? That really would have been a breach of the court’s practices. A justice typically notifies the chief justice and the author of the majority opinion in writing if there is to be an oral dissent.
In response Friday to an inquiry from NPR came this terse statement from the court’s public information office.
“Justice Alito was notified in advance by Justice Sotomayor’s chambers that she would be reading a dissent from the bench. It was a misunderstanding on Justice Alito’s part.”
News
“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement
The widow and the daughter of Maurice Pierce, one of the four men wrongfully accused in the 1991 Texas yogurt shop murders, have confirmed they signed a multimillion-dollar settlement with the city of Austin.
Kimberli and Marisa Pierce spoke with correspondent Erin Moriarty in a new episode of the podcast “48 Hours: Case by Case.” Moriarty has reported on the yogurt shop murders for over 30 years.
Maurice Pierce’s widow Kimberli made clear that their priority has never been financial compensation. “It’s blood money for us. He died for this money,” Kimberli Pierce said. “It’s about the reform and the changes that need to happen, not only in Austin, but apparently across the country.”
They also went into great detail about what they believe happened when Maurice Pierce was shot and killed by police in 2010.
Maurice Pierce was one of four men, along with Michael Scott, Robert Springsteen and Forrest Welborn, who were wrongfully accused in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin on Dec. 6, 1991. Eliza Thomas, Amy Ayers, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison were tied up, shot and left inside the yogurt shop as it was set ablaze.
The four men were exonerated in February after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the killings. The city of Austin subsequently offered a $35 million settlement. Because Maurice Pierce died in 2010, his share of $10 million will go to Kimberli and Marisa Pierce.
Eight days after the killings, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was arrested at a mall, carrying a .22, the same caliber handgun connected to the crime. Kimberli Pierce said police told Maurice Pierce that his gun was the murder weapon. He responded by mentioning his friend Forrest Welborn. Maurice Pierce was then wired up and sent to speak with Welborn, but investigators ultimately determined that Welborn and the others knew nothing about the murders, and no charges were filed at that time.
Marisa Pierce has said there was no evidence when her father was questioned, “only a detective and a narrative, a narrative so completely false. It feels evil.”
Nearly eight years later, in 1999, all four men were arrested after Scott and Springsteen confessed to the murders. They later recanted, saying they had been coerced. Springsteen and Scott were tried and convicted, but later those convictions were overturned on constitutional grounds. A subsequent DNA test excluded all four men. Maurice Pierce was never convicted but spent three years in jail before his release in 2003.
Kimberli Pierce said her husband came home a hardened man. She believes police continued to harass Maurice and their family after his release. In 2010, Maurice Pierce was stopped for a routine traffic stop, fled on foot, and was shot and killed by an Austin police officer who said Pierce had stabbed him with a knife.
Marisa and Kimberli Pierce told “48 Hours” that they intend to review the circumstances surrounding the night of Maurice Pierce’s death. Marisa Pierce revealed in new, emotional detail that she was on the phone with her father at the time. She believes he panicked and was only trying to get away, not to hurt anyone. She described her father’s last breaths: “And in those last moments, he had just said I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re gonna see me again, and I love you.”
“48 Hours” reached out to the Austin Police Department about the Pierces’ allegations of harassment and their questions about Maurice Pierce’s death in 2010. The police department said they had no additional comment.
For the Pierce family, the settlement is a starting point, not an end point. They have put forward seven proposed reforms they hope the city of Austin will approve, including appointing a child advocate whenever a minor is questioned, prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics, educating juveniles about their rights and establishing accountability measures to address tunnel vision in police investigations.
In a statement shared with “48 Hours,” the Pierces wrote: “Real justice is not only about acknowledging harm after the fact but about creating safeguards that prevent future families from enduring the same pain.”
News
The Maine Town That Actually Wants a Data Center
This year, Maine nearly became the first state to pass a statewide moratorium on new data centers. But before the law could take effect, supporters of an A.I. data center project in the small town of Jay rallied to fight the ban — and won. So why do residents there want one? We traveled to Jay to find out.
-
Connecticut5 minutes ago
Newly released video shows Connecticut prison officers striking inmate before he died
-
Delaware7 minutes agoAnnual Delaware River Sojourn honors the nation’s 250th anniversary
-
Florida13 minutes agoFlorida Lottery Mega Millions, Jackpot Triple Play results for June 26, 2026
-
Georgia20 minutes ago
Georgia Lottery Mega Millions, Cash 3 results for June 26, 2026
-
Hawaii22 minutes agoPolice recover 19 gaming machines, $7K in Kakaako gambling bust
-
Idaho28 minutes ago
The reactor race has begun
-
Illinois35 minutes agoNew Illinois bill aims to overhaul public defense system | The Chicago Report
-
Indiana37 minutes agoDriver airlifted after NW Indiana police chase ends with crash into tree