Though New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his handlers in recent weeks have sought to cast doubt on the investigation by State Attorney General Letitia James into multiple sexual harassment allegations against him by suggesting at least one of her independent investigators and possibly even James herself was motivated by politics, he’s also repeatedly told New Yorkers to wait for the process to play out, assuring them that what the AG’s office ultimately found would clarify matters in a way that would absolve him of wrongdoing.
Well, James has just today released her findings, and suffice it to say that the hot water Cuomo landed himself in earlier this year when the first allegation came to light has now started boiling over:
ALBANY – Gov. Andrew Cuomo sexually harassed multiple women in violation of state and federal laws as well as the executive chamber’s own written policies, according to a long-anticipated report Tuesday from the state Attorney General’s Office.
The bombshell report by a pair of attorneys selected by Attorney General Letitia James details cases of harassment by the governor that include unwanted groping, kissing, hugging and inappropriate comments directed toward current and former employees.
It also contends Cuomo and his senior staff had retaliated against at least one former employee, fostered a toxic workplace that enabled the harassment to occur and created a hostile work environment.
It appears that the investigation was incredibly thorough:
Language warning:
The full report released by James is 168 pages long. You can read it here.
While it was extensive, James stopped short of calling for a criminal prosecution of Gov. Cuomo:
No doubt the calls from Democrats and Republicans alike for Cuomo to resign in light of this report will get louder in the coming days:
An FBI investigation into his handling of the Wuhan virus pandemic – specifically his deadly nursing home order and the coverup that followed – is still ongoing. So more hammers could soon be dropping in the near future for the embattled Governor once dubbed “the Luv Guv” by the New York Post.
As always, stay tuned.
Article by Eric Lendrum in American Greatness
Two of the largest news publications in the country, the Associated Press (AP) and Reuters, have teamed up with one of the leading tech giants, Twitter, in a new partnership to crack down on “misinformation” and “elevate credible information,” the Daily Caller reports.
Twitter confirmed the new alliance in a blog post, saying that the two publications would be responsible for identifying “misleading” information, and to help Twitter expand its efforts to mediate trending stories, “especially where facts are in dispute.” The websites will also help Twitter staff whenever they lack “sufficient expertise or access to a high enough volume of reputable reporting.”
“This program is just part of our ongoing efforts to help people understand the conversation happening on our service,” the Twitter blog post continued. “People experience a range of public conversations on Twitter every day, and we’re committed to continuing our work to elevate credible information and context.”
Tom Januszewski, a spokesman for the Associated Press, said that the AP aims “to expand the reach of factual journalism.” Reuters’ Hazel Baker made the questionable claim that “trust, accuracy, and impartiality are at the heart of what Reuters does every day,” and that “those values drive our commitment to stopping the spread of misinformation.”
Twitter, along with other Big Tech platforms, have significantly increased their efforts to crack down on political dissent in recent months, most notably by permanently banning President Donald Trump in January, while he was still the sitting President of the United States. Other platforms such as YouTube and Facebook have either outright banned, or attached “warning labels” to, content that raises doubts about the 2020 presidential election, the efficiency of coronavirus restrictions, and other controversial subjects.
In a very thoughtful recent piece at American Greatness, Adam Ellwanger argues that “Conservatism Is Over,” so it is time for the Right to adopt a new vocabulary. His subject is an important one. It is both true and important that the Left distorts the meaning of political words to their political advantage.
Leftists have been able to get away with this because they can count on the complicity of the so-called news media. Leftists who promote shockingly illiberal policies are called “liberals,” and states notable for their patriotism are called “red states” as if they, and not the so-called blue states, are Marxist hotbeds.
But what if Americans who believe they are defending the founders have also contributed to the confusion in America’s political vocabulary? If conservatives have been contributing to the confusion, clearing up those confusions may turn out to be essential to the success of any project involving a new vocabulary for a new Right. Otherwise, there is the risk of adding to the confusion.
In the preface to my book Common Sense Nation, I wrote:
Americans on all sides of the debate agree that something has gone wrong in American politics. Many Americans believe that we have lost our way because we no longer guide ourselves by the ideas of the Founders. But guiding ourselves by the Founders seems to be easier said than done. Could it be that part of our difficulty is that we no longer use, or even really understand, the language the Founders used or why they used that language?
It is a remarkable fact that conservative thinkers and conservative journalists commonly use the vocabulary of the founders in ways that would have baffled them. Here’s one example, from Ellwanger’s column:
Civil rights are rights created and bestowed upon us by the state, and as such, are quite ‘alienable.’
Of course, it is true that what the state giveth, the state can take away. But that is not what “alienable” means.
This usage of “alienable” is no doubt familiar. We encounter it frequently. Take any book by a conservative from your shelves and you will almost certainly find the word used in just this way. But this is not how the founders understood the word. In fact, “alienable” is a word with an unusually precise definition, one that is unchanged from the founders’ day until our own. Here is how it is defined in my dictionary: “adj. Law. Capable of being transferred to the ownership of another” (emphasis mine). That is the complete definition in my dictionary.
“Alienable,” in other words, is a term used in reference to our right to the property that belongs to us, not our abstract “right to property” but to actual property. Our right to our property is an alienable right because we can transfer it. It is because our right to our property is alienable that we can sell, exchange, and bequeath it. If I sell or give you my car, I have transferred the ownership of the car to you. You then become the rightful owner of that car, and, because your right to the car is also alienable, you may sell or give it to another.
The founders would be baffled by the bizarre claim that civil rights are created and bestowed upon us by the state, and as such, can be transferred to the ownership of another. There was not then and there is not today a market where we can sell our civil rights or buy the civil rights of someone else. What would that even mean?
And yet the definition of “alienable” is not hidden. It is right there in the dictionary. Still, even very thoughtful and learned people make this mistake all the time.
This is an astonishing situation. How could it have come about?
To make a long story short, conservative thinkers have sacrificed the actual thinking of the founders—and the founders’ vocabulary—to a narrative about the founders’ thinking. Evidence abounds. Open nearly any book by a conservative about the founders and you will almost certainly read that the Declaration of Independence is an expression of John Locke’s political philosophy.
The founders would be as baffled by that claim as they would be by the claim that civil rights can be transferred from the ownership of one person to the ownership of another. The founders used the term “unalienable” constantly, and every time they did, they were declaring they were not Lockeans; in fact, they were proclaiming they were un-Lockeans, that it was Locke specifically they had left behind.
As unbelievable as that may seem, it is simple to demonstrate. Those who spin the narrative that the founders were Lockeans make much of the fact that the Declaration borrowed “life and liberty” from Locke—but in fact, Jefferson deftly used “life and liberty” to declare that the founders were un-Lockeans. Putting Locke’s “life and liberty” list and the Declaration’s “life and liberty” list side-by-side will make this clear:
“Man . . . hath by nature a power . . . to preserve his property—that is, his life, liberty and estate.”
“Men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, . . . among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Locke declared that life and liberty are property. The Declaration declared that life and liberty are among our unalienable rights. And, as we have seen, to declare that those rights are unalienable is to declare that they are not property, making it perfectly clear that the founders were declaring they had left Locke’s thinking behind.
I like to think of it this way: the founders were declaring to the world they had broken out of the Locke-box. In our time, there is a steady stream of books and articles by conservatives trying to stuff them back in.
“Unalienable” occupies a commanding position in the vocabulary of the founders; it is missing from Locke’s vocabulary. There is no mystery; the Declaration of Independence is not an expression of John Locke’s political philosophy. As great as Locke’s enormous contribution to political philosophy was, the political philosophy of the founders encompassed Locke’s thinking and then surpassed it, taking political philosophy to a whole new level.
How the founders broke out of the Locke-box and how their breakout has been forgotten is the fascinating tale I tell in Common Sense Nation. In the preface, I wrote: “This book is dedicated to the proposition that we need to understand the language of the Founders if we want to understand the ideas of the Founders.” My suggestion here is that we need to rediscover the vocabulary of the founders if we are to make a success of a new vocabulary for a new Right. It might turn out that the founders’ vocabulary properly understood will provide much of what we need now.
Biden's poll numbers are dropping, and the White House is scrambling for ways to get his approval rating up.
The Babylon Bee's top-secret anonymous source inside the White House, codenamed Ben Pjaki, has just leaked us Biden's 8-part plan for winning over the American people once again.
Here it is:
1) Start sniffing women's hair again: For some reason, his poll numbers were a little better when he was doing that. Worth a shot!
2) Launch Kamala Harris into the Sun: People really, really seem to like this idea for some reason.
3) Invade something: Invading another country is always good for a 10-point jump. Maybe we can invade Canada. They've always had it coming.
4) Go back to his roots by hiding in a basement for another 6 months: Biden was never more popular than when he spent an entire year in a basement! And then he received a record number of votes! Who can argue with that kind of popularity?
5) Launch Kamala Harris into the Sun: Wait-- did we say that one already? Huh.
6) Get a spray tan and wear an orange wig: Imitating the greatest, smartest, most popular president of all time? Winning move!
7) Send Dr. Fauci to another galaxy so he can spread his pandemic wisdom with other planets: Or if that's too hard, maybe just the Sun again.
8) Fire everyone he's ever appointed and shut down all Federal agencies: This one's a no-brainer and we're not sure what Biden's waiting for here. Come on, man! This is no joke!
It’s not only reasonable but required to ask at the outset of leftists’ 1/6 “Truth Commission”: How much of what led to Donald Trump supporters “storming the capitol” was a setup?
BuzzFeed recently revealed the alleged Gov. Gretchen Whitmer “kidnapping plot” was instigated and coordinated by FBI informants who collected a handful of malcontents as an apparent cover story for manufacturing a “domestic terrorism plot” to foil in front of the cameras. There’s plenty of evidence this kayfabe is not just an isolated incident but the way the security state really does business. As the un-FOIA-able DC Capitol Police establish cross-country beachheads in Florida and California and prepare to deploy U.S. military surveillance tech used on insurgents in Afghanistan, it’s well past time to start shutting this Hydra down.
It is well-established by now that U.S. intelligence agencies use informants, lies, and leaks to frame people, causes, and political opponents of the regime. This is so well-established that it would be surprising if the one Capitol riot Democrats are pursuing did not include FBI or other federal spy state provocateurs. And if that’s the case, then our country is in deep, deep sh-t.
For readers who have been under a rock for the last five years, let’s review just the recent highlights of spy agency, Democrat, and media collusion that would lead one to suspect the Jan. 6 events as part of this pattern.
Russiagate is the prime example. This was designed to make Americans believe that if Donald Trump won in 2016, his presidency was illicitly installed by foreign actors. It was a complete fabrication of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, in collusion with the Obama White House, and highly successful. It dragged the nation on a five-year goose chase costing billions of dollars and hamstringing the national government — not coincidentally during a rare, ill-used, and short-lived span during which Republicans controlled both Congress and the presidency.
In this wildly successful information operation, Democrats used federal surveillance and police state powers to spy on a president from the opposing political party and then prevent him from exercising the constitutional powers granted to him by voters, smearing him along the way with false and outrageous allegations (“pee-pee tapes,” “Manchurian candidate”) that also helped cost Republicans the next two elections by driving his negatives sky-high.
Top intelligence officials lied under oath to Congress and fabricated evidence for this operation, and none have been brought to justice. Many are getting quite comfortable pensions or post-Trump CNN sinecures. This election-rigging conspiracy included not only top national security and intelligence officials but also reached all the way up to President Obama and then-Vice President Joe Biden.
We have public documentation of U.S. spy agencies using their massive powers for political purposes far beyond Russiagate, without any serious retaliatory action taken by Congress. Clearly, Congress’s habit of useless showboating and taking insane Democrat allegations at face value only has encouraged graver abuses.
Since this is an article and not a book, let’s just do a non-comprehensive list to further illustrate this is a pattern of military-industrial authoritarian behavior not at all limited to Russiagate.
2011: It’s revealed in court documents that the Obama administration FBI was spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen and the Associated Press. The government accused Rosen of “espionage” for reporting critically on the administration, which was reportedly paging through Rosen’s private Gmail account and phone logs with his parents.
October 2011: “[T]he Obama administration secretly changed longstanding policy to create a ‘loophole,’ according to Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct ‘backdoor searches’ of U.S. citizens’ domestic communications. Previously, NSA spying was publicly believed to be confined to foreign terrorist threats and foreign territory.”
2012: CBS reporter Sharyl Atkisson’s work computer and personal devices were hacked and surveilled, likely by federal agents using their spy powers to sabotage her reporting on the Obama administration Fast and Furious scandal. Litigation over the abuse of power is still ongoing today, and implicates Department of Justice official Rod Rosenstein.
2015: Obama administration caught using the NSA to spy on members of Congress with the goal of neutering opposition to its Iran deal.
September 2017: Obama national security advisor Susan Rice, now Biden’s Domestic Policy Council director, admitted she used NSA surveillance powers to spy on Trump and incoming Trump administration officials up to a year before he took office.
2016: A large proportion of the alleged insurrectionist occupiers in the Bundy standoff in Oregon are revealed as federal informants authorized to commit crimes to entice non-agents into criminal conduct, leading to court acquittals of many involved. The FBI also used additional informants in the case outside the standoff location.
August 2019: Excerpts of leaked classified information from a phone call with Ukraine’s president are used to spark another impeachment attempt against Trump that later turned out to be yet another Potemkin plot constructed from sewn-together leaks and lies that went completely unpunished.
November 2020: Top military and other deep state officials successfully stymie, with lies and leaks, Trump’s four-year quest to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan.
January 2021: Former CIA chief of staff calls for federal intelligence agencies to place spies within and electronically surveil conservative grassroots groups.
May 2021: Acting Secretary of Defense Mark Miller testifies to Congress that pressure from previous defense secretaries — all top-level intelligence officials — caused him to refuse requests to provide better security at the U.S. Capitol in advance of what federal intelligence agencies knew would be a volatile crowd coming in on January 6.
July 2021: “a National Security Agency (NSA) investigation quietly confirmed Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s allegation that it had collected his electronic communications” — then leaked them to sabotage his reporting.
In addition to info ops that we know included U.S. intelligence agencies, we’ve seen propaganda operations that we don’t know included intelligence agencies but used their deceptive leaking, media-planted misinformation, and crisis construction techniques. These include the attempt at preventing Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation using wholly unsubstantiated sexual smears; the Big Tech collusion to prevent the Hunter Biden corruption scandal from reaching voters in October 2020, which statistically could have cost Biden the presidency; and the attempt to end election security from 2020 on using COVID as a pretext.
All these tactics, of course, are hallmarks of totalitarian dictatorships. Yes, all that fear-mongering pounded into our national psyche about Donald Trump as an “authoritarian” “fascist”? It’s clearly projection by people deploying actually authoritarian and fascist methods of governance, like spying on political opponents, surveilling journalists, fabricating smears, and using leaks and “confidential human sources” to frame people as nefarious actors.
All this certainly makes one think twice about many facts related to January 6, such as these noted by Glenn Greenwald: “Numerous requests prior to the event for an additional police force and national guard activation were rejected by the civilian command structure. Social media companies were actively feeding information to law enforcement about what was being planned by conspirators. We also know that the FBI extensively monitors social media through a variety of agents and tools.”
As Greenwald also notes, the U.S. surveillance state has been perfecting and deploying its authoritarian methods for decades, unchecked by the elected officials who claim to conduct “oversight” but haven’t ever taken a single scalp, or even nicked blood, over this critical issue. One wonders what kind of dirt on members of “oversight” committees the National Security Agency and FBI have tipped their hands to having obtained to keep them so amazingly docile.
After all, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer did tell Rachel Maddow on TV in 2017: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
So, are Republicans just going to accept a role as the impotent cardboard opposition in what is truly a one-party government (another hallmark of a dictatorial state), or are they going to dispense with the dangerous pretense that being “pro-law enforcement” and “pro-military” means letting unelected spy agencies continue to expand their utterly terrifying powers? When are they going to register what has happened in the last 20 years and turn that into an immediate instinct to deeply distrust anything Democrats say, even and especially when it includes quotes, leaks, and made-for-TV videos of people pounding on doors, burning down cities, or driving vans down to a Democrat governor’s lake house?
Republicans believe they are going to retake Congress in 2022. Maybe they will. But for what? For another two or four years of posturing on TV while taxpayer-funded spies and traitors continue to decide which of them are allowed to be in office?
If they want to stop earning contempt, Republicans must right now make strategic plans to use Congress’s budget authority to slash and burn the entire deep state so vigorously that whoever is left to actually fight terrorists instead of manufacture them will remember it 100 years from now. Thinking of this situation in less than existential terms requiring resolute, intelligent, and decisive action would be a fatal and historic mistake.
For want of such courage, the republic is fully lost.
The editor-in-chief of Germany’s top newspaper Bild has apologized for the news outlet’s fear-driven coverage of COVID, specifically to children who were told “that they were going to murder their grandma.”
In a speech delivered to camera, Julian Reichelt said sorry for Bild’s coverage which was “like poison” and “made you feel like you were a mortal danger to society.”
Reichelt directed his main sentiment towards children who have been terrorized by fearmongering media coverage which has caused child depression and suicides to soar across the world.
“To the millions of children in this country for whom our society is responsible, I want to express here what neither our government nor our Chancellor dares to tell you. We ask you to forgive us,” he said.
“Forgive us for this policy which, for a year and a half, has made you victims of violence, neglect, isolation, and loneliness.”
“We persuaded our children that they were going to murder their grandma if they dared to be what they are, children. Or if they met their friends. None of this has been scientifically proven.”
“When a state steals the rights of a child, it must prove that by doing so it protects him against concrete and imminent danger. This proof has never been provided. It has been replaced by propaganda presenting the child as a vector of the pandemic.”
Reichelt noted how moderate voices who attempted to offer calmer perspectives on the pandemic “were never invited to the expert table” and urged viewers “don’t believe this lie,” when encountering alarmist proclamations from the government.
The journalist called on authorities to open schools and sports halls instead of polling stations, warning that those who imposed brutal lockdown measures, “will have on their conscience and will leave in the history books, a multitude of innocent souls.”
Bild has a daily circulation of 1.24 million copies and is the best-selling newspaper in Europe, adding even more weight to this story.
As we highlighted yesterday, Germans protesting against plans to impose domestic vaccine passports were brutalized by police during demonstrations that took place in Berlin.
The ugly scenes prompted the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer to put in a request for eyewitnesses ahead of a potential investigation.
Germans were protesting against plans to ban unvaccinated people from a plethora of different venues, including restaurants, cinemas and stadiums.
As we previously highlighted, Germany’s domestic spy agency is monitoring anti-lockdown protesters, claiming they are potentially involved in a plot to subvert the country.
With the advancement of the so-called bipartisan infrastructure deal in the Senate, the ball is soon to return to the House’s court. That means Nancy Pelosi is going to have to decide whether she’s going to follow through on her prior threats made to appease her left flank or if she’s going to betray the socialist wing to keep moderate support from collapsing.
Previously, Pelosi had asserted that she would not advance the infrastructure deal until reconciliation passed the Senate. Of course, that never made any sense. What’s the point of a bipartisan deal if Democrats are just going to shove through $3.5 trillion in spending anyway? Meanwhile, Republicans have calculated (in error, in my opinion) that by passing an infrastructure deal as a show of goodwill, they can get Sinema and Manchin to neuter the coming reconciliation effort.
For a while, the ranks seemed to be holding for the Democrats. Now, cracks in the wall are forming, and the question is becoming who does Pelosi want to tick off the most?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s plan to link the Senate’s $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure plan to a $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package is starting to backfire, as moderate Democrats warn they may not vote for a budget resolution needed to begin the reconciliation process unless it’s paired with a vote on the Senate bill.
Rep. Ed Case said in an interview Friday that he wouldn’t be able to vote for the budget resolution without Pelosi also committing to holding a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. The Senate is planning to vote on both measures in the next week or two.
This is a classic example of someone overplaying their hand. All Pelosi had to do was get behind the bipartisan deal from the beginning, telling the socialist wing to enjoy their seats on the backbench. Instead, in what has become a trend over the last several years, the Speaker chose to play to her left flank. But unlike in the past, she may have done real damage this time to the more moderate faction she needs to pass the budget that would advance in the Senate under reconciliation.
Here’s the obvious issue: There was never any reason to link these two the way Pelosi did. If she had just ignored AOC and her cohorts, solidified her caucus behind the idea that “this is what is possible,” and endorsed the bipartisan deal as the priority, that would have actually opened the door wider for reconciliation. After all, Joe Manchin is far more likely to hand Pelosi what she wants if she scratches his back first. In short, none of what Pelosi has done makes any political sense. Rather, it appears she got out over her skis in an attempt to satisfy the media and the left without thinking about how such a position could cost her (and them).
So where are things now? The answer is that things are a convoluted mess. Republicans are dancing on the head of a pin, hoping to woo Manchin and Sinema to their side over reconciliation while Pelosi may have needlessly cut her own legs out from under her in the process. Does Pelosi stick to her word and say no to the infrastructure deal?
My guess is that she doesn’t. There will be an eleventh-hour fold here where she laments her position but says she’ll allow the infrastructure deal to go first. At that point, though, it’s no longer just about Pelosi. Will the socialist wing in the House get in line? Or will they make good on their threats to blow the entire thing up if they don’t get their way? And even if this makes it to the Senate, will Bernie Sanders support a lesser reconciliation package or made good on his promises to only support even more spending?
Honestly, your guess is as good as mine. What I do know is that Pelosi screwed up here by allying herself with the far left early on over this issue. Had she played it close to the vest, she’d be in a far better position to finesse both bills through. But promises were made, and there’s a part of the left that won’t tolerate those promises being broken. Let it burn.
The pressure on Chinese athletes to perform has never been higher. Anything less than a gold is being seen as athletes being unpatriotic by furious nationalists online. The BBC's Waiyee Yip reports.
China's mixed doubles table tennis team made a tearful apology at the Tokyo Olympics last week - for winning a silver medal.
"I feel like I've failed the team... I'm sorry everyone," Liu Shiwen said, bowing in apology, tears welling in her eyes.
Her partner, Xu Xin, added: "The whole country was looking forward to this final. I think the entire Chinese team cannot accept this result."
Their finals loss against Japan in a sport they usually dominate had left many online furious.
On microblogging platform Weibo, some "keyboard warriors" attacked the pair, saying they had "failed the nation".
Others made unsubstantiated claims of referee bias towards Japan's Jun Mizutani and Mima Ito.
As nationalist fever continues to sweep the country, racking up the Olympic medal tally has become much more than just sporting glory.
"To these people, Olympic medal tables are real-time trackers of national prowess and, by extension, of national dignity," said Dr Florian Schneider, director of the Netherlands' Leiden Asia Centre.
"In that context, someone who fails at a competition against foreigners has let down or even betrayed the nation."
The table tennis match was an especially bitter pill to swallow because it had been a loss to Japan, with which China shares a tumultuous history.
Japan's occupation of Manchuria in northern China in 1931 before a wider war began six years later, killed millions of Chinese. It is still a sore point between the two nations.
To Chinese nationalists, then, the match was not just an athletic event, Dr Schneider said. "It's a stand-off between China and Japan."
Anti-Japanese sentiments on Weibo ran high throughout the match, as users called Mizutani and Ito all manners of names.
But it's not just Japan - or table tennis.
China's Li Junhui and Liu Yuchen were targeted online when they lost their badminton doubles final to Taiwan.
"Are you guys not awake? You didn't put in any effort at all. What crap!" one Weibo user said.
Tensions between China and Taiwan have soared in recent years.
China sees Taiwan as a breakaway province, but many Taiwanese people disagree and want a separate nation.
Other targeted athletes included sharpshooter Yang Qian - despite her taking the Tokyo Games' first gold medal.
Her downfall? An old Weibo post where she had showed off her Nike shoe collection.
People were not pleased, given how the brand is among those boycotted for its pledge to stop using Xinjiang cotton over forced labour concerns.
"As a Chinese athlete, why do you have to collect Nike shoes? Shouldn't you lead the way in boycotting Nike?" one comment read.
Yang has since deleted the post.
Her teammate Wang Luyao also faced anger when she failed to make a spot in the women's 10m air rifle final.
"Did we send you to the Olympics to represent the country just to be weak?" one comment said.
Criticism of her was so overwhelming that Weibo suspended the accounts of some 33 users, local media said.
Given the competitive nature of the Olympics, people getting upset over any losses is, of course, hardly unique to China.
In Singapore, star swimmer Joseph Schooling received harsh trolling after failing to defend his 100m butterfly crown last week.
The censure got so vile that several government leaders, including President Halimah Yacob, came out calling for support for him.
But the outrage seen online in China is arguably more pronounced, and not just because its population is massive and internet-savvy.
"The so-called 'little pinks', or youngsters with strong nationalist feelings, have a disproportionate voice online," said Dr Jonathan Hassid, a political science expert at Iowa State University.
"In part, this voice is amplified because legitimate criticism of the state is increasingly unacceptable."
Nationalism in China has risen sharply in recent years as its global influence grows and any international criticisms are seen as attempts to target its development.
The Olympics also came hot on the heels of the China Communist Party's (CCP's) 100th anniversary celebrations on 1 July, where President Xi Jinping made a defiant speech about how China would never be "bullied" by foreign powers.
"The authorities have flagged nationalism as the correct way to understand current affairs, and now citizens are turning to that framework when they need to make sense of China's role in the world," Dr Schneider said.
"The Chinese public have been told that national success matters, and now Chinese athletes must deliver this success in Tokyo."
Dr Schneider and other experts noted however, that these angry reactionary nationalists most likely do not represent the Chinese majority.
Dr Hassid said: "If the only voices consistently allowed are the loudest nationalists, we should not be surprised that their voices can dominate online discussion far out of proportion to their actual numbers."
Amid the outrage seen on Weibo, there was also wide support for Team China, with some calling out the trolls for being "unreasonable".
State media also called on the public to be more "rational".
"I hope that all of us in front of the screen will establish a rational view of gold medals, and of victory and defeat, to enjoy ... the Olympic spirit," a Xinhua News Agency commentary said.
Experts say this is indicative of where the "danger" lies - when nationalism appears to have gone too far, even for the state.
"The CCP tries to exploit online nationalism for its own purposes, but events like this show that once Chinese citizens get riled up, the state has great difficulty in controlling these feelings," Dr Hassid said.
"Exploiting nationalist sentiment is like riding a tiger. Once on board, it is difficult to control and hard to get off."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-58024068
