Below is my column in the Hill on the need for a new “Church Committee” to investigate and reform the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after years of scandals involving alleged political bias. In response to criticism over its role in Twitter’s censorship system, the FBI lashed out against critics as “conspiracy theorists” spreading disinformation. However, it still refuses to supply new information on other companies, beyond Twitter, that it has paid to engage in censorship.
Here is the column:
“Conspiracy theorists … feeding the American public misinformation” is a familiar attack line for anyone raising free-speech concerns over the FBI’s role in social media censorship. What is different is that this attack came from the country’s largest law enforcement agency, the FBI — and, since the FBI has made combatting “disinformation” a major focus of its work, the labeling of its critics is particularly menacing.
Fifty years ago, the Watergate scandal provoked a series of events that transformed not only the presidency but federal agencies like the FBI. Americans demanded answers about the involvement of the FBI and other federal agencies in domestic politics. Ultimately, Congress not only investigated the FBI but later impanelled the Church Committee to investigate a host of other abuses by intelligence agencies.
A quick review of recent disclosures and controversies shows ample need for a new Church Committee:
The Russian investigations
The FBI previously was at the center of controversies over documented political bias. Without repeating the long history from the Russian influence scandal, FBI officials like Peter Strzok were fired after emails showed open bias against presidential candidate Donald Trump. The FBI ignored warnings that the so-called Steele dossier, largely funded by the Clinton campaign, was likely used by Russian intelligence to spread disinformation. It continued its investigation despite early refutations of key allegations or discrediting of sources.
Biden family business
The FBI has taken on the character of a Praetorian Guard when the Biden family has found itself in scandals.
For example, there was Hunter Biden’s handgun, acquired by apparently lying on federal forms. In 2018, the gun allegedly was tossed into a trash bin in Wilmington, Del., by Hallie Biden, the widow of Hunter’s deceased brother and with whom Hunter had a relationship at the time. Secret Service agents reportedly appeared at the gun shop with no apparent reason, and Hunter later said the matter would be handled by the FBI. Nothing was done despite the apparent violation of federal law.
Later, the diary of Hunter’s sister, Ashley, went missing. While the alleged theft normally would be handled as a relatively minor local criminal matter, the FBI launched a major investigation that continued for months to pursue those who acquired the diary, which reportedly contains embarrassing entries involving President Biden. Such a massive FBI deployment shocked many of us, but the FBI built a federal case against those who took possession of the diary.
Targeting Republicans and conservatives
Recently the FBI was flagged for targeting two senior House Intelligence Committee staffers in grand jury subpoenas sent to Google. It has been criticized for using the Jan. 6 Capitol riot investigations to target conservative groups and GOP members of Congress, including seizing the phone of one GOP member.
The FBI also has been criticized for targeting pro-life violence while not showing the same vigor toward pro-choice violence.
Hunter’s laptop
While the FBI was eager to continue the Russian investigations with no clear evidence of collusion, it showed the opposite inclination when given Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop. The laptop would seem to be a target-rich environment for criminal investigators, with photos and emails detailing an array of potential crimes involving foreign transactions, guns, drugs and prostitutes. However, reports indicate that FBI officials moved to quash or slow any investigation.
The computer repairman who acquired the laptop, John Paul Mac Isaac, said he struggled to get the FBI to respond and that agents made thinly veiled threats regarding any disclosures of material related to the Biden family; he said one agent told him that “in their experience, nothing ever happens to people that don’t talk about these things.”
The ‘Twitter Files’
The “Twitter Files” released by Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, show as many as 80 agents targeting social-media posters for censorship on the site. This included alleged briefings that Twitter officials said were the reason they spiked the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election.
The FBI sent 150 messages on back channels to just one Twitter official to flag accounts. One Twitter executive expressed unease over the FBI’s pressure, declaring: “They are probing & pushing everywhere they can (including by whispering to congressional staff).”
We also have learned that Twitter hired a number of retired FBI agents, including former FBI general counsel James Baker, who was a critical and controversial figure in past bureau scandals over political bias.
Attacking critics
It is not clear what is more chilling — the menacing role played by the FBI in Twitter’s censorship program, or its mendacious response to the disclosure of that role. The FBI has issued a series of “nothing-to-see-here” statements regarding the Twitter Files.
In its latest statement, the FBI insists it did not command Twitter to take any specific action when flagging accounts to be censored. Of course, it didn’t have to threaten the company — because we now have an effective state media by consent rather than coercion. Moreover, an FBI warning tends to concentrate the minds of most people without the need for a specific threat.
Finally, the files show that the FBI paid Twitter millions as part of this censorship system — a windfall favorably reported to Baker before he was fired from Twitter by Musk.
Criticizing the FBI is now ‘disinformation’
Responding to the disclosures and criticism, an FBI spokesperson declared: “The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public. It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.”
Arguably, “working every day to protect the American public” need not include censoring the public to protect it from errant or misleading ideas.
However, it is the attack on its critics that is most striking. While the FBI denounced critics of an earlier era as communists and “fellow travelers,” it now uses the same attack narrative to label its critics as “conspiracy theorists.”
After Watergate, there was bipartisan support for reforming the FBI and intelligence agencies. Today, that cacophony of voices has been replaced by crickets, as much of the media imposes another effective blackout on coverage of the Twitter Files. This media silence suggests that the FBI found the “sweet spot” on censorship, supporting the views of the political and media establishment.
As for the rest of us, the FBI now declares us to be part of a disinformation danger which it is committed to stamping out — “conspiracy theorists” misleading the public simply by criticizing the bureau.
Clearly, this is the time for a new Church Committee — and time to reform the FBI.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
Finally someone says it, someone stands up to the bully, should have happened long ago on the Center/Left, but of course politics entered in. Turley knows what the FBI and Deep State did to Trump was not only wrong but treasonous/sedition. But when good men fail to act Mr. Turley, things get worse, and worse, it emboldens the thugs. Here is why this committee would nit matter now, these Dems now understand how to steal elections, so they do nit care about “real polls” they will put forth the fake polls and steal elections by saying, well, we were 7 up and won by 1, heck they can be 10 down and win like in Arizona. Notice she did not debate down 10, I wonder why Mr. Turley?
Just like Trump got 12 million more votes and NO PRESIDENT ever got more votes and lost, some like Obama and Bush got less votes and won. Trump got 12 million more votes !! More than ANY Candidate EVER !! And he lost to a guy who didn’t get out of the basement, poppycock, you know he won Turley, you know they cheated, but you would not say it, YOU ALL KNOW IT in DC and New York. So, this is how we get Hitlers Mr. Turley.
People who will rig elections by silencing those who speak the truth, by depriving their own voters of uncomfortable truths
will also commit voting fraud.
We do not trust people who act immorally for good reason.
This is the sad part of nothing done when the FBI and many intel agencies spied on Trump and everyone turned a blind eye including the courts . The beginning of the end of our country when the the constitution is over looked .
No, it’s time to abolish the FBI. Their case load can be transferred to the US Marshals along with the few “good” agents and maybe a third of their office space.
For about 20 years I’ve asked my members of Congress to mandate annual “Oath of Office Training” for all federal employees/contractors/surrogates. Also for about 20 years asked those same members of Congress to mandate “Civics Education” for our high school kids.
This type of education is required to maintain healthy agency cultures of loyalty. The old saying “if you don’t stand for anything, you will fall for anything”.
Reforming this foreign culture of unconstitutional-authoritarianism, adopted by American agencies, would go a long ways to minimizing many of these problems. The FBI is not a communist-Stasi, not a Gestapo – the FBI are constitutional officers sworn to protect constitutional rights, NOT to violate our rights.
Many of these government servants are good but suffer from bad agency leadership! Christopher Wray could institute this Oath of Office training immediately, even if Congress won’t do it. That’s the supreme and superseding loyalty oath to the U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter] created during wartime and designed to be followed during wartime and peacetime.
You need evidence to rebutt the fact that weapons were defensive in their use.
Its a pretty screwed up world when weapons that are sent for the purpose of killing the people that are unwilling to accept an unconstitutional US funded coup are called ” defensive”.
Orwell called that sort of deranged language newspeak.
Argue with history and historians, or provide a competent definition of defensive warfare.
Don’t misquote Orwell.
Orwell was an optimist.
In a meta-analysis of 63 studies of ivermectin versus COVID-19 in humans, 100% of these have shown positive results. Studies were from all continents except Antarctica. Considered individually, 29 of those studies were found to be statistically significant regarding use of ivermectin alone. Over the 63 studies in meta-analysis, pooled effects showed 69% improvement in early treatment, and prophylactic use showed 86% improvement.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/ivermectin-is-safe-and-effective-the-evidence_4944960.html
Since we are talking about the government telling social media, and big tech what to censor, this is right on topic.
Ignore the statistics cited. Focus on the Government refusing to let the discussion of ivermectin, proceed. Instead the Government said it was useless, and implied it was dangerous. The Government (through twitter, etal) instead pushed unproven treatments that profited big pharma by the $billions. All the while, Millions of Anmerican’s died needlessly.
Ivermectin should have been prescribed prophylacticly to the vulnerable population. Instead, Medical Giants live NY Governor, Hocul Banned Doctors from prescribing a perfectly safe and effective treatment.
This is why the Government is constitutionally prevented from censoring speech.
Many commenters here need to read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
to further theirunderstanding of the situation in Ukraine.
I think a quick review of Poland circa 1939 for easy comparison….
Also see Weimer Republic (and sodom gommorah) for quick comparison to current uSA.
Gavi
The Democrat hegemony is in power in government 3 letter agencies. It doesn’t really matter very much who sits in the Oval Office, when the Democrat Party controls most government agencies, social media, Hollywood, Google search engines, and the public education system.
The Democrat Party, through its activists in places of power, can target political opponents for audit, criminal prosecution far above the norm, censorship, harassment, and impoverishment. How is one person to fight the might of the entire US government?
Take the example of Dinesh D’Souza. He used a couple of friends as straw donors to give $20,000, which was more than the allowed amount to a friend’s political campaign running for office. This is a very common crime, normally either not prosecuted or simply fined. For example, Rosie O’Donnell used 5 different spellings of her name in order to donate more than the allowed amount. Zero happened to her. Dinesh D’Souza was sent to a federal penitentiary with murderers and rapists.
Maria Hsia, fundraiser for Al Gore, was found guilty of using Buddhist monks and nuns as straw donors for over $100,000 for Gore’s campaign. She got 90 days of home detention, 3 years probation, and a $5,300 fine. Hsia employed monks and nuns in a complicated straw donor scheme for $100,000, and served not a single day in jail. Dinesh D’Souza reimbursed 2 friends for a $20,000 straw man donation, and served time in prison with very dangerous people. What’s the difference? The difference is the full force of the government targeting a political opponent of the Democrat hegemony.
Every FBI official, especially top managers, swear an Oath of Office NOT to violate anyone’s constitutional rights and no FBI official has the authority to violate the U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter] designed to be obeyed during wartime and peacetime.
When FBI officials perform “constitutionally-subversive” actions, that is precisely what feeds the “Deep State” conspiracy theorists.
Right now, the DOJ and FBI are investigating the January 6 Insurrection for “constitutionally-subversive” actions. When the DOJ and FBI use subversive tactics, that is exactly what feeds the “Deep State” mania. Secretly coercing Twitter to censor legal 1st Amendment activity is “constitutionally-subversive”.
The DOJ and FBI also have a long track record of “constitutionally-subversive” practices. The DOJ actually maintained a “List of Subversive Persons” to be targeted, like Martin Luther King, Jr.
Martin Luther King, Jr was never “constitutionally-subversive”. King used the U.S. Constitution to overturn “constitutionally-subversive” Jim Crow laws. So the DOJ and FBI have always been highly inaccurate in the Americans it targeted. These agencies were subversive, not Martin Luther King, Jr.
FBI Director Christopher Wray should read former FBI Field Agent, Mike German’s book “Disrupt, Discredit and Divide” on how to reform the FBI.
[source: article “Prelude to McCarthyism…the making of a blacklist” by Robert Justin Goldstein published by the National Archives in 2006].
” Biden is the cause of the war. ”
Trump started the war by funding the Ukrainian govt’s efforts to wipe out the Russian population in eastern Ukraine.
Without that funding there would not be a war.
Biden is carrying on what Trump started.
The war resulted from the US refusing to accept the Russian demand that Ukraine remain neutral and respect Russian interests in the east.
The seeds were planted when Bush proposed that Georgia and Russia join NATO. The ground was fertile because of past NATO expansion despite Russian objections, notwithstanding the promise made by Baker that NATO would not expand eastward after the unification of Germany.
The war began when the US helped overthrow an elected government in 2014, because it had decided to orient itself towards Russia, having weighed a competing bid by the EU. After a stalemate of seven years, during which Ukraine with the backing of the west refused to implement the Minsk accords, Putin decided to raise the stakes. The issues still could have been resolved diplomatically had the US acknowledged a Russian sphere of influence in the Donbas and given up on its dream of incorporating Ukraine into NATO. But Biden preferred a war. We can all speculate as to why.
Daniel wrote: “After a stalemate of seven years, during which Ukraine with the backing of the west refused to implement the Minsk accords, Putin decided to raise the stakes.”
The stakes were raised when the US started supplying the Ukraine govt with weapons that were intended for the sole purpose of killing Russians that inhabited the eastern part of Ukraine.
The conflict in the Donbass would likely have remained a stalemate without that significant escalation by Trump.
To grasp how significant weapons shipments are to keeping this war alive, consider that If the US and NATO suddenly withdrew the arms shipments the conflict between Russia and Ukraine would be settled diplomatically within days.
Something tells me that the US was doing some serious meddling in Ucraine before Trump came along. I’m not saying Trump may not have contributed to this situation, but this didn’t start with him. Enough TDS already.
Independent Bob: “Something tells me that the US was doing some serious meddling in Ucraine before Trump came along.”
Yes that is certainly correct and if they could the US war machine would have gotten to where we are now without Trump if they could.
The problem they had was getting the US population to not rebel against it. That’s where Trump shines.
I mean, Obama could have escalated the war like Trump did, but Obama’s supporters would have rebelled and Obama’s detractors would have rebelled even more.
My recollection is that the weapons supplied by the Trump administration were mainly defensive in nature, and relatively few in number.
The thrust of Trump’s policy toward Russia during his campaign was to seek a realist accommodation. This was derailed by the Russia hoax, followed immediately by the Ukraine impeachment, which was in effect a deep state rebellion aided by Democrats and neocons. They won when the operatives behind the Maidan coup d’etat such as Victoria Nuland were restored to power to continue their war by proxy.
Daniel wrote: ” My recollection is that the weapons supplied by the Trump administration were mainly defensive in nature. ”
The weapons that Trump supplied were the weapons Ukraine needed needed to attack Russians living in the Donbass area of Ukraine.
The Russians in the eastern part of Ukraine did not want to live in a country as second class citizens or worse.
Attacking the Russians in the Donbass was a violation of the Minsk peace accord that Ukraine had agreed to.
There is no way you can spin what Trump did into anything other than the same old, same old war-mongering that the US war machine has been up to for many decades.
The only difference is that Trump successfully did it in a way that encouraged the majority of the US voters to support it.
Jinn, I appreciate your argument, but Daniel has an excellent point. Daniel was talking about defensive weapons. There are arguments supporting defensive wars rather than the usual offensive/ defensive. We see such an argument historically.
The first one to come to mind is the battle between Corcyra and Corinth. Athens had to choose a side, and because of Corcyra’s sea power, Athens chose Corcyra. If Corcyra lost to Corinth, it threatened Athenian naval superiority. But Athens didn’t want a war with Corinth, fearing that Sparta and others would enter on Corynths side.
Athens initially supplied only 10 ships instead of the hundreds they could have, which would have defeated Corinth. When the battle started, Athens did not involve its ships, but when Corcyria started to lose Athens sent 20 more ships causing the battle to end, for Corinth didn’t want to take the risk. In this way, the Athenians never entered the war.
That was a defensive engagement, as was Trump’s. The flaw in your argument is that when the US added no armaments, Russia attacked Ukraine and took Crimea. There are many different ideas of how far Russia would go, and there was concern that without constraint, Russia would attack Poland, a Nato ally.
The proof that Trump’s “defensive war” worked was that no significant Russian or Ukranian movements occurred under his administration. However, under the Biden administration, war broke out as it did earlier when he was VP.
There should be praise for Trump that no new wars occurred at a very delicate time. In all likelihood, no war would have occurred under the second four years of Trump.
Trump managed other dangerous incidents in a knowledgeable fashion. Look what happened in Syria. Trump stood up to the Russians defensively and elsewhere in Syria, moving American troops nearby, away from the center of a potential battle between the Syrians and the Kurds. Trump was consistent and did not involve us in new wars, but created new peace.
S. Meyer wrote: “That was a defensive engagement, as was Trump’s. The flaw in your argument is that when the US added no armaments, Russia attacked Ukraine and took Crimea. ”
That would be a good argument if it was based on fact not fiction
There was no attack by Russia to take Crimea.
At the time of the 2014 US financed coup in Ukraine, the govt of Ukraine that was illegally overthrown was allied with Russia,and just as in Syria, Russia had a large military presence in Crimea at the invitation of the of the duly elected and legal govt of Ukraine. But more important than that is the people of Crimea who are mostly Russian did not want to be part of the new illegal govt in Kyiv.
Its truly astonishing that you use Trump’s illegal military actions in Syria as part of your argument that Trump would not wage war. Russian military are in Syria at the invitation of the legal, elected and sovereign govt of Syria.
Its also astonishing that you can twist logic to the point that you claim “defensive” when describing arms that are sent for the stated purpose of killing the segment of the population who are unwilling to accept the illegal coup that the US imposed on Ukraine.
“That would be a good argument if it was based on fact not fiction There was no attack by Russia to take Crimea.”
Putin admitted the use of Russian forces. That invalidates everything you have said.
“the people of Crimea who are mostly Russian did not want to be part of the new illegal govt in Kyiv.”
Do you know what International Law says?
“Its truly astonishing that you use Trump’s illegal military actions in Syria as part of your argument that Trump would not wage war.”
Before opening up a new debate on the middle east, you need to justify Syria’s existence and borders. Look at my previous statement on International Law. I want to understand your ground rules for any debate.
You might feel Assad should be free to kill civilians using chemical weapons. That is your prerogative. I will not argue with such a belief because it sounds faith-based rather than a sound argument.
There is much more behind Trump’s actions to discuss, but that opens pages of discussion on a different subject than Ukraine.
“you can twist logic to the point that you claim “defensive”
I discussed the Corcyrian and Corinthian battles because they demonstrate the use of defensive warfare. Pericles’s actions for the defense of Athens also represent defensive warfare. He also provided other actions that demonstrate offensive warfare.
I used ancient history so that we could better define what defensive warfare is.
Defensive warfare is not based on the color of Trump’s hair or TDS. It is not based on its safety record. It is based on tactical solutions. Ukraine was provided armaments more effective for battle within its borders than outside of them.
The weapons that Trump supplied were the weapons Ukraine needed needed to attack Russians living in the Donbass area of Ukraine.
Repeating you original premise is not a debate. You need evidence to rebutt the fact that weapons were defensive in their use.
Like the coup in 2014?
@Jinn,
No matter how many times you say that BS, it won’t change the fact that it is BS.
Please actually learn the world history post Potsdam to understand how we got here.
The reality is that Biden’s inaction gave Putin the green light to go in.
Putin messed up because his forces thought it would be a cake walk. The reality is that they failed at two main initiatives at the start of the war. To make matters worse. The West while not sending in troops, sent weapons instead.
So you want to blame anyone… the blame falls on Biden for being an inept #uck. The one thing that Trump and Obama can easily agree upon. Joe will #uck #p anything he touches.
-G
Until now, I thought morons like you existed in theory only. Congratulations Jinn.
I find it interesting that we have posters on this blog who support the interaction of the FBI with Twitter. It is interesting but not surprising. There were many people who supported J. Edgar Hoover when he was spying on Martin Luther King Jr. People then did exactly what people are doing now to protect the FBI. However there is one notable difference. Once Hoover was exposed he was discredited by members of both parties but today once the FBI is being exposed those on the left have rallied in favor of the censorship that the FBI requested. It ain’t your Grandfathers Democratic Party anymore. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/22/1138189651/biography-j-edgar-hoover-gman-beverly-gage-fbi
The FBI has absolutely no business asking web sites to take down misinformation®™ and disinformation®™.
The problem is with us the voters. We only the want the U.S. Constitution to protect things we support, but don’t want the constitutional rule of law to benefit people or practices we dislike.
The very same constitutional process, that protects gun owners – also protects women’s rights, LGBT rights and African-American rights. If you cite the 2nd Amendment you are citing the constitutional system. If you cite 14th Amendment rights that benefit women, LGBT-Americans and African-Americans it’s the same system.
Today too many Democrats are weakening this system by supporting “censorship” – weakening the 1st Amendment “restraint” on governing authority. That will weaken the same system that protects rights of women, LGBT-Americans and African-Americans longterm.
After 9/11, Republicans and so-called Conservatives supported laws that essentially outlawed things like “photographing government buildings with brown skin” or “playing paintball with brown skin”. It was perfectly proper to do if you had white skin. By violating the enforcement of laws like this, unequal enforcement of law outlawed by the 14th Amendment – this also weakens your future gun rights and property rights.
Instead of the U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter] being a “restraint” on unconstitutional authority, this type of cherry-picking allows “using unconstitutional means to justify any end goal”. This literally deems the U.S. Constitution meaningless.
For example: if a brown-skinned citizen is investigated by the local police and federal officials, for photographing a building, photographing a dam or playing paintball. Conservatives are essentially saying “the ends justify unconstitutional means”. The threat is so great that we can no longer follow the U.S. Constitution [a wartime governing charter].
Using that same measuring stick, today one could make a strong argument that “gun deaths” are at a far greater threat than photographers or paintball players with brown skin.
By Conservatives being liberal on interpreting the U.S. Constitution (after the “War on a Tactic” after 9/11) – today we could say that “gun deaths justify unconstitutional means” as well. If the 14th Amendment and Bill of Rights are meaningless, the same logic applies to the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution is no longer a legal “restraint” on governing authority.
The federal agencies love this game. It weakens restraints on their activities. They no longer have to follow their Oath if Office either – since voters of both parties weakened the “constitutional rule of law” system.
What statute passed by Congress criminalized only brown people from taking photographs of government buildings?
Responding to Michael T. Ejercito:
Federal criminal codes Title 18 US Code 245, 18 USC 241 and 42 US Code 1983 – federal criminal statutes that define the 14th Amendment.
These criminal laws make “selective enforcement” or unequal treatment under the law a federal crime.
Similar to “Driving while Black” where statistics show black drivers get pulled over more simply for the color of their skin, not base on bad driving or any wrongdoing. It’s a federal crime to selectively enforce laws based on race, religion or any other reason.
After the “War on a Tactic” after 9/11, brown skinned people were blacklisted (for life) by federally funded and state operated “Fusion Centers”. This was part of George W. Bush’s unconstitutional “Preemption & Prevention Grants” that paid local governments money to blacklist innocent people.
American voters want the law to be enforced.
President Trump won 63% of actual, legitimate American voters in 2020.
__________________________________________________________
“White men opted 63% for Trump and 31% for Clinton; white women voted 53% for Trump and 43% for Clinton.”
– The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls
____________________________________________________________________________
In 1860, secession was not prohibited by the Constitution and “Crazy Abe’s” entire “Reign of Terror” must have never happened, including his posthumous “injurious” “Reconstruction Amendments” which were dictated by Karl Marx.
Only Chief Justice Roger B. Taney acted, to a small degree, legally and per his sworn oath to correct the high-criminal “Crazy Abe.”
On January 1, 1863, extant immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1802, was in full force and effect requiring compassionate repatriation – lest one believes it legal or otherwise beneficial to leave a foreign 3-milion-man standing army on American soil.
American voters have always wanted the laws to be enforced.
Ashcroft, not a bad post.
You obviously have never used youtube.
“so-called Conservatives supported laws that essentially outlawed things like “photographing government buildings with brown skin”
Wow, you’re just so wrong. It is much rarer that a brown skinned person gets harassed and arrested for such a thing. The goons are all the same. They scream suspicion, demand ID, then go full jackboot.
It has been white male Constitutional Patriots that have led the amendment audits, 1st amendment for filming government buildings. Though recently a few minorities have joined in.
You’re just absolutely clueless. You got your idea from the Atlantic or maybe The Nation, or Vox, or Media Matters, or whatever lying rag.
Go look at the evidence directly. Or don’t.
There just is not a chance I’ll believe you. You’re so clueless. Did you ever try to go see for yourself ? Did you lift a finger beyond rattling your noggin up and down when some left wing hack spewed the lie to you ?
The Geheime Staatspolizei (translated as Secret State Police), abbreviated Gestapo, was the official secret police of Nazi Germany and in German-occupied Europe
The power of the Gestapo included the use of what was called, Schutzhaft—”protective custody”, a euphemism for the power to imprison people without judicial proceedings. An oddity of the system was that the prisoner had to sign his own Schutzhaftbefehl, an order declaring that the person had requested imprisonment—presumably out of fear of personal harm. In addition, political prisoners throughout Germany—and from 1941, throughout the occupied territories under the Night and Fog Decree (German: Nacht und Nebel)—simply disappeared while in Gestapo custody. Up to 30 April 1944, at least 6,639 persons were arrested under Nacht und Nebel orders. However, the total number of people who disappeared as a result of this decree is not known.
We are eerily creeping toward this in the United States with none other than the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Chuck Schumer warned us. Believe the Nazis when they tell us what they will do
Trump started the Ukraine War by providing Ukraine with the weaponry it needed to kill the Russians that inhabited the Eastern part of Ukraine.
Russia had made it clear that if the West started funneling weapons to Ukraine for the purpose of killing the Russian population in Ukraine that Russia would intervene.
The US ignored that warning and here we are.
Arming Ukraine withg weapons whose stated purpose was to kill Russians was the red line that Trump crossed that started the Ukraine War in 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/8a3b5e28-e896-11e7-bd17-521324c81e23
Ukrainegate was a “Limited Hangout” operation engineered by the CIA and Trump to get the Democrats on board with sending arms to Ukraine to fuel the ongoing conflict between the western Ukrainian and eastern Russian inhabitants of Ukraine.
All it took was for Trump to threaten to withhold shipments of arms to Ukraine for several weeks and every Democrat was suddenly behind the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. Russia has for years been saying that Russia would not abandoned the people of Russian extraction in the eastern part of Ukraine. The US has now found out that was not a bluff.
US foreign policy to expand NATO Eastward started this war years if not decades ago.
Several foreign policy experts have written articles on the topic.
Get educated. Get informed.
https://www.guardian2zotagl6tmjucg3lrhxdk4dw3lhbqnkvvkywawy3oqfoprid.onion/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine
@upstate farmer.
That’s not really an accurate depiction.
Post Berlin wall, the goal became one of destabilizing the Soviet’s control in the region and after the fall of the wall, you saw the start of the fall of the USSR.
You are quoting an article which is not fully placing this into context. NATO wasn’t supposed to go Eastward like that. However there was a desire to increase the membership of the EU countries and bring them into the treaty.
The issue is that there’s a conflation of a couple of things in that article which are incorrect.
-G
G – the western border of NATO is the Atlantic. The southern the Mediterainian.
Expanding NATO mean going east.
@John Say…
My point was that there was no expansion of NATO planned.
The EU wanted to expand and let these countries in. They could… however the US could veto allowing them to join NATO which would have been the wise move if it actually got that far.
That’s why I said NATO wasn’t supposed to go Eastward like that.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATO and EU membership.
-G
In almost every instance that Putin attacked a neighbor, that attack was preceded by loose talk, usually lead by the US of moving towards NATO membership for that country.
Biden specifically has been a public advocate for NATO membership of nations adjoining Russia.
While this is documented – there is also excellent analysis of this by Prof. Meresheimer on Youtube.
Including warnings by him of the likely consequences of what NATO the EU and US were doing.
Americans in particular tend to have the view that every nation should want to be a democracy, a NATO member, and that because what we seek is in our own minds good, that opposition to it is inherently evil.
Regardless of our self delusions about “good and evil” our efforts to bring about what we think is “good” are often dangerous.
We spent 20 years trying to make Afghanisan into a secular democracy.
We failed. That is not what the Afghan people want – atleast not enough of them.
One of the things so many left wing nuts fail to grasp is that Freedom is not free.
The Afghani people – those who wanted freedom were not willing to pay the price to preserve that freedom.
Now they are not free.
One of the things Trump got right – though not as some john the baptist off in the wilderness, is that
increasingly issues in Europe and involving Russia are NOT especially in the US interests.
The focus of US interests are shifting rapidly to Asia. Russia is a dying global power.
Our primary interest is that occurs with the least possible danger to the world – as they have half the nukes in the world.
US energy independence significantly diminishes our national security interests globally – especially in Europe and the Mideast.
Both the US and the world are safer if the US has energy security.
Regardless, it is unlikely this war would have happened had Biden not been president.
Not necessarily true. NATO expanding to the north thru Finland is not exactly expanding east.
NATO expanding into Sweden and Finland was not going to happen, but for this war.
It is one of the few positive outcomes.
I would add that Canada is also part of NATO. So there is a northern border as well.
The only possible NATO expansion North was into the Arctic.
Prior to the Ukraine War Sweden and Finland were not joining NATO
Now they are
One of the few good outcomes of the War.
I world further note that NATO is “North Atlantic Treaty Organization”
The atlantic is far west of Ukraine.
Much of NATO today is far from the North Atlantic.
“Trump started the Ukraine War”
Without my discussing the correct policy, and before you make such comments, one needs to recognize the history and think.
After the USSR broke apart, the US declared protection for Ukraine if they gave up their nuclear weapons. Putin has expansionistic aspirations, and he attacked Ukraine by taking illegal (international law) control over Crimea.
The west, including the United States, talked about permitting Ukraine to join Nato, which threatens Russia. Ukraine was part of Nato when Russia took over Crimea. A war might have ensued with both sides capable of using nuclear weapons if Ukraine was a Nato country.
The US duty to protect Crimea existed. You can judge whether or not sending defensive weapons to Ukraine after Russia took over Crimea was a good idea. However, that is not the same as Nato placing offensive rockets at the borders 300 miles from Moscow.
Also, I urge you to look at the history of Ukraine, its demographics, the demographics of Russia, its declining population, and Russia’s economy.
I will say one thing if Trump were President, there would be no war in Ukraine. War in Ukraine preceded Trump entering politics, so I also urge you to remember that the last time Biden had power in the White House, war broke out between Russia and Ukraine. That should tell you something.
S. Meyer,
“Ukraine was part of Nato when Russia took over Crimea.”
Ukraine was NEVER part of NATO. Ukraine was CONSIDERING becoming a NATO member. But was never part of NATO.
You are right Svelaz, Ukraine was never a part of Nato. I wrote the sentence wrong. My argument is and has always been, Ukraine didn’t belong in Nato and should be non-aligned.
Thank you for correcting my mistake, which is contrary to what I believe.
S Meyer wrote: “I will say one thing if Trump were President, there would be no war in Ukraine. ”
So sending arms to Ukraine that were intended for the stated purpose of fighting and killing the Russian population in the eastern part of Ukraine is a sign to you that Trump would not engage the US in the war?
The previous administration had refuse to allow shipments of lethal weapons to fuel this fight, but you insist that they are the war-mongers?
The Russians had warned that if the US started supporting the Ukrainian govt in this civil war with lethal military aid that Russia would step in.
And Putin recently said he is willing to talk peace, but guess who wont show up to the peace table? Even Milley was pushing to goto the peace table, but the Biden admin wants this war.
Look who just gave another few billion in military aid to the Ukraine. That is what? Over $100 billion now?
Upstatefarmer, “And Putin recently said he is willing to talk peace, but guess who wont show up to the peace table? Even Milley was pushing to goto the peace table, but the Biden admin wants this war.”
Putin wants to talk peace because he is losing the war and wants to save face. He has no real military reserves and his military advantage is gone. Putin wants to talk peace to negotiate Ukraine’s surrender which is laughable. Biden is not the one who wanted this war. It’s putin who wanted it and he badly miscalculated and is on the verge of losing. Now that the Ukrainians are set to get the Patriot missile batteries from us Russia will lose the ability to inflict damage to the rest of its infrastructure. Putin is desperate to save his presidency. His own cabinet members are openly talking of his replacement. That is NOT good, for Putin.
You clearly have never been in the military.
If there is a chance for peace, go to the peace table. End the fighting. End the death. Stop playing nuclear or WWIII chicken.
Putin needs to pull out of Ukraine. Full stop.
” the Biden admin wants this war”
Well of course Biden wants this war. The war has the support of the entire US ruling class
The problem for the ruling class is how to get popular support for war that benefits nobody but the power elite and that is where Trump played a key role.
A large portion of the US population is gripped by TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). So briefly in the summer of 2019 Trump threatened to withhold arms shipments to Ukraine and suddenly 10s of millions of Americans are gung-ho for arms shipments to Ukraine and they don’t even know what they’re cheering for…
Likewise trump was instrumental in turning the US population against Russia so that they won’t question the story that this is all about Russian aggression.
Without Trump selling this war to the US public it would have been impossible.
That’s hilarious. The democrats outright war against Trump and their threat that he was a puppet of Putin along with the endless Russia Russia Russia cries by the democrats since 2016 is what fueled the war, besides the democrats overthrowing Ukraine in 2016.
Trump flat out said we need to be friends with Russia, and the democrats went insane, and now call for Putin’s removal. The blundering criminal family idiot has said it publicly.
You’ll never convince anyone any Trump move caused the war.
Trump was the exact opposite, and that’s why you people hate him.
He brought sense opposing your insane plots and deceptive devices.
He did not tow the goofball demo DC lines.
He instead, destroyed them.
“Why do we even have NATO anymore?” Trump said. You people screamed Putin puppet Russia Russia Russia.
The democrats have been involved in massive crimes in Ukraine for many years.
The blundering idiot admitted to his own family mob actions and bragged about withholding a billion bucks.
The democrats scream Russia interfered in our 2016 election and elected Trump – a huge lie – and immediately after denouncing Russia for interfering in our election demand Putin be forced from power. Hypocrisy at an unbelievable scale, direct and obvious.
You and yours are so guilty, no trial, no weighing of anything is needed. The minute you open your mouths you convict yourselves further. A standing, sick, putrid joke of absolute lies, every time.
The democrats outright war against Trump and their threat that he was a puppet of Putin along with the endless Russia Russia Russia cries by the democrats since 2016 is what fueled the war
I agree 100%
Both the US and Russia are the same in that they both are run by power elites who derive their wealth and power from their respective war machines.
The power elites in both Russia and the USA want this war and that includes Trump. The war in Ukraine represents huge windfall profits for the owners of the war machines of both countries.
The discussion that you dropped into was about the question would the war Ukraine have happened if Trump had been elected in 2020?
the answer is Yes because Trump is part of the power elites and very much a supporter of the US war machine. All you have to do is look at Trump’s record of funding the US war machine to see that is true.
You are correct that Trump Russia Russia hulabaloo was all about preparing the American public to support the funding of proxy war with Russia.
Without that funding (and the public support for it) there would be no war in Ukraine.
In addition to Trump’s initiating the funding of weapon shipments to fuel this war, Trump is currently bragging that he got NATO to chip in more to fund this war, also.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/trump-nato-rebuild-funding/2022/03/16/id/1061475/
“Trump is currently bragging that he got NATO to chip in more to fund this war, also.”
Jinn, you conflated two different issues. If it was an error, OK, everyone makes errors, but its it was intentional then it was not true.
@Upstate Farmer,
Doesn’t matter. US isn’t a party to the peace discussions.
Its Ukraine and Russia.
Perhaps a trusted mediator… but not the US.
-G
@Jinn,
The issue was Ukraine being part of NATO. That was on the table but not really.
It would never have happened. Biden is the cause of the war. If Trump was in office… it wouldn’t have happened.
He would have Nixxed Ukraine joining NATO.
If you every studied 20th Century world history, you’d know this.
-G
Jinn, what does international law have to say about Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s territory?
Do you understand our agreement with Ukraine when we convinced them to give up their nuclear weapons?
There is a risk to anything one does, but history tells us a lot about how successful nations act in their best interest. Whether I agree or not, Trump’s actions were consistent with a practice that has kept strong nations out of war.
“The previous administration had refuse to allow shipments of lethal weapons”
The Obama-Biden administration permitted Russia to take over Crimea and occupy it. Russia attacked Ukraine. Did you not notice that under Trump, Russia did not advance? However, under Biden, the Russians attacked Ukraine again. That should tell you something. This war never needed to exist. Time would take care of the problem because of Russia’s demographic and economic problems. Biden and Obama both caused a war that need never have happened.
Apologists for censorship claim that “what the FBI is doing is legal AND constitutional.”
Show me the law that empowers the FBI to “suggest” that media companies suppress stories it doesn’t like and to ban dissenters.
America does not have Soviet-style “political officers” planted around the culture, to ensure obedience to the Party’s propaganda. At least it didn’t until circa 2016.
Sam: You are soooo correct.
Sam, here’s the pertinent rule directly from the DIOG,
“18.5.1.1 (U) Scope
(U//FOUO) Public information is “Publicly Available Information” that is:
A) (U) Published or broadcast for public consumption;
B) (U) Available on request to the public;
C) (U) Accessible on-line or otherwise to the public;
D) (U) Available to the public by subscription or purchase; E) (U) Made available at a meeting open to the public;
F) (U) Obtained by visiting any place or attending an event that is open to the public (e.g., public places); or
G) (U) Observed, heard, smelled, detected or obtained by any casual observer or member of the public and does not involve unconsented intrusion into private places.
(U//FOUO) The phrase “observed, heard, smelled, detected or obtained by any casual observer or member of the public” includes, for example, plain view observations; overhearing a conversation taking place at an adjacent table in a public restaurant; odor detection (by a person, drug dog, or technical device) emanating from a vehicle, in a public place, or from locations to which the employee has gained lawful access; searching property that has been intentionally abandoned, including property discarded in public trash containers or common dumpsters (but does not include a “trash cover” as set forth in DIOG Section 18.6.12).
(U//FOUO) The following are examples:
1) (U)Viewingthevehicleidentificationnumberorpersonalpropertythatisexposedto public view and may be seen when looking through the window of a car that is parked in an area that is open to and accessible by members of the public;
2) (U) The examination of books and magazines in a book store or the purchase of such items. See Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985); and
3) (U) A deliberate overflight in navigable air space to photograph marijuana plants is not a search, despite the landowner’s subjective expectation of privacy.
https://ia801205.us.archive.org/17/items/FBIDomesticInvestigationsAndOperationsGuideDIOG2013Revision/FBI%20Domestic%20Investigations%20and%20Operations%20Guide%20-DIOG-%202013%20Version_text.pdf
Sam, the FBI is not seeking to suppress information it doesn’t like. That is the narrative currently being peddled by those on the right.
They are referring certain information that they are legally allowed to gather which is mostly PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. They CAN share that information with social media platforms and let them decide whether they will enforce their TOS or not.
Here’s the actual policy the FBI uses to determine what is legal and what is not.
https://vault.fbi.gov/FBI%20Domestic%20Investigations%20and%20Operations%20Guide%20%28DIOG%29/FBI%20Domestic%20Investigations%20and%20Operations%20Guide%20%28DIOG%29%202016%20Version/fbi-domestic-investigations-and-operations-guide-diog-2016-version-part-02-of-02/at_download/file
See section 18.7 where they specifically cite what they are allowed to use and they refer to the specific instances where it’s legal and permissible.
“Before formally opening any kind of inquiry, agents can search and review publicly available social media and other online information (see Appendix L of the DIOG). After initiating the first level of formal FBI inquiry, called an assessment, FBI agents can record and monitor “public, real-time communications,” such as conversations in a public chat room, if recording is both necessary to the assessment and the least intrusive method to obtain the information.”
https://www.justsecurity.org/74313/guardrails-needed-for-fbi-access-to-social-media-monitoring/
You may also see section 18.5.7 regarding information shared by government and private entities.
It is not their business (with less than a handful of exceptions) what web site owners allow or do not allow on their sites.
Misinformation and disinformation are not among these exceptions.
“[T]he FBI is not seeking to suppress information it doesn’t like.”
It is a fool’s errand to explain color to those suffering from self-infliicted blindness.
Sam, I took the time to go as far as research the actual policies that govern the FBI’s conduct thru their own rules and regulations. I took time to learn the actual rules that they are supposed to adhere to and it turns out the twitter files and what the FBI did are all within the law. You are more than welcome to read thru the DIOG where all their policies and procedures are spelled out and point out what they did not do. Self inflicted blindness does not involve reading the actual rules and regulations that permit the actions they did regarding twitter and face book.
The policies you cite is the FBI using social media sites to gather the information in the public domain.
The policies you cite does not address the Government flagging content for moderation. Because the govt has no opinion on public content. We know the government told the social media to shut down any content that contradicted the CDC, and other Federal agencies concerning covid. We know the Great Barrington Declaration was blacklisted. Not because it was wrong, but because the cited research to support every line item in the declaration. The Declaration was in opposition to the govt position. The FBI, etal, told the social media to bury the scientific results. And they followed demands. Or else.
“We know the Great Barrington Declaration was blacklisted.”
As were many more scientists and science writers who dissented. “State science” is a contradiciton in terms. FBI enforced “state science” is a Soviet-style abomination. (Out of which you get frauds like Lysenko — and Fauci.)
The Left has become the modern version of Cardinal Bellarmine — decreeing by force what is and isn’t science, and punishing those scientists who disagree.
“I took the time to go as far as research the actual policies . . .”
I’m not interested in your Apologist’s rationalizations, deflections, and carpet bombing. I know “political officers” when I see them.
“Sam, the FBI is not seeking to suppress information it doesn’t like. That is the narrative currently being peddled by those on the right. ”
Did you read the Twitter drops?
Kinda says it in black and white.
But hey we’ll see the SHTF in Jan/Feb when the GOP takes the house and starts these investigations which will lead to something akin to the Church commission.
-G
The “twitter drops” don’t support the claim that it was seeking to suppress information it did not like. Otherwise people would actually post the evidence to support it.
@Sam,
Here’s the problem…
There isn’t a law that specifically says its illegal.
What you do have is the fact that if the FBI/US Govt. Did censor these accounts directly, it would be illegal.
Where you have to go to court is in the fact that these companies are acting as agents at the behest of the US Government.
So you have to sue to get them found to have broken the law. A judge to rule that it is illegal to violate the constitutional rights via a proxy.
That’s what Musk is pointing out.
That Twitter was acting as a proxy of the US Government and taking direct action on the behalf of the government.
-G
“Where you have to go to court is in the fact that these companies are acting as agents at the behest of the US Government.”
They are not doing that. They are not acting at the behest of the government. They are acting on information that the government provides and they have the choice to act or not act on it. That is not illegal or unconstitutional.
It was not the government’s business to provide it.
Ian Michael Gumby: I agree with your succinct and pointed observation/opinion that the burden going forward is the need to show that FBI used surrogates/proxies to accomplish what it could not directly.
However, I inferred something different from Sam’s post than you did. I thought he simply said, “Show me the law that empowers the FBI to ‘suggest’ that media companies suppress stories it doesn’t like and to ban dissenters.”
I agreed with him because I thought a prerequisite to follow-through/referral (on FBI initial assessments) (especially into social media and similar “public” places) is a showing of either a threat to national security or the likelihood of criminal activity? It appears that FBI’s referrals of Twitter posts would not meet that criterion?
As I said several days ago, until it is known (to the public) what was/were the purpose/intent/rationale for FBI’s communications/financial transactions with Twitter, I guess we all are just smelling sardines….
I also previously opined I was not sure that “coercion/force” was a necessary element for such a finding, -as some case law (with wholly dissimilar facts and issues) finds that mere “significant encouragement” is sufficient to establish collusive activity to support a finding that the gov’t was using surrogates/proxies to accomplish what it could not directly?
“Here’s the problem…
There isn’t a law that specifically says its illegal.”
No, the fundamental problem (of which the FBI’s corruption is merely a symptom) is this:
The American system has been turned on its head. It’s supposed to be: Government (especially law enforcement) can take no action unless it is legally and Constitutionally *permitted* to do so. The formula is *not*: Government can do whatever it wishes, unless legally prohibited. That formula is tyranny and a police state.
By design, voters aren’t seeing the “covert” activities – this is the real story here.
The FBI leaders have a long history of “engineering” suspicion that always falls below “probable cause”. Judges can be game using these tactics, preventing confrontation with targets.
“In its latest statement, the FBI insists it did not command Twitter to take any specific action when flagging accounts to be censored. Of course, it didn’t have to threaten the company — because we now have an effective state media by consent rather than coercion. Moreover, an FBI warning tends to concentrate the minds of most people without the need for a specific threat.”
And yet Turley offers zero proof. He can’t refute the FBI’s statements without having to go into the legal argument that he surely knows will not work in his favor so he goes into the easier argument of using conspiracy theory supported narrative. He doesn’t want to admit that what the FBI is doing is legal AND constitutional. As a law professor he would have to acknowledge that inconvenient reality.
“Finally, the files show that the FBI paid Twitter millions as part of this censorship system — a windfall favorably reported to Baker before he was fired from Twitter by Musk.”
Notice that he leaves out the pertinent fact that the FBI by law was required to pay twitter. Again he leaves out the legal analysis about this issue because he knows that the law made it a requirement that he can’t ague against. This is a law professor who is deliberately making assumptions and throwing a lot of speculation as fact to feed his gullible readers to keep them in their “rage mode” contrary to his own proclamations that this “age of rage” is wrong. Hypocrisy is Turley’s bread and butter and obviously a necessary evil according to his contract. It is guaranteed that there is a non-disparagement clause in his contract and that itself is an anti-free speech issue he should be ashamed of being a part of.
-Just coming back to the good professor’s blog this a.m., and, no surprise, I find Svelaz, -increasingly more bitter, stinging, and acrimonious than ever, -what is making him lash out?
So I ask you, Svelaz, what is your purpose for breathlessly coming back to this site (that you hate and find so hypocritical) every single day, ad nauseam???? I don’t waste my time visiting sites or news/media channels that I consider hypocritical, misleading, or downright dishonest. So Why are you such a glutton for punishment, dear Svelaz????
Do you feel the urgent need (as the Enlightened one) to warn the rest of us (as the deplorables deserving of your sympathy and patronage) of the harm the good professor is causing with his posts????
Or is there some other reason?
Yours truly, lin.
Svelaz works hard for her handlers. Prostitutes are like that
You johns demand it.
I have no handlers. I’m as independent as you are.
I have no handlers. I’m as independent as you are.
You do nothing but spit out talking points given to you. You have been exposed countless times spitting out talking points that have been prove wrong weeks previously. You have exhibited repeatedly you dont comprehend what you link. You have handlers because you dont do this of your own initiative.
Iowan2, being butt hurt is your prerogative. Whine away.
Ad hominem is not argument.
I got away with it is not a defense for immoral acts.
John, my retort was not an argument. It was a…retort. Learn the difference.
You STILL do not know what you are talking about.
You STILL are nothing more than an apologist for illegal, immoral and unconstitutional conduct.
Lin, I’m not bitter or upset if that is what you are insinuating, I can post in this blog precisely because it’s about having what IS normal discourse and what is ENCOURAGED in this blog the sharing of opinions and objections to certain ideas, views or claims. Obviously you don’t get the point about what this blog is about. To simply ignore it because I will always pose a contradictory or opposing point of view would turn this into another echo chamber that becomes boring and stale. At least I make others think, or not about what their opinions say or don’t say. It’s the very essence of what free speech is. Is that reason enough for you? Or do you need more than that?
If you are going to gripe about it that is your right. But if I disagree or post an objection I can do so as many times as I want to and choose whether to post here as many times or not until Darren or Turley chooses to violate his philosophy of being a free speech absolutist and bans me. That’s the downside to his philosophy. Free speech includes the annoying, irritating and, uncomfortable speech. Right?
“So I ask you, Svelaz, what is your purpose for breathlessly coming back to this site (that you hate and find so hypocritical) every single day, ad nauseam???? ”
If you really have to ask then you are not well versed in what free speech is all about. This site is dedicated to the free exchange of ideas, views, and yes even criticisms of Turley’s columns which is fair game. One would think YOU would get it. But the fact that you had to ask says a lot about what you don’t understand.
(Please see my response to your counterpart, supra). Thanks anyway.
Though posted at a similar time, the anonymous posting might be from ATS (Anonymous the Stupid). He resides here most of the day though he tries to pretend he doesn’t. You are giving Svelaz credit for too much brainpower.
Svelaz adopts the language others use, and that is why frequently one can see that his language doesn’t match the topic.
“Svelaz adopts the language others use, and that is why frequently one can see that his language doesn’t match the topic.”
Huh?
What nonsense are you babbling on about? Others use English it would make sense to adopt English too, don’t you think? You’re nuts.
I don’t doubt that you cannot understand how what I said applies to you. It requires more thought than your capabilities provide.
don’t you think? You’re nuts.
LOL, in the context of his post, that is not what he is talking about. The word ‘language’ has a broad meaning spectrum. Much like football has a language. English words that have unique definitions as applied to the sport.
Your “language” is often in contrast to what are supposedly, your own words.
A wink, a nod, a smile. Just don’t explicitly say anything that can be traced back to the perpetrators.
So, the FBI was censoring on twitter and paid for it. 3.4 some million dollars, or 15 to 30 years worth of censoring work, at 100k or 200k a year.
It’s hilarious your excuse is by law they had to pay. If they were paying their will was being done. CASE CLOSED.
The FBI did not pay for censoring.
The FBI did pay for assistance with criminal investigations involving court orders, as law requires:
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
More Tech Dirt. When will ATS get to the clean stuff?
Tur*ley never gives proof of his accusations, because his accusations are all lies.
Really ?
I find it interesting that the FBI is carping about conspiracy theories.
We have an actual conspiracy, there is no theory involved.
We have actual facts we can examine, real conduct, actual communications and meetings, and notes and emails all resulting in actions that silence those speaking the truth.
None of this is theory.
Remember what nazis and communist have said in the past. Give me your kids and I’ll turn them into deciples.
Churches do that all the time.
Now you can quote the Bible when you promote your fascist ideas.
Churches live within the state and recognize the power of the state. Your ideology survives based on the power of the gun or the government.
“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” _Benito Mussolini
Churches do that all the time
WOW, that’s a huge broadsided bit of bigotry. With out specifics its just raw hat.
I could say Women teachers are raping their minor students all the time. Its true
It may seem like bigotry to you, but it’s still true.
True like women teachers are raping their students
Blacks commit murder.
Gays are deviates.
Give me your kids and I’ll turn them into deciples.(sic)
Groomers do that aka Democrat cultists
All religions do that.
So the dims are a religion. I agree with that.
Less so that the Republicans.
Looking at what the two parties promote, the Republicans are far less a religious cult than the Democrats.
“I keep saying to the liberals: you know what, if what you’re doing sounds like an ‘Onion’ headline…stop,”
-Bill Maher
I’d bet that almost all people who want to end the separation of church and state are Republicans. These Christian nationalists, for example: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/21/most-republicans-support-declaring-the-united-states-a-christian-nation-00057736
I am not religious in the slightest.
Agnostic is more like it, or Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster I would be more inclined to join than any other organized religion.
But looking at what the Democrats have embraced, wokeism as their new-found religion, they make Christian nationalists look sane.
I’m not religious either. Yet apparently you’d pretend that I am, simply because I’m a Democrat.
According to you, what are the religious texts (parallel to the Bible, Torah, Koran, …) that these “wokists” use to guide them and what convinces you that they’re religious texts?
I never said you were religious.
Stop attempting to put words in to my mouth.
I never said anything about any texts wokeists use.
Stop attempting to put words in to my mouth.
What I did say is wokeism is their new-found religion.
The good professor is a Democrat. So is Bill Maher and Elon Musk to a degree until recently.
They all think wokeism is insane.
“I never said you were religious.”
You said “looking at what the Democrats have embraced, wokeism as their new-found religion,” and since I’m a Democrat, that implied that I practice this “wokeism” religion. Did I infer incorrectly?
“I never said anything about any texts wokeists use.”
I agree, nor did I claim that you had. I asked a question, since all religions that I’m familiar with have central religious texts. You said that “wokeism as [Democrats’] new-found religion,” so I’m asking what the religious texts for the religion of “wokeism” are. You can say “I don’t know” or “there are none” or “I think the religious texts for ‘wokeism’ are …” and fill in the blank.
“Stop attempting to put words in to my mouth.”
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. In the first case, I inferred something from what you did say. In the second case, I asked a question based on your claim + my knowledge of existing religions.
“What I did say is wokeism is their new-found religion.”
Right. And I asked a question based on that, and inferred something from that (perhaps incorrectly — if so, just correct me, to err is human).
If you think that a number of Democrats “all think wokeism is insane,” then how is it the religion of Democrats? That’s seems contradictory. Are you saying some Democrats are “wokeists” and other Democrats aren’t, but it’s a religion for the ones who are? Again: how is it a *religion* (religions have central texts, practices central to the given religion, …)? I’m asking you to fill in the details on how it’s a religion for (some) Democrats.
I think you can add Donald Trump to the list.
This is what the article actually states:
“suggests that declaring the United States a Christian nation is a message that could be broadly embraced by Republicans in the midterms and 2024 presidential race. “
The left prefers to pray at the graves of Lenin and Stalin. Be that as it may, the US cultural history depends significantly on the Greeks, English, and a Judeo-Christian philosophy.
I would say most would prefer that philosophy to the brutal savagery of the left that, in the twentieth century, killed over 100 million people outside of war.
We were founded a Christian nation.
We were never “judeo-christian” but after WW2 and people like hugh hewitt and the slobbering one, that idiotic phrase caught on.
On top of the Washington Monument is Christian religious text, there at it’s erecting. Congress used to hold MASS in it’s chambers every weekend.
Only recently did Netanyahu get 40 standing ovations from Congress in 45 minutes, thus exhibiting the now usefully conquered forcefully idyllic phrase of “judeo-christian”.
Just yesterday I watched the blundering criminal usurper idiot top turd of DC squeal this is the first time we have had a standing menorrah in blah blah blah the white house or wherever the goofballs were blabbing up their total allegiance to Israel and jews.
So yes, now we are a judeo nation according to power plunder criminal mob “christians” who married off all their children to jews and are in charge, and are so pathetic and so scared stiff after watching 3 billion dollars of Ye’s 3.4B money evaporate.
Yes, by all means bow to the middle east, not toward mecca though.
Oh look, an anti-semite.
Shakdi, are you looking to fight another religious war? Haven’t you had enough?
I’d bet that almost all people who want to end the separation of church and state are Republicans,
Since its not part of the constitution, it needs to go the way of Roe.
LOL. Apparently you don’t understand “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights at the state level.
LOL. Apparently you don’t understand “Congress shall make no law …
It says “congress shall make no law” the fiction of “wall of separation” allows a school to forbid a teacher from Praying on school grounds, “prohibiting the free expression thereof”, You equate a teacher praying with Congress, making a law.
I an at a loss on incorporation of the 1st amendment. “Congress shall make no law” Clearly limits the scope of the amendment to Federal power. Several States at the ratification had State run churches.
“I an at a loss on incorporation of the 1st amendment.”
Then you should read up on it, via the 14th Amendment, which was ratified by the States.
I understand SCOTUS has used their extremely loose take on the14th amendment, to expand the reach of the Federal Courts. I understand that.
But you cant expand, “Congress shall make no law” and give federal courts the power to shut down a prayer at a county fair board meeting….because it is a government body. And any govt body, through the SCOTUS mandate if “incorporation” applies to any govt unit, no matter how inconsequential.
They can indeed do it, and they did do it.
Dims really believe in what they are doing. For most republicans the choices they make are career moves. I don’t want to go where the democrats want to take us. It often seems that the republicans don’t have a moral compass.
Anonymous says:
December 27, 2022 at 6:00 PM
They can indeed do it, and they did do it.
Ignore the question, its all you got left
How does “congress shall make no law” translate to federal courts shutting down the free expression of religion, for the smallest tangential contact with any govt unit at any level? Congress, as a clear concise definition. A highschool football coach, is not ‘Congress’
You seem to have missed SCOTUS’ ruling about the football coach.
As for the rest of your ignorance, nothing stops you from looking up answers to your questions, except the lack of will to do it.
As for the rest of your ignorance, nothing stops you from looking up answers to your questions, except the lack of will to do it.
Your position is I’m wrong….but you lack the ability as explain exactly why I’m wrong. How do you incorporate “congress shall make no law” down to the state level.
It is a direct conflict with the 10th amemdment.
“Your position is I’m wrong”
You’re wrong about some things, like SCOTUS’s ruling on the football coach.
“you lack the ability as explain exactly why I’m wrong”
BS. I can back up my actual claims. If you want me to do that, just quote an actual claim and ask me to back it up. What you’re trying to get me to do is provide evidence for things I have NOT claimed, and I refuse to do that. If you need a tutor, hire one.
“How do you incorporate “congress shall make no law” down to the state level”
Via SCOTUS rulings. Why don’t you understand that already? The cases are identified here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_I
You’ll have to read them for yourself.
Public schools that host drag shows….grooming all kids into LGBTQ-WTF spirit animals disciples
https://lancasteronline.com/opinion/editorials/hempfield-after-school-drag-show-wasnt-an-earth-shattering-event-school-district-officials-should-have/article_13ecc644-4449-11ed-b428-d3954a5a28bd.html
Groomer.
And thank you for proving my point about which party seems more like a religious cult.
How is that religious?
At the risk of abusing my posting privileges, in reference to Twitter shadow-banning, which of course the FBI encouraged, check out the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUBJjK_rKZY . It is a recent interview with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who was one of the drafters of the Great Barrington Declaration, which criticized our lock-down policies. He was effectively censored by Twitter and other social media. His warnings have been proven to be justified. He concludes: “Censorship kills.” We are at a place where the worst people define “reality” and true scholars are driven into silence. Thank you federal government.
That is not shadow banning, Twitter doesn’t do shadow banning. Shadow banning is when a platform makes YOUR comments invisible to others except only YOU can see them. Your comments are still posted. Twitter removes the comments so that EVERYONE INCLUDING YOU don’t see the post anymore. There is a distinct difference. Twitter removes posts that are in violation of their TOS. They do not shadow ban.
If the professor’s posts violated twitters’s policies at the time they had every right to remove them since HE agreed to the terms when he signed up. It’s amazing that people keep complaining about being censored by twitter when they agreed to THEIR terms upon signing up. This means the majority of people who sign up never read the terms they agree to. It’s THEIR responsibility to read and understand the terms they are agreeing to.
Svezlaz – Bhattacharya was allowed by Musk to view the treatment he received on Twitter. His postings were sent to his followers, but they could not be transmitted to anyone outside that group, preventing him from communicating with the rest of the world. I don’t care whether you call this “shadow banning” or “turtle soup”. It is suppression. I also have a question for you, Svezlaz. Do you work for the federal government?
edwardmahl,
Well said.
The Leftists are seemingly more and more desperate to change the narrative as the Twitter Files have exposed the degree of collusion between big tech and the government.
And the people are seeing the truth.
“Svezlaz. Do you work for the federal government?”
Nope.
That is not shadow banning,
Yes, yes, we got it. Just like a person with 2 X chromosomes and a uterus is not woman.
Playing stupid word games just self identifies you. I would use the word pedantic, but it would take someone to explain it to you.
No word games. Here’s the literal meaning of the term,
“Shadow banning is a practice used in online moderation that consists of preventing a user’s content from being seen by others—either partially or totally—without the user being notified or aware of it. This is typically done as a consequence of violating a platform’s rules.”
Of course you are playing word games.
Twitter described what they were doing as “shadow banning”
It didn’t. It explicitly denied that it shadow bans: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning
In 2020, Twitter updated its terms and service to include this:
“We may also remove or refuse to distribute any content on the services, limit distribution or visibility of any content on the service, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames without liability to you”.
Twitter will deny the existence of a shadowban but its terms of service seems to describe one. It just doesn’t identify with that term. If the visibility of any content is limited, that can mean you are ghost banned.
With a shadowban you may experience the following:
Your profile doesn’t show in a people search or as a search suggestion.
Your tweets are not seen by your followers on their main feed or in their list of followers.
Your actions are not showing up in people’s notifications. For example, if you follow someone, they won’t be notified.
Your replies are not displayed beneath the corresponding tweets.
https://izea.com/resources/twitter-shadowban/#:~:text=To%20test%20to%20see%20if%20you%20are%20shadowbanned,to%20receive%20fewer%20abuse%20reports%20and%20spam%20reports.
You’re describing deamplification, not a shadow ban.
You are like Humpty Dumpty:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
What is the difference between shadow banning and de-amplification?
I’ll answer. There is no difference.
Not sure why you insist on playing stupid word games.
There IS a difference.
In shadow banning, you are the only person who can read your own tweets.
In deamplification, others can also read your tweets if they go to your account, but the tweets aren’t boosted (e.g., in trends).
You can deny the difference, but not if you’re honest (which unfortunately you aren’t).
ATS, here is the Wikipedia definition that proves you wrong: “Shadow banning, also called stealth banning, hellbanning, ghost banningand comment ghosting, is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user’s content from some areas of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user,”
You can’t argue principle because you have none, you can’t argue ethics because you have none, and you can’t argue morality because you don’t have that either. Therefore you choose to parse words and argue definitions you make up. That is the last resort for one who is playing out of his league.
“You’re describing deamplification, not a shadow ban.”
Is there no end to this use of deflection rather than competent argument? When one shadow bans they deamplify the voice of the person banned.
—-
“You are like Humpty Dumpty:”
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
You fell off the wall, cracked your head and haven’t been able to think straight since then.
Twitter denied lots of things it was actually doing.
Please read the twitter files.
Not only DID Twitter “shadow ban” people, but they called it shadow banning in internal communications.
Regardless, not interested in idiotic semantic arguments.
Twitter explicitly had a long list of different ways to reduce the visibility of either users or content.
Including reducing the visibility to the point where a user was the only person that would see their tweet.
Completely aside from Banning people or banning specific messages
Twitter had and actively used a large set of traffic shaping tools that allowed it to increase of decrease the visibility of content based on judgements made by Twitters content moderation team.
Musk has not elimitated this capability. But he has changed twitters code so that a user can tell if their content is having its visibility decreased by twitter.
Users now, know and have a formal appeals process.
“Twitter described what they were doing as “shadow banning”
No they didn’t. See the post from anonymous pointing it out.
Please actually read the Twitter files.
You STILL do not know what you are talking about.
You STILL are nothing more than an apologist for illegal, immoral and unconstitutional conduct.
In what world is an anonymous poster on a block more authoritative that Twitters own internal communications ?
If we call murder, Gringleswab does that change the fact that it is immoral ?
Why are you fixated on the label “shadowbanning”
What was being done was immoral, and was censorship regardless of the name.
You are on the wrong side of every aspect of this argument.
“Why are you fixated on the label “shadowbanning”
What was being done was immoral, and was censorship regardless of the name.”
Because the right has been bloviating about shadow banning ever since it was brought up. Shadow banning has a specific definition. It is not a general term as you seem to want to make it.
It’s the right-wing nutties who are fixated on the term.
“What was being done was immoral, and was censorship regardless of the name.”
What was done was legal and within their right to to so. There is no immorality about it.
“You are on the wrong side of every aspect of this argument.”
Nope, you’re just being ignorant about most aspects of this argument.
“Shadow banning has a specific definition.”
Nope
” It is not a general term as you seem to want to make it.”
Yup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning
“Shadow banning, also called stealth banning, hellbanning, ghost banning and comment ghosting, is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user’s content from some areas of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user, regardless of whether the action is taken by an individual or an algorithm. For example, shadow-banned comments posted to a blog or media website will not be visible to other users accessing the site.”
This is a GENERAL definition,
Many of the actions Twitter too meet that defintion
Twitter called it shadow banning internally.
If I am asked to choose between the menaing of words that the Right uses – which in most instances are traditional meanings that have been the same for years, decades, centuries, and the lefts constant gaming the meaning of words to suit political ends.
There is no contest – the Right wins the words war.
I would strongly suggest reading George Orwell on the dangers of the word games you and the left play.
Games with words are a feature in Orwell’s as well as nearly every other dystopian novel ever written.
Distorting the meaning of words is a means to power.
We can not have Nazi’s be socialists – because that discredits socialism – the bloodiest ideology ever to exist.
We have to divorce fascism from the left – despite the fact that fascism is inherently big government and the left can not be separated from big government.
We have to destory the meaning of sex, and gender and woman.
There is an absolutely absurd video from TikTok on Twitter right now of a MTF Trans on HRT having their first “Period” and experiencing Menstrual cramps.
But the absurdity of such things is completely lost on those of you on the left.
Several years ago with John Stewart’s Peak, there were stories that those on the right could not do humor or comedy.
Yet, today the right increasingly owns comedy. The pinacles of comedy on the left. COlbert, Oliver, Noah are failures.
They are rarely if ever funny.
And people who are actually funny – whether on the right or not, are being Banned and cancelled.
Almost no comedian will do a college tour any more.
This is because the left has lost any sense of humor.
You keep trying to use the term Liberal – which means someone who prizes liberty – yet that is certainly not who you are.
You rant about “safe spaces” in college, yet that is precisely NOT what college is for.
It is where you are supposed to got to Challenge your preconceptions.
You attempt to redefine everything.
Martin Luther King dreamed of the end of racism When
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Yet the left tells us that we MUST judge people by the color of their skin or their sexual choices.
No one cares what you think about defintions.
Why should anyone debate details with you ?
You are wrong, and your arguments are irrelevant.
You are advocating for rigging of elections.
By Government,
By the Democratic Party
By the Biden campaign.
You are advocating for lying to people about the pandemic
By government
By those on the left.
You are advocating for the use of force to infringe on peoples rights.
You are not moral.
You are wrong about pretty much everything, but most of what you are wrong about does not matter.
Because you are immoral.
“ Why should anyone debate details with you ?”
That’s quite an ironic statement from you. I’ve been detailing specific meanings and distinctions which you are intentionally ignoring because it undermines your arguments.
“ You are wrong, and your arguments are irrelevant.”
What you are saying is, whaaa! Whaaaa! Whaaaa! You’re wrong because I says so. 5 year olds make better arguments than that.
“ You are advocating for rigging of elections.
By Government,
By the Democratic Party
By the Biden campaign.”
Nope. I’m just pointing out the fact that reality is not part of your argument in most cases.
“ You are not moral”
Nope, morality has nothing to do with what you have been arguing all along. You’re just being a conscientious ignoramus.
““ Why should anyone debate details with you ?”
That’s quite an ironic statement from you. I’ve been detailing specific meanings and distinctions which you are intentionally ignoring because it undermines your arguments.”
Not at all. You are inarguably wrong without addressing details.
You are inarguably wrong about the details – even though these are mostly not relevant.
I am not intentionally ignoring your specific meanings and distinctions.
I am outright rejecting them as false and fraudulent – because they are.
““ You are wrong, and your arguments are irrelevant.”
What you are saying is, whaaa! Whaaaa! Whaaaa! You’re wrong because I says so. 5 year olds make better arguments than that.”
I do not need to make a better argument – your own remarks prove your own errors and irrelevance.
Even a 5 year old makes better arguments than yours.
Regardless, I have directly addressed your errors at the grand scale, and every scale between.
I do not need to repeat precisely your errors multiple times. Just because you repeat the errors multiple times.
Svelaz, someone who has no grasp of facts, has no claim to any grasp of reality.
Advocating for and attempting to justify the silencing of truth is immoral.
There is no way to game your way out of that.
You are drowning in moral failure.
You’re wrong, twitter has been doing shadow banning for a long time, they used another phrase for it, though.
You are not well informed on this.
It’s up to Twitter Files 9 release, so go get caught up.
” Twitter labeled Bhattacharya’s account “trends backlist” ”
There were many other methods besides banning. SECRET METHODS denied under oath.
Sorry, Svelaz, you’re clueless.
Youre right, Edward. it is shadowbanning In flagrante delicto which is why Leftists desperately call it something, anything else
War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, and Ignorance Is Strength
– DNC Platform
The democrats and Rinos are the ploblem in our country linning each others pockets with money we don’t have . And forgetting many problems we do have .