Strzok may have been on the Sunday shows giving insight, but we already knew everything he said. Trump's former press secretary Stephanie Grisham told about Trump being sloppy with documents. And we know Mar a Lardo is regularly infiltrated by honeypot spies. Of course Mar a Lardo is swarming with foreign operatives. The real kicker is that Trump doesn't care, and it looks like he already gave the info to his handler Putin.
-
64
-
techno wrote:
Strzok may have been on the Sunday shows giving insight, but we already knew everything he said. Trump's former press secretary Stephanie Grisham told about Trump being sloppy with documents. And we know Mar a Lardo is regularly infiltrated by honeypot spies. Of course Mar a Lardo is swarming with foreign operatives. The real kicker is that Trump doesn't care, and it looks like he already gave the info to his handler Putin.
To be fair you are far too stupid to be forming opinions.
212 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
After Mark Zuckerberg casually admits that the FBI helped him rig the 2020 election the FBI covers its tracks by casually admitting that they, in fact, attack the first amendment all the time to help their preferred political candidates.
Advising a media company that a potential news item has the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign does not violate the First Amendment. If the FBI didn't have reason to believe that their advice was accurate, then the advice was improper. But unless they tell media companies that they can't publish the information, the First Amendment is not implicated.
If the State Department advises Americans to not travel to a certain country they have not interfered with your right to travel. They simply have given you advice.
51 -
Thanks for bumping the thread, genius.
60 -
SeattleSilver wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
After Mark Zuckerberg casually admits that the FBI helped him rig the 2020 election the FBI covers its tracks by casually admitting that they, in fact, attack the first amendment all the time to help their preferred political candidates.
Advising a media company that a potential news item has the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign does not violate the First Amendment. If the FBI didn't have reason to believe that their advice was accurate, then the advice was improper. But unless they tell media companies that they can't publish the information, the First Amendment is not implicated.
If the State Department advises Americans to not travel to a certain country they have not interfered with your right to travel. They simply have given you advice.
It does when the FBI knows with 100% certainty that a story is true before calling it disinformation as they did with the Hunter Biden laptop story.
19 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
SeattleSilver wrote:
Advising a media company that a potential news item has the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign does not violate the First Amendment. If the FBI didn't have reason to believe that their advice was accurate, then the advice was improper. But unless they tell media companies that they can't publish the information, the First Amendment is not implicated.
If the State Department advises Americans to not travel to a certain country they have not interfered with your right to travel. They simply have given you advice.
It does when the FBI knows with 100% certainty that a story is true before calling it disinformation as they did with the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Wrong. If the FBI new the story was 100 percent true then their advice to Facebook was 100 percent improper, and I have no trouble agreeing with that. But if they didn't forbid publication, is isn't a violation of the First Amendment.
70 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
Still pushing the Trump is a Russian agent nonsense despite years of investigations finding zero evidence.
Trump is the same threat to US democracy as a certain German was to theirs in 1932.
You need to quit watching Joy Reid.
19 -
SeattleSilver wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
It does when the FBI knows with 100% certainty that a story is true before calling it disinformation as they did with the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Wrong. If the FBI new the story was 100 percent true then their advice to Facebook was 100 percent improper, and I have no trouble agreeing with that. But if they didn't forbid publication, is isn't a violation of the First Amendment.
In what universe is it okay for the FBI to encourage the media not to run TRUE stories that damage their political favorites??
18 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
techno wrote:
Strzok may have been on the Sunday shows giving insight, but we already knew everything he said. Trump's former press secretary Stephanie Grisham told about Trump being sloppy with documents. And we know Mar a Lardo is regularly infiltrated by honeypot spies. Of course Mar a Lardo is swarming with foreign operatives. The real kicker is that Trump doesn't care, and it looks like he already gave the info to his handler Putin.
To be fair you are far too stupid to be forming opinions.
He's not the only one. Jesus Christ, these Trump lawyers have go to be some of the worst lawyers in the nation. I've been saying that since the raid, and they get worse every day. How can a guy with this much $$$$$$$$$ ("The Large Green") and this famous not find at least an AVERAGE bunch of lawyers to handle stuff?
That May 25, 2022 Trump lawyer letter attached as Exhibit 1 to the probable cause affidavit just screams inexperience and stupidity. It was basically:
"Dear Legal Adversary at the DOJ,
Although we are under no legal obligation to do so whatsoever, and even though it would be a profoundly stupid strategy to do so at this stage, we wanted to give you a list of defenses that we are researching and looking at these days. We found them on the internet. You never know what might work, ya know? Please attach this to anything you might file, so that judges can see how ridiculous we are too.
Best Regards,
Evan Corcoran, law-talking guy"
40 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
SeattleSilver wrote:
Wrong. If the FBI new the story was 100 percent true then their advice to Facebook was 100 percent improper, and I have no trouble agreeing with that. But if they didn't forbid publication, is isn't a violation of the First Amendment.
In what universe is it okay for the FBI to encourage the media not to run TRUE stories that damage their political favorites??
Clean your spectacles. My post to which you responded specifically said that I agreed that it would be improper for the FBI to encourage a media company to not run a true story, so your question to me makes not sense,
I simply wrote that, while improper, it isn't a First Amendment violation. Lots of things are improper, and even illegal, without violating the First Amendment.
60 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
SeattleSilver wrote:
Wrong. If the FBI new the story was 100 percent true then their advice to Facebook was 100 percent improper, and I have no trouble agreeing with that. But if they didn't forbid publication, is isn't a violation of the First Amendment.
In what universe is it okay for the FBI to encourage the media not to run TRUE stories that damage their political favorites??
In the same universe where people like you don't exaggerate and misrepresent the known facts.
In this Universe, we want the FBI to warn social media companies that Russian disinformation -- like the extensive 2016 Russian anti-law enforcement and pro-BLM disinformation postings -- may be in operation and to watch out for it. Which appears to be exactly what happened in or around 2020.
51 -
carmine9 wrote:
The State calls protest an insurrection and gets people to buy it.
No weapons. No plan. No govt in waiting. Basically no violence
Guy Reffitt had two guns (AR-15 and a Smiff-Wesson pistole). His own son dropped the dime on him, and then the Feds Shanghai'ed him into federal custody at an undisclosed location. No one knows where the Feds have incarcerated Reffitt. His family and few remaining friends are concerned about his emotional well being and location. Inquiries to the Federal Bureau of Prisons have gone unanswered.
Reffitt, as you know, is a 3%er (Texas chapter). They are the top of the cake when it comes to guys who oppose stuff. Reffitt's family (except his rat son) have reached out to Donald Trump to see if he can help. To no apparent avail.50 -
Commode flusher wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
The State calls protest an insurrection and gets people to buy it.
No weapons. No plan. No govt in waiting. Basically no violence
Guy Reffitt had two guns (AR-15 and a Smiff-Wesson pistole). His own son dropped the dime on him, and then the Feds Shanghai'ed him into federal custody at an undisclosed location. No one knows where the Feds have incarcerated Reffitt. His family and few remaining friends are concerned about his emotional well being and location. Inquiries to the Federal Bureau of Prisons have gone unanswered.
Reffitt, as you know, is a 3%er (Texas chapter). They are the top of the cake when it comes to guys who oppose stuff. Reffitt's family (except his rat son) have reached out to Donald Trump to see if he can help. To no apparent avail.
Recalling his comments about McCain, perhaps Trump only likes armed insurrectionists who don't get captured.
40 -
SeattleSilver wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
In what universe is it okay for the FBI to encourage the media not to run TRUE stories that damage their political favorites??
Clean your spectacles. My post to which you responded specifically said that I agreed that it would be improper for the FBI to encourage a media company to not run a true story, so your question to me makes not sense,
I simply wrote that, while improper, it isn't a First Amendment violation. Lots of things are improper, and even illegal, without violating the First Amendment.
The FBI interfering in elections goes WAY beyond violating the first amendment.
08 -
Yeah like Comey.
50 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
SeattleSilver wrote:
Advising a media company that a potential news item has the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign does not violate the First Amendment. If the FBI didn't have reason to believe that their advice was accurate, then the advice was improper. But unless they tell media companies that they can't publish the information, the First Amendment is not implicated.
If the State Department advises Americans to not travel to a certain country they have not interfered with your right to travel. They simply have given you advice.
It does when the FBI knows with 100% certainty that a story is true before calling it disinformation as they did with the Hunter Biden laptop story.
You are a moron.
51 -
Commode flusher wrote:
He's not the only one. Jesus Christ, these Trump lawyers have go to be some of the worst lawyers in the nation. I've been saying that since the raid, and they get worse every day. How can a guy with this much $ ("The Large Green") and this famous not find at least an AVERAGE bunch of lawyers to handle stuff?
He has a reputation of not paying his lawyer (or for that matter anyone he hires) what he promised.
50 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Commode flusher wrote:
He's not the only one. Jesus Christ, these Trump lawyers have go to be some of the worst lawyers in the nation. I've been saying that since the raid, and they get worse every day. How can a guy with this much $ ("The Large Green") and this famous not find at least an AVERAGE bunch of lawyers to handle stuff?
He has a reputation of not paying his lawyer (or for that matter anyone he hires) what he promised.
it's not just getting paid....lawyers have seen how many trump lawyers have been sanctioned for their trumpy unlawyerlike behavior. I could understand any lawyer saying 'I know Trump will want me to do things that could cost me my career and reputation so no way jose.'
Plus Trump regularly refuses to take advice from his lawyers, which makes the job impossible.
50 -
Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Trump is the same threat to US democracy as a certain German was to theirs in 1932.
You need to quit watching Joy Reid.
Never heard of her. I just follow history - which is doing its best to repeat itself with Trump.
12 -
SeattleSilver wrote:
Commode flusher wrote:
Guy Reffitt had two guns (AR-15 and a Smiff-Wesson pistole). His own son dropped the dime on him, and then the Feds Shanghai'ed him into federal custody at an undisclosed location. No one knows where the Feds have incarcerated Reffitt. His family and few remaining friends are concerned about his emotional well being and location. Inquiries to the Federal Bureau of Prisons have gone unanswered.
Reffitt, as you know, is a 3%er (Texas chapter). They are the top of the cake when it comes to guys who oppose stuff. Reffitt's family (except his rat son) have reached out to Donald Trump to see if he can help. To no apparent avail.
Recalling his comments about McCain, perhaps Trump only likes armed insurrectionists who don't get captured.
I think Trump understandably feels let down by a lot of the insurrectionists. One after the other, probably over a hundred of them now, have expressly said that they rioted because Trump told them to, and/or that Trump misled them by claiming the election was rigged.
Trump feels a sense of betrayal. He put his soul into his presidency, trying to make America at least half-way decent again. But as soon as things got a little rocky, his highest quality men and women bailed on him like fleas in sheep dip.
01
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.