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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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?
Any public bluster from former President Donald Trump and his team in the wake of the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago is just posturing, says one top correspondent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.