FBI agent under oath: FBI met weekly with Big Tech to censor political information.

[Curried Goats]

No, you do not understand what an in-kind contribution is. In-kind contribution regulations don't hinder your right to free speech, it just requires you to report the contribution you're making to the candidate.

You don't. Facebook and Twitter are not currently facing any charges over this.

 

[Marener]

um the Hunter Laptop story was censored..,.that's not made up...and yes it's a scandal...glad you admit that finally.

By the FBI? The article doesn’t say that.

 

[hadit]

You don't. Facebook and Twitter are not currently facing any charges over this.

They should be, is the point. This has been a problem for a long time. The media, and now social media platforms, have always tilted left but never had to answer for their contributions to the democrat candidates. Why do you think the left has gone so absolutely hysterical over Twitter allowing more voices to speak? They know it's an end to a massive contribution to democrat candidates.

 

[WEATHER53]

No. Property owners can kick people off their property even if they invited them in for a chat.

Not for arbitrary reasons that smack of discrimination. Because you own it does not mean you can do anything with it that you want. That feeling is another liberal error

 

[Curried Goats]

They should be, is the point. This has been a problem for a long time. The media, and now social media platforms, have always tilted left but never had to answer for their contributions to the democrat candidates. Why do you think the left has gone so absolutely hysterical over Twitter allowing more voices to speak? They know it's an end to a massive contribution to democrat candidates.

I don't care what Twitter does.

 

[BlindBoo]

It was tongue in cheek, Candy! We both know that the military was a big supporter of Donald Trump and after the debacle in Afghanistan, "professional soldiers" view Joe Biden as a complete idiot!

Please think about what you're posting next time! That one was laughable!

They don't sound that way to me.

Military Leaders, Gen. Milley Testify on Afghanistan Exit: Full House Hearing Transcript September 29 | Rev

Gen. Mark Milley and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin testified on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan during a House hearing on September 29, 2021. Read the transcript of the hearing below.

www.rev.com

Btw our military planned and executed the final evacuation. Recall Trump had left a minimum number of troops. Not even enough to effectively evacuate.

Secretary Austin: (14:26)
In mid-May, I ordered CENTCOM to make preparations for a potential non-combatant evacuation operation. And two weeks later, I began pre-positioning for horses in the region to include three infantry battalions. On the 10th of August, we ran another tabletop exercise around a non-combatant evacuation scenario. We wanted to be ready, and we were. By the time that the State Department called for the NEO, significant numbers of additional forces had already arrived in Afghanistan, including leading elements of the 24th Marine expeditionary unit who were already on the ground in Kabul. Before that weekend was out another 3000 or so, ground troops had arrived, including elements of the 82nd Airborne. To be clear, those first two days were difficult. We all watched with alarm the images of Afghans rushing the runway and our aircraft. We all remember the scene of confusion.

Chairman Smith: (15:29)
Sorry, we’ll get that under control. Go ahead, sir.

Secretary Austin: (15:32)
Outside the airport, but within 48 hours, our troops restored order and the process began to take hold. Our soldiers, airmen and Marines and partnership with our allies, our partners, and our State Department colleagues secured the gates, took control of the airport operations and set up a processing system for the tens thousands of people that they would be manifesting onto airplanes.

Secretary Austin: (15:55)
They and our commanders exceeded all expectations. We planned to evacuate between 70,000 and 80,000 people. They evacuated more than 124,000 people. We planned to move between 5,000 and 9,000 people per day, and on average, they move slightly more than 7,000 people per day. On military aircraft alone, we flew more than 387 sorties, averaging nearly 23 per day. And at the height of this operation, an aircraft was taking off every 45 minutes and not a single sortie was missed for maintenance, fuel or logistical problems. It was the largest airlift conducted in US history and it was executed in just 17 days. Was it perfect? Of course not. We moved so many people so quickly out of Kabul that we ran into capacity and screen problems at intermediate staging bases outside of Afghanistan. And we’re still working to get Americans out who wish to leave. We did not get out all of our Afghan allies enrolled in a special immigrant visa program, and we take that seriously. And that’s why we’re working across the interagency to continue facilitating their departure, and even with no military presence on the ground, that part of our mission is not over. And tragically lives were also lost. Several Afghans killed climbing a board in aircraft on that first day, 13 brave US service members and dozens of Afghan civilians killed in a terrorist attack on the 26th. And we took as many as 10 innocent lives in a drone strike on the 29th. Non-combatant evacuations remained among the most challenging military operations, even in the best of circumstances. And the circumstances in August were anything but ideal. Extreme heat, a landlocked country, no government, a highly dynamic situation on the ground and an active, credible and lethal terrorist threat. In the span of just two days, from August 13th to August 15th, we went from working alongside a democratically elected long term partner government to coordinating rarely with a long time enemy. We operated in a deeply dangerous environment and it proved a lesson in pragmatism and professionalism.

 

[hadit]

I don't care what Twitter does.

Yet here you are, deep in a thread devoted to...wait for it, Twitter and what it did in the last election cycle!!!

 

[Curried Goats]

Not for arbitrary reasons that smack of discrimination. Because you own it does not mean you can do anything with it that you want. That feeling is another liberal error

I am free to discriminate with who I allow or don't allow on my lawn. Buy a clue, Short Bus.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yet here you are, deep in a thread devoted to...wait for it, Twitter and what it did in the last election cycle!!!

I'm not crying over what Twitter did, I'm laughing at your silly arguments. Entertaining myself at tour expense I am definitely interested in.

 

[struth]

Except you already admitted that you don't have free speech rights on Facebook or Twitter so what rights are they violating? In all the previous cases you mentioned State Actors were violating rights those people already had.

You seemed to be confused. Allowing you to come and speak on their property isn't their business. Their business is selling your data and ad space to third parties.

What do you mean by open to the public? Parking lots are usually publically owned spaces and thus the government is prevented from discrominating against you or its privately owned and they are prevented from discriminating against you based on race, sex or gender as per your constitutional rights. If I invent people on to my lawn it doesn't matter if run a business from home and am a government snitch, if you're my guest I can still kick you out for whatever reason I want.

He was a customer in a coffee shop leasing space from the parking authority which was created by legislation and maintained by public funds. Not a guest.

And you would have a point if Twitter employees, on behalf of the government, came into your home and shredded all your writing because they would be doing it in your home and not on their property.

1) unless they are State Actors.
2) they are in the business of collecting information and selling Ads to customers that use their service to post information, and read the news.
3) At the time of the case, the Civil Rights Act wasn't passed....the private lot was found in violation because they were considered a State Actor...like Tweeter was when they were working with the FBI to censor news stories damaging to the Xiden campaign...in violation of people's Constitutional rights that wanted to share the story or simply discuss it.
4) So? Being a guest doesn't matter... State Actors can't violate anyone Constitutional rights no matter if they are a guest, customer, employee or whomever
5) That's not relevant....the private parking lot wasn't that person's home. State actor - Wikipedia

 

[struth]

When do ya'll get to the part where a crime was committed? That would be when the government told them not to publish something under threat of punishment. Having weekly meetings, not a crime.

Tweeter likely didn't commit a crime by simply being a State Actor....not sure your point? Who said that alone is a crime? Something can be wrong, or even illegal and not be a crime.

Now, if they were somehow working with the Xiden campaign, that could be a crime...but that will have to be determined later, via an investigation.

 

[struth]

it was Trump's FBI, and Trump's FBI director that he picked. Biden was no where around when Trump's FBI started this program.

and there still is no proof, with the Twitter dump, that the FBI told or demanded that Twitter kill the story....

so you can get your panties wet all you want about it, you still got nothing, but fantasy, at this point.

yep...and it appears Wray went completely rogue. Xiden was of course around...he was in a campaign....and these acts benefitted his campaign.

 

[BlindBoo]

A violation of the First Amendment by the FBI, Simp.

You are just too stupid to figure it out.

How does having a meeting every week violate the first Amendment?

 

[struth]

By the FBI? The article doesn’t say that.

well, via tweeter, who was their actor in this censorship....

 

[struth]

How does having a meeting every week violate the first Amendment?

it doesn't...but if those meetings are done, to conspire to censor news stories, then tweeter is the state actor, acting for the FBI, thus violating the first amendment by censoring people without due process of the law.

 

[Curried Goats]

1) unless they are State Actors.

Nope. You need to first possess the right you are accusing them of violating.

2) they are in the business of collecting information and selling Ads to customers that use their service to post information, and read the news.

No. Users are not their customers. If they charged you to use Facebook you would have an argument because then you'd be a customer.

3) At the time of the case, the Civil Rights Act wasn't passed....the private lot was found in violation because they were considered a State Actor...like Tweeter was when they were working with the FBI to censor news stories damaging to the Xiden campaign...in violation of people's Constitutional rights that wanted to share the story or simply discuss it.

And at the time the State was prevented from discriminating against people based on race. He had a right to not be denied service from the Government at the time of the ruling and the violation. You have no right to use Facebook.

4) So? Being a guest doesn't matter... State Actors can't violate anyone Constitutional rights no matter if they are a guest, customer, employee or whomever

Of course it matters. What rights do you have as a guest on someone else's property?

5) That's not relevant....the private parking lot wasn't that person's home. State actor - Wikipedia

The parking lot was effectively public property, not private property. Neither the government nor a third party can deny you access to public spaces without significant legal cause.

 

[struth]

Nope. You need to first possess the right you are accusing them of violating.

No. Users are not their customers. If they charged you to use Facebook you would have an argument because then you'd be a customer.

And at the time the State was prevented from discriminating against people based on race. He had a right to not be denied service from the Government at the time of the ruling and the violation. You have no right to use Facebook.

Of course it matters. What rights do you have as a guest on someone else's property?

The parking lot was effectively public property, not private property. Neither the government nor a third party can deny you access to public spaces without significant legal cause.

1) um...we have been discussing the First Amendment the entire thread.
2) There is no requirement for someone to pay something, for that person to be a customer. If a lawyer does a case pro-bono, that person is still their customer. Regards, you don't have to be a "customer" of the State for it to violate your rights....geez.
3) It was...and that's why this private company, who was a State Actor was in violation of this person's constiutional rights.
4) none, but you have rights that are protected against the State...and when someone is a State Actor they can't violate those rights.
5) correct, the private company was deemed to be a State Actor...like what Tweeter was doing for the FBI...makign them a State Actor.

 

[BlindBoo]

Tweeter likely didn't commit a crime by simply being a State Actor....not sure your point? Who said that alone is a crime? Something can be wrong, or even illegal and not be a crime.

Now, if they were somehow working with the Xiden campaign, that could be a crime...but that will have to be determined later, via an investigation.

Twitter is not a state actor.

Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

The OP stated a crime was committed.

 

[hadit]

I'm not crying over what Twitter did, I'm laughing at your silly arguments. Entertaining myself at tour expense I am definitely interested in.

Well, enjoy yourself, as long as you realize what contributions are and how they need to be reported. At this point, Twitter should have no problem with that anymore.

 

[Curried Goats]

1) um...we have been discussing the First Amendment the entire thread.

And has been noted you have no right to free speech on other people's property.

2) There is no requirement for someone to pay something, for that person to be a customer. If a lawyer does a case pro-bono, that person is still their customer. Regards, you don't have to be a "customer" of the State for it to violate your rights....geez.

If a lawyer is doing a case for you pro bono you aren't a customer, you're charity, they do however accept the responsibilities of their profession at risk of their license. The second part is a red herring. In the case we are discussing it was about a customer being denied service. That's as relevant as the State Actor part.

3) It was...and that's why this private company, who was a State Actor was in violation of this person's constiutional rights.

Be specific. What constitutional rights were they ruled to have violated and how?

4) none, but you have rights that are protected against the State...and when someone is a State Actor they can't violate those rights.

But you just said that you have no rights as a guest on Twitter so how could Twitter, even as a State Actor, violate rights that you don't have? That makes no sense.

5) correct, the private company was deemed to be a State Actor...like what Tweeter was doing for the FBI...makign them a State Actor.

Wrong. The private company was deemed a state actor because they lease space from a entity created by legislation and maintained through public funds and they denied a customer service because he was black.

You seem to be missing that key element.