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

[struth]

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.

that case is not at all about them working with the FBI to delete and censor the Hunter Biden story....that's about banning Trump....months later. A private company, or individual, can be a state actor for certain things, and not other times.

The OP said it was illegal...something can be illegal and not a crime. The criminal code of the US, only makes up one chapter...chapter 18...there are a total of 54.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

"If" is the most powerful word in the entire universe. Where are the transcripts.

 

[struth]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

1) not sure where you got that silly idea...of course if the private property is owned by a state actor
2) nope you are a customer. Customers can be charity cases. Again though...customer or not, the state has no right to violate anyone's constitutional rights.
3) who tweet? the first amendment...of anyone that had their post deleted for discussing the Hunter Biden case.
4) You have no rights until Tweeter becomes a State Actor...it appears they did when they had those weekly meetings with the FBI to ensure the story wasn't shared.
5) yea....so? The State can't do that, just like they can't violate your first amendment rights either.

Why do you think the State can violate your first amendment right?

 

[struth]

"If" is the most powerful word in the entire universe. Where are the transcripts.

True, it is...that's why we have investigations. What's the problem? Where there transcripts? I don't know...we will need to find out...but, as the OP said, at least one agent has come forward and testified under oath about it

 

[Marener]

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

Yep. Not in the article.

 

[BlindBoo]

that case is not at all about them working with the FBI to delete and censor the Hunter Biden story....that's about banning Trump....months later. A private company, or individual, can be a state actor for certain things, and not other times.

The OP said it was illegal...something can be illegal and not a crime. The criminal code of the US, only makes up one chapter...chapter 18...there are a total of 54.

The lewd Hunter Biden Sex with under aged girls stories? Remember the FBI has the computer allegedly belonging to Hunter. Has Twitter said they were threaten by the FBI if they didn't censor that crap or anything coming from the disgusting ragged right?

 

[struth]

The lewd Hunter Biden Sex with under aged girls stories? Remember the FBI has the computer allegedly belonging to Hunter. Has Twitter said they were threaten by the FBI if they didn't censor that crap or anything coming from the disgusting ragged right?

No, well that was part of it...but the biggest issue was all that was on the laptop...including evidence suggesting Joe Biden lied about knowing or being involved in his son and brother's foreign business deals...including emails showing he got 10 percent cuts.

What does the "right" have to do with this? This was Hunter's emails and photos on his laptop. Why is the "right" disgusting for wanting to know why the stories were deleted?

 

[struth]

Yep. Not in the article.

oh sure it is, the entire article is how they met with them weekly.

 

[Curried Goats]

1) not sure where you got that silly idea...of course if the private property is owned by a state actor

So you think if I'm a State actor you have a right to free speech on my lawn.....

How does that work exactly?

2) nope you are a customer. Customers can be charity cases. Again though...customer or not, the state has no right to violate anyone's constitutional rights.

If you're a customer then it is nothing like Facebook or Twitter where you are a guest.

3) who tweet? the first amendment...of anyone that had their post deleted for discussing the Hunter Biden case.

You didn't have a right to Twitter to begin with. You are incredibly dense....

4) You have no rights until Tweeter becomes a State Actor...it appears they did when they had those weekly meetings with the FBI to ensure the story wasn't shared.

What does this even mean?

You have no right to Twitter but once Twitter starts being friendly with the FBI you suddenly have rights to it?

5) yea....so? The State can't do that, just like they can't violate your first amendment rights either.

You have no first amendment right to Twitter. Get that through your thick skull.

Why do you think the State can violate your first amendment right?

I don't and they didn't. A Private entity, (Twitter) regulated speech on their property. Because they took suggestion on how to do that from the government doesn't suddenly make their property a place you have a right to be against their wishes, let alone speak.

 

[BlindBoo]

True, it is...that's why we have investigations. What's the problem? Where there transcripts? I don't know...we will need to find out...but, as the OP said, at least one agent has come forward and testified under oath about it

And the only thing leaked was they had a meeting once a week as the election approached?

All bone, no meat.

 

[Oldestyle]

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.

With all due respect, Boo? That testimony was by individuals from the Pentagon that totally FUBARED the Afghan withdrawal and then tried their very best to put a pretty face on the fiasco that they oversaw!

 

[Marener]

oh sure it is, the entire article is how they met with them weekly.

But it doesn’t mention anything about the FBI telling them anything about Hunter Biden or any Biden for that matter.

That’s what you fabricated.

 

[WEATHER53]

Property ownership does not provide for whimsical discrimination against those you invite onto it but you then don’t want heard the opinions that you invited them to provide.

 

[struth]

So you think if I'm a State actor you have a right to free speech on my lawn.....

How does that work exactly?

If you're a customer then it is nothing like Facebook or Twitter where you are a guest.

You didn't have a right to Twitter to begin with. You are incredibly dense....

What does this even mean?

You have no right to Twitter but once Twitter starts being friendly with the FBI you suddenly have rights to it?

You have no first amendment right to Twitter. Get that through your thick skull.

I don't and they didn't. A Private entity, (Twitter) regulated speech on their property. Because they took suggestion on how to do that from the government doesn't suddenly make their property a place you have a right to be against their wishes, let alone speak.

1`) sigh...you are clearly just trolling at this point...we've been through this. Tweeter isn't someone's front yard.
2) Being a customer or guest isn't relevant...why do you think only Guest get Constituitonal protections from the Govt? geez....where is that in the Constitution?
3) Never said I had a right to tweeter....but i do have a first amendment right, and if tweeter is a state actor they have no right to censor my political speech..
4) Tweeter working as a state actor can not violate my first amendment right...anymore then the fbi can...
5) Tweeter apparently worked as a State Actor...and in doing so violated people's first amendment rights. We have already established the State Actor doctrine, can apply to private individuals and companies. When Tweeter worked on behalf of the FBI they became a State Actor working to suppress political speech protected by the Constitution.

 

[struth]

But it doesn’t mention anything about the FBI telling them anything about Hunter Biden or any Biden for that matter.

That’s what you fabricated.

what do you think they were discussing? and why was Hunter's story censored?

 

[struth]

And the only thing leaked was they had a meeting once a week as the election approached?

All bone, no meat.

and of course we know the result of those meetings....damaging real, news that could hurt the Xideen campaign was censored.

 

[BlindBoo]

With all due respect, Boo? That testimony was by individuals from the Pentagon that totally FUBARED the Afghan withdrawal and then tried their very best to put a pretty face on the fiasco that they oversaw!

Their testimonies certainly blows away the Neo-GOP narrative putting the blame entirely on Joe.

"Under the Doha agreement, the United States would begin to withdraw its forces contingent upon the Taliban meeting certain conditions, which would lead to a political agreement between the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan. There were seven conditions applicable to the Taliban and eight to the United States. While the Taliban did not attack the United States forces, which was one of the conditions, it failed to fully honor any other condition under the Doha agreement. And perhaps most importantly, for the United States national security, the Taliban has never renounced their linkages with Al Qaeda or broke their affiliation with them.

General Milley: (26:33)
We, the United States adhered to every condition. In the fall of 2020, my analysis then was that an accelerated withdrawal without meeting specific and necessary conditions risks losing the substantial gains made in Afghanistan, would potentially damage US worldwide credibility and could precipitate a general collapse of the Afghan security forces and the Afghan government, resulting in a complete Taliban takeover or a general civil war.....That analysis was a year ago. Based on my advice and the advice of the commanders at the time, then Secretary of Defense Esper submitted a memorandum on nine November recommending that we maintain the US forces, which were then at about 4,500 in Afghanistan until conditions were met for further reductions. Two days later on 11 November, I received an unclassified signed order directing the United States military to withdraw all forces from Afghanistan by 15 January, 2021. After further discussion regarding the risks associated with such a withdrawal, all the order was rescinded. On 17 November, we received a new order to reduce troop levels to 2,500 plus enabling forces no later than 15 January."

 

[Marener]

what do you think they were discussing? and why was Hunter's story censored?

I have no need to speculate. I’m just observing that you fabricated information not in the article.

Which I know you will yet again deny.

 

[struth]

I have no need to speculate. I’m just observing that you fabricated information not in the article.

Which I know you will yet again deny.

I fabricated nothing up.

" That suit accuses high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies "under the guise of combating misinformation" to achieve greater censorship."

That was the entire bases for the testimony of the FBI whisleblower.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, well that was part of it...but the biggest issue was all that was on the laptop...including evidence suggesting Joe Biden lied about knowing or being involved in his son and brother's foreign business deals...including emails showing he got 10 percent cuts.

What does the "right" have to do with this? This was Hunter's emails and photos on his laptop. Why is the "right" disgusting for wanting to know why the stories were deleted?

The FBI has the alleged laptop. Without a chain of custody or collaborating evidence like the other end of an email, all the data on it is suspect. The most that has come from the FBI is tax and civil stuff against Hunter.