Trump says on Univision that if he wins, he is allowed to weaponize FBI, DOJ against his political enemies

[rambot]

I need to learn how to get around the filters like so many of my posts. Usually, I write how I think which do have some not-so-proper words.

Butkiss is an expression; Have you not heard it? I've seen it spelled several different ways though and I'm not sure which is right.

 

[Laodicean60]

I'm not sure which is right.

I spell it with two t's but I don't want the {bless do no curse} to happen.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I spell it with two t's but I don't want the {bless do no curse} to happen.

Butts won't trip the filter, but bupkis doesn't have anything to do with either butts or kissing.

Bupkis: Absolutely nothing; nothing of value, significance, or substance.

 

[essentialsaltes]

....and the crowd cheered.

Sure did. It's got that "will be wild" energy.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well in this case at least, about 5 judges agree if I recall correctly.

Supreme Court stayed the lower court decision, and will review that decision by writ of certiorary. So problems, even in the opinion of a very conservative court.

Do you think I'm Russian?

Hmm... you seem to be in agreement with Russian trolls a lot. But that doesn't mean you're a Russian troll. I mean, Tucker Carlson sides with Russian trolls constantly, but he's not a Russian troll.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure did. It's got that "will be wild" energy.

View attachment 340195

Todos saludan El Caudillo! er... все слава лидеру!

 

[The Barbarian]

Edit

Who are the non-criminal candidates?

Hailey, DeSantis (so far as we know), and one Trump clone whose name I forget.

 

[FenderTL5]

Well they were shown to be censored by the government on certain media and platforms.

The government did the censoring?

Whether or not they were silenced completely doesn't make any difference.

That was the claim quoted in the previous post.

The government has no right to censor political speech for their expressed biased opinion.

I would agree but I'm not certain this has been demonstrated yet.

I mean...it's not included in the lawsuit, but they were sending FBI to intimidate parents unhappy with their school boards.

I did a search for this, I'm not seeing this claim being made.. anywhere. Show me.

This government has been more blatantly oppressive to US citizens than any in my lifetime.

The number of people in this administration guilty of these things spans multiple agencies/departments.

Says you.

Ok...

..All judges agreed the case is likely to succeed on its merits.

All?

Well in this case at least, about 5 judges agree if I recall correctly.

5 of how many? to be all it'd have to be 5 out of 5 right?

Supreme Court stayed the lower court decision, and will review that decision by writ of certiorary. So problems, even in the opinion of a very conservative court.

That must mean that the earlier "all" was an exaggeration. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the lifting of the injunctions.. how many SCOTUS judges are there? So not ALL.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Supreme Court stayed the lower court decision, and will review that decision by writ of certiorary. So problems, even in the opinion of a very conservative court.

The placed an injunction, which I've read, allowing certain types of interaction with media involving legitimate threats.

What no one has even tried to dispute (apart from the accused) is that this has been a massive attack on political speech.

Hmm... you seem to be in agreement with Russian trolls a lot.

Know a lot of Russian trolls?

I personally love the Russian troll smear....it's a refreshing change from far right bigot, or white supremacist, or the typical ad hominems.

Even if you believe it...I'm still stating facts.

But that doesn't mean you're a Russian troll. I mean, Tucker Carlson sides with Russian trolls constantly, but he's not a Russian troll.

Well before you say it...I'm not Tucker Carlson either.

 

[The Barbarian]

The placed an injunction, which I've read, allowing certain types of interaction with media involving legitimate threats.

What no one has even tried to dispute (apart from the accused) is that this has been a massive attack on political speech.

For instance, they note that Twitter "hid" a tweet by President Trump saying "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" during the protests in Minneapolis. But it didn't hide a tweet from Iranian ayatollahs calling for armed resistance in Israel.

So do they have a point?

One of the Republican criticisms of social media is that its algorithms push down conservative content. But that isn't borne out by the data for Facebook.

Data from CrowdTangle, a public insights tool owned by Facebook, puts together the most popular posts for each day on Facebook. On any given day the top 10 most popular political posts are dominated by right-leaning commentators like Dan Bongino and Ben Shapiro, along with posts by Fox News and President Trump.

Mr Trump's Facebook page has 32 million followers, nearly 10 times more than his Democratic challenger in next month's election, Joe Biden.

If the accusation is Facebook suppresses right-wing content, it doesn't seem to do it very well.

Social media: Is it really biased against US Republicans?

Many conservative Americans believe Facebook and Twitter are biased against them, despite denials.

www.bbc.com

The extreme right has a compelling need to feel "oppressed." So if a cheap beer puts some transgender person on some cans of beer, that's "oppressing conservative straight incels" or whatever. Pretty much anything triggers the little snowflakes.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hmm... you seem to be in agreement with Russian trolls a lot. But that doesn't mean you're a Russian troll. I mean, Tucker Carlson sides with Russian trolls constantly, but he's not a Russian troll.

The laptop smear, for example. So far, no one can even tell us what's on it that shows any crimes, but the smear continues to be peddled by trolls.

I personally love the Russian troll smear....

Well, a lot of people fell for that laptop smear. What crimes do you think it proved?

Well before you say it...I'm not Tucker Carlson either.

For one thing, you haven't admitted to being on Putin's side, which Carlson has done. So there is that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Edit

Hailey, DeSantis (so far as we know), and one Trump clone whose name I forget.

C'mon. How long has DeSantis been in politics?

He seems to have admitted to being a party to forced feeding of detainees at Gitmo...which can be read a bunch of different ways. I'd guess it's an attempt to throw some minor stink on a rather swift and upwardly mobile officer. He's not the worst of criminals but there's just no way he's clean in my mind.

Haley...probably not as bad but as a dyed in the wool true politician with no real positions, values, or plans...just a willingness to say whatever works....it seems unlikely her campaign violations are the extent of her crimes.

 

[The Barbarian]

C'mon. How long has DeSantis been in politics?

He seems to have admitted to being a party to forced feeding of detainees at Gitmo...which can be read a bunch of different ways. I'd guess it's an attempt to throw some minor stink on a rather swift and upwardly mobile officer. He's not the worst of criminals but there's just no way he's clean in my mind.

In America, you need evidence. Another major difference.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The government did the censoring?

Yeah...directly and by proxy. Both illegal.

That was the claim quoted in the previous post.

I didn't think anyone took that to mean a government agent showed up at people's houses and stuffed a rag in their mouth.

Are you being serious or just don't have any understanding of the limits of when the government can prevent free speech?

I would agree but I'm not certain this has been demonstrated yet.

What part do you think wasn't demonstrated?

I did a search for this, I'm not seeing this claim being made.. anywhere. Show me.

Is this serious? You don't recall this?

Garland: school board memo aimed at violence, not parent protests; 6 cases referred to local authorities

Attorney General Merrick Garland said the FBI referred six cases of threats against school officials to local officials.

www.usatoday.com

That's a decent article. It even refers to the suppression of basic rights of conservatives. Not part of the case here but just another example of the government trampling rights without any accountability. If the school board meeting gets a little loud, they can just call the police. One FBI whistleblower mentioned that he was reassigned from gathering evidence on a pedophile ring to go sit in public school parking lots.

Says you.

You can read the judgement and evidence cited or not.

My guess is you're probably happy with the oppression of your fellow countrymen as long as it's not happening to you.

All?

Yeah, sorry if there's some confusion but I tend to assume that people understand how stuff works sometimes.

This was filed in a lower court where this ruling was made at the state level.

Then it was appealed to a federal district court that immediately agreed.

Then appealed again to a higher district court that immediately agreed.

And that's how it went all the way through a total of 5 or 6 courts up to it hit the desk of the SCOTUS.

Only one judge had any issue with the original ruling and it's scope. He agreed to at least the necessity for tracking actual criminals on certain social media platforms and amended the ruling to allow for that.

When it hit the desk of the SCOTUS...one has to understand the problem.

It's a ridiculous amount of evidence, precedent makes clear all the civil rights violations and the widespread nature of these abuses. They lifted the injunction but clearly couldn't cite any reason why (to my knowledge, something that hasn't been done) and agreed to settle the matter in a year.

It's a huge problem no matter what. It doesn't matter which way they rule.

If you've ever wondered why governments like ours just shut up about gross widespread abuses of civil rights, human rights, or high crimes...like how they just seal up documents and say "we'll tell you what happened in 40 years when everyone is dead"....

This is probably a time when they wish they could do that...but they can't. It's already all out there available to be seen. It's public knowledge.

 

[The Barbarian]

Is this serious? You don't recall this?

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told Garland he should rescind his memo because the school board association's board of directors apologized for the language in the initial missive to Mr. Biden, which said violent and malicious acts against public school officials could "be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."

Garland defends memo on violent threats to school boards

Garland testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing.

www.cbsnews.com

Well, let's take a look...

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i)
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and

(6) the term “military force” does not include any person that—
(A)has been designated as a—
(i)
foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); or
(ii)
specially designated global terrorist (as such term is defined in section 594.310 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations) by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury; or
(B)
has been determined by the court to not be a “military force”.

18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

Yep. Fits the legal definition.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In America, you need evidence. Another major difference.

Uh...DeSantis has admitted to the force feeding, which is considered the crime of torture under international law.

Haley has been found in violation of several minor campaign issues. I don't know if they're civil or administrative.

I honestly didn't think people were still naive enough to believe that the government isn't full of criminals. My low estimate is like...88% lol. Nobody in longer than maybe 5 years past a local level. Don't get me wrong...I'm not claiming they're all murderers or rapists. They're taking bribes, gifts, misappropriation funds, bending rules, breaking laws carefully, etc.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told Garland he should rescind his memo because the school board association's board of directors apologized for the language in the initial missive to Mr. Biden, which said violent and malicious acts against public school officials could "be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."

Garland defends memo on violent threats to school boards

Garland testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing.

www.cbsnews.com

Well, let's take a look...

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i)
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and

(6) the term “military force” does not include any person that—
(A)has been designated as a—
(i)
foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); or
(ii)
specially designated global terrorist (as such term is defined in section 594.310 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations) by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury; or
(B)
has been determined by the court to not be a “military force”.

18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

Yep. Fits the legal definition.

Is that what you're saying? Parents angry about their curriculum and shouting at dismissive school board members who are lying to them about what is being taught is "domestic terrorism"?

Wow.

Ok...how many domestic terrorists did they find?

 

[wing2000]

How many parents did the FBI agents allegedly intimidate?

 

[FenderTL5]

I didn't think anyone took that to mean a government agent showed up at people's houses and stuffed a rag in their mouth.

Are you being serious or just don't have any understanding of the limits of when the government can prevent free speech?

I don't like exagerration beng presented as fact, when exagerration is a distortion of fact.

What part do you think wasn't demonstrated?

your exagerrated claim

Is this serious? You don't recall this?

Garland: school board memo aimed at violence, not parent protests; 6 cases referred to local authorities

Attorney General Merrick Garland said the FBI referred six cases of threats against school officials to local officials.

www.usatoday.com

That's a decent article. It even refers to the suppression of basic rights of conservatives. Not part of the case here but just another example of the government trampling rights without any accountability. If the school board meeting gets a little loud, they can just call the police. One FBI whistleblower mentioned that he was reassigned from gathering evidence on a pedophile ring to go sit in public school parking lots.

I saw that but I was looking for this part:

they were sending FBI to intimidate parents unhappy with their school boards.

I see where local officials were informed but I don't see the part about FBI agents being sent in to intimidate. That appears to be another exagerration on your part. That's not found in your link either. It says "..there were no full field investigations opened at all. All of them in the end were referred to state and local authorities.."

Yeah, sorry if there's some confusion but I tend to assume that people understand how stuff works sometimes.

I have a basic understanding of how it works, which is why I questioned your claim of "all " judges.
What I saw was this:
Motion for preliminary injunction granted in part and denied in part, Missouri v. Biden, No. 22-cv-1213 (W.D. La., July 4, 2023); injunction affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and modified in part, No. 23-30445 (5th Cir., October 3, 2023); injunction stayed and certiorari granted sub nom. Murthy v. Missouri, 601 U.S. ____ (October 20, 2023).

Which isn't exactly the same course you described, it once again seems exgerrated.

Generally speaking, when I see someone making comments in absolutes, I figure there's some fudging of fact taking place. There's very little in life that works in absolutes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't like exagerration beng presented as fact, when exagerration is a distortion of fact.

your exagerrated claim

Ok...what exagerrated claim?

What claim did I exagerrate in reading the details of a civil lawsuit the government lost so fast it might be a record?

I saw that but I was looking for this part:

I see where local officials were informed but I don't see the part about FBI agents being sent in to intimidate.

Well they don't seem to have come up with any actual domestic terrorists. They barely scratched up any threats.

Did a single prosecution come from these efforts?

This doesn't look like persecution of citizens opposed to a radical school agenda?

It looks like....what to you? A good job? Job well done? Necessary? Bad misallocation of resources? A bad misinterpretation?

That appears to be another exagerration on your part. That's not found in your link either. It says "..there were no full field investigations opened at all. All of them in the end were referred to state and local authorities.."

I'm not citing that as a part of the article.

That's my opinion.

When you send federal agents after parents who disagree with the political agenda you're pushing in schools...that's intimidation. You don't have to agree with me. Clearly you think it's something else despite the almost complete absence of any crimes.

I have a basic understanding of how it works, which is why I questioned your claim of "all " judges.
What I saw was this:
Motion for preliminary injunction granted in part and denied in part, Missouri v. Biden, No. 22-cv-1213 (W.D. La., July 4, 2023); injunction affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and modified in part, No. 23-30445 (5th Cir., October 3, 2023); injunction stayed and certiorari granted sub nom. Murthy v. Missouri, 601 U.S. ____ (October 20, 2023).

I don't know what you're pulling that from and frankly...it just looks like a list of injunctions and appeals that were considered, granted, or denied in the process of judgment.

None of which changes the judgments of each court up to the SCOTUS.

Generally speaking, when I see someone making comments in absolutes, I figure there's some fudging of fact taking place. There's very little in life that works in absolutes.

Uh huh. I don't know what to tell you about this deepism....but it's really profound. Let's see....absolutes....

The sun will rise in the east and set in the west tomorrow. I'm absolutely sure of it.

We're all going to die one day, and I'm not even slightly in doubt of it.

I'll be getting hungry in an hour or so....100% certain....I've got this weird way of noticing when I'm hungry.

Most people's political beliefs aren't a matter of evidence or consideration, but generally just desire to feel like a team member....about 95% certain of it.

There's nothing that cannot be taken from a person. 100% certain.

On that note...I think we're done.