FBI Orchestrated Jan 6 Riots ‘to Entrap MAGA Americans,’ Explains Congress’ Homeland

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Who spied on Trump and when did they spy on him?

You seem to be really confused about facts because no one spied on Trump. No one spied on the Trump campaign since Page was no associated with the Trump campaign when he was surveilled.
Tell us when Trump was spied on using Fisa section 702. Find us the warrants that would have done that.

It seems all you have are the cult ramblings. Repeating things that aren't true as if repeating lies makes them true.

Read the part on when Carter Page page left the Trump campaign and when the Fisa warrant was first issued.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page
Click to expand...

You are describing yourself again, Sock. It is YOU making the 'cult ramblings' (or quoting from the Church of Hate scripture).
Asking the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over doesn't work, Sock. RQAA.
 
QP! said:
Phoenyx said:
No, the government was definitely taking an active role in the censorship:

Government-coerced private censorship now before U.S. Supreme Court | USA Today

Government’s ‘Thinly Veiled’ Social-Media Censorship | The Wall Street Journal
Click to expand...

No they were not. Those cases were lost.
Click to expand...

The case hasn't yet been decided, but I've certainly heard that the Supreme Court is leaning towards allowing the government to pressure U.S. social media to do its bidding. Whether or not the Supreme Court allows the government to do this is besides the point, however. The point is that I think it's quite clear that the U.S. government has, in fact, bullied Social Media into censoring content and it looks like they may well continue to let the government do so. Here's an article that gets into why what the government did is wrong and why the Supreme Court should rule against it:

Biden administration went too far against Facebook over 'health misinformation' | Chicago Sun Times

Quoting from said article:
**
If the Supreme Court rules for the government in Murthy v. Missouri, it would give the government power to define “misinformation” and require it to be removed from social media. The First Amendment plainly forbids that.

When federal officials persistently pressured social media platforms to delete or downgrade posts those officials did not like, a government lawyer told the Supreme Court on Monday, they were merely offering “information” and “advice” to their “partners” in fighting “misinformation.” If the justices accept that characterization, they will be blessing clandestine government censorship of online speech.

The case, Murthy v. Missouri, pits two states and five social media users against federal officials who strongly, repeatedly and angrily demanded that Facebook et al. crack down on speech the government viewed as dangerous to public health, democracy or national security. Some of this “exhortation,” as U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher described it, happened in public, as when President Joe Biden accused the platforms of “killing people” by allowing users to say things he believed would discourage Americans from being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who echoed that charge in more polite terms, urged a “whole-of-society” effort to combat the “urgent threat to public health” posed by “health misinformation,” which he said might include “legal and regulatory measures.” Other federal officials said holding social media platforms “accountable” could entail antitrust action, new regulations or expansion of their civil liability for user-posted content.

Those public threats were coupled with private communications that came to light only thanks to discovery in this case. As Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga noted Monday, officials such as Deputy Assistant to the President Rob Flaherty “badger[ed] the platforms 24/7,” demanding that they broaden their content restrictions and enforce them more aggressively.

Those emails alluded to presidential displeasure and warned that White House officials were “considering our options on what to do” if the platforms failed to fall in line. The platforms responded by changing their policies and practices.

Appeasing the president

Facebook executive Nick Clegg was eager to appease the president. In emails to Murthy, he noted that Facebook had “adjust[ed] policies on what we’re removing"; had deleted pages, groups, and accounts that offended the White House; and would “shortly be expanding our COVID policies to further reduce the spread of potentially harmful content.”

Facebook took those steps, Clegg said in another internal email that Aguiñaga quoted, “because we were under pressure by the administration.” Clegg expressed regret about caving to that pressure, saying, “We shouldn’t have done it.”

[snip]

“Pressuring platforms in back rooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all,” Aguiñaga noted. “That’s just being a bully.”
**
 
Here is your back-up

Censorship on various digital platforms of conservative and alternative voices REQUESTED BY THE US GOVT.

1)The Supreme Court is considering a case that stems from the Biden administration’s efforts to pressure social media platforms to remove content that it said spread falsehoods about the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election1.

2) The dispute was brought by five social media users and two states, Louisiana and Missouri, who claimed their speech was stifled when platforms removed or downgraded their posts after strong-arming by officials in the White House, Centers for Disease Control, FBI and Department of Homeland Security1

3) The Biden administration has argued that it asked social media companies to take down posts it considered to be harmful misinformation, but never forced them to do so2.

4) A US federal judge has limited the Biden administration’s communications with social media companies which are aimed at moderating their content3.

5) The Supreme Court has blocked an injunction that would prevent the Biden administration from pressuring social media firms to take down content4.




Laws that target the expression of personal belief as a direct attack against the 1st amendment.

a)Anti-LGBTQ Laws: Some anti-LGBTQ laws passed in 2023, which included measures to deny gender-affirming care to trans children, have been struck down for limiting the free speech of drag queens and doctors2.

B) Laws Restricting Classroom Discussions: There have been laws restricting classroom discussions on race, sexual orientation, and gender identity3.


The use of lawfare in an to attempt to eliminate political opponents.

1) New York Attorney General Letitia James: An elected Democrat, James won office on a platform of going after Trump1. After considering various criminal charges against the former president, James decided instead to file a lawsuit intended to destroy Trump’s business empire in New York1.

2) Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg: Also an elected Democrat, Bragg won office on a platform of going after Trump1. In late March, Bragg became the first prosecutor to indict Trump, charging him with 34 felonies related to the hush money Trump arranged to pay porn star Stormy Daniels in the 2016 presidential campaign1.

3) Special Counsel Jack Smith: Appointed by the Biden Justice Department, Smith began his investigation of Trump a few months after the New York Times reported in April 2022.

4) Colorado Supreme Court Ruling: The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Trump from being on the state ballot1. The case was started by a Washington-based, aggressively anti-Trump activist group called CREW, or Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington1.


Using the law enforcement and intelligence community spy on and to falsely demonize the opposition party of the left.

1) Russia-US Espionage: There were reports of an alleged high-level spy within Russia who was reportedly extracted by the US due to fears that his cover was about to be blown1. This extraction reportedly came after President Trump’s meeting with Russia’s Sergei Lavrov in 2017, which allegedly spooked the CIA1. However, the CIA described CNN’s reporting of the extraction as “misguided” and "simply false"1.

2) Chinese Spy Meeting with Trump: Tao Liu, a Chinese businessman and fugitive from Chinese justice, reportedly met with President Donald Trump in 2018. The FBI was monitoring Liu due to suspicions that he was working with Chinese spies on a covert operation to buy access to U.S. political figures2.

3) Obama Administration’s Involvement: There have been allegations that the Obama administration directed foreign allies to spy on Donald Trump and his associates before the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation in 2016 into alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia34.

4) Targeting of Trump’s Associates: A report suggested that the US Intelligence Community urged foreign spy organizations to eavesdrop on 26 Donald Trump associates in the run-up to the 2016 election5.
 
ZenMode said:
On the above bolded point we agree. When you have the President of the United States, the Leader of the Free World, the most powerful man on the planet, recklessly spreading lie after lie after lie about a legitimate election, it can't do anything but devastate the fabric of our nation. What people seem to forget is that his election lies started long before 2020. He claimed, without a scrap of evidence, that there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election that prevented him from winning the popular vote. With the help of social media and a growing nation of people who are mastering confirmation bias, our country has never been more divided.

Trump is a 275 pound pile of human excrement. Like OJ, I will not care one iota when he dies.
Click to expand...

dems cheated.

there's no doubt about it.

this is why you're losing.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
not sure.

but any state where the election rules were changed unconsitituionally should have the 2020 results set aside.

do you agree?

if not why not?
Click to expand...

The question of what to do in states where changes were eventually ruled unconstitutional (not all were) is not what I'm talking about.

Trump & Co., going back to 2016, have claimed, AS A FACT, that there have been millions of fraudulent votes/ballots. Is that claim factual?
 
ZenMode said:
The question of what to do in states where changes were eventually ruled unconstitutional (not all were) is not what I'm talking about.

Trump & Co., going back to 2016, have claimed, AS A FACT, that there have been millions of fraudulent votes/ballots. Is that claim factual?
Click to expand...

has there been a full forensic audit?
 
Doc Dutch said:
The border, son? How many miles of border and shoreline does the US have, Fredo?

Proper legislation will encourage illegals to self-deport. Those that don’t leave can be helped.

I leave room for Dreamers and American-born kids.
Click to expand...

so is that a yes or no on border enforcement?
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
so is that a yes or no on border enforcement?
Click to expand...
Sorry I forgot you have a limited focus. It’s a yes on border security but I want to secure all the borders not just the 1900 miles on the South one. The wall is a stupid fucking idea. It solves very few problems. Worse, it still leaves a whole lot of problems with no solution.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Sorry I forgot you have a limited focus. It’s a yes on border security but I want to secure all the borders not just the 1900 miles on the South one. The wall is a stupid fucking idea. It solves very few problems. Worse, it still leaves a whole lot of problems with no solution.
Click to expand...

walls are smart, dumbass..


this is why you're losing.

I'm open to other measures besides the obvious and most basic, a wall.

you're opposed to the most basic measures. and have only vagaries after that.


this is why you're losing.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
walls are smart, dumbass.
Click to expand...

I agree walls are smarter than you. The United States has over 100,000 miles of shoreline and borders. How much do you think it’s going to cost to Wall in the entire nation so illegals can’t use boats? What about tunnel technology and airplanes?
 
Doc Dutch said:
The border, son? How many miles of border and shoreline does the US have, Fredo?

Proper legislation will encourage illegals to self-deport. Those that don’t leave can be helped.

I leave room for Dreamers and American-born kids.
Click to expand...

I am quoting this post again to laugh at it some more.


wow, this sure is stupid.
 
Doc Dutch said:
I agree walls are smarter than you. The United States has over 100,000 miles of shoreline and borders. How much do you think it’s going to cost to Wall in the entire nation so illegals can’t use boats? What about tunnel technology and airplanes?
Click to expand...

stfu, traitor retard.

stop pretending you give a shit about national security.

you're a clown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top