Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears

[Billo_Really]

No it is not because there was no obstruction after he was gone. The investigation continued until it's conclusion several months after the firing. Furthermore even if you remove Trump from the picture, any President had more than enough reasons to fire Comey, including the mishandling of the Clinton investigation, leaks constantly coming out of the FBI with no actions taken, and that some of the leaks came from him. There is also the Lynch/ Clinton meeting on her plane that was never addressed, and he told the AG how to conduct her actions after the investigation material was released to her. That has never been done before.

Trump already admitted on national TV he fired Comey to end the investigation. Sorry, you can't rewrite history.

 

[iceberg]

No it is not because there was no obstruction after he was gone. The investigation continued until it's conclusion several months after the firing. Furthermore even if you remove Trump from the picture, any President had more than enough reasons to fire Comey, including the mishandling of the Clinton investigation, leaks constantly coming out of the FBI with no actions taken, and that some of the leaks came from him. There is also the Lynch/ Clinton meeting on her plane that was never addressed, and he told the AG how to conduct her actions after the investigation material was released to her. That has never been done before.

Trump already admitted on national TV he fired Comey to end the investigation. Sorry, you can't rewrite history.

link please.

 

[Billo_Really]

link please.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No it is not because there was no obstruction after he was gone. The investigation continued until it's conclusion several months after the firing. Furthermore even if you remove Trump from the picture, any President had more than enough reasons to fire Comey, including the mishandling of the Clinton investigation, leaks constantly coming out of the FBI with no actions taken, and that some of the leaks came from him. There is also the Lynch/ Clinton meeting on her plane that was never addressed, and he told the AG how to conduct her actions after the investigation material was released to her. That has never been done before.

Trump already admitted on national TV he fired Comey to end the investigation. Sorry, you can't rewrite history.

He never said to "end" the investigation. I dare you to find me a video of Trump saying that. He did say he fired Comey partly because of the Russia investigation. But he had several other reasons as well.

 

[iceberg]

link please.

um.. timestamp? i dont hear it fired to end the investigation. where was this said in your video?

 

[G.T.]

Maybe this well go to the high court to end the debate about social media.
Luckily, we still have institutionalized discrimination and this isnt a protected class.
I cant wait for the outcome!

Its amazing to me that somebody of that stature could be so stupid as to assume this lawsuit could work.

He's doing it for political clout...I cant believe that he assumes he'd win.

Free (POLITICAL!) speech is already ruled on as protected speech, for private corporations, by the Supreme Court. Twitter is ALLOWED to have a political bias. They're not a tax-payer provided service ->

And that ruling aside, since when does a right-leaning politician not believe in a private business' right to disallow whatever they wish on their platform? Are we bringing cakes up in a minute, I know we're not about to talk about cakes...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

link please.

um.. timestamp? i dont hear it fired to end the investigation. where was this said in your video?

People who don't even read or watch their own links. They just search titles and post them.

The video did show Trump saying he wanted to fire Comey since his inauguration.

 

[iceberg]

link please.

um.. timestamp? i dont hear it fired to end the investigation. where was this said in your video?

People who don't even read or watch their own links. They just search titles and post them.

The video did show Trump saying he wanted to fire Comey since his inauguration.

yep. would not make me cry for temp banning for that shit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

link please.

um.. timestamp? i dont hear it fired to end the investigation. where was this said in your video?

People who don't even read or watch their own links. They just search titles and post them.

The video did show Trump saying he wanted to fire Comey since his inauguration.

yep. would not make me cry for temp banning for that shit.

Nah, no real harm done. Actually it's quite amusing. I understand where you're coming from though. Those are five minutes of my life I'll never get back by watching a video that didn't come close to backing up his claim.

 

[P@triot]

He does?!? I guess that’s why Hitlery was investigated, indicted, imprisoned, uh dumb ass? Can you even give a single example of President Trump using the DoJ? The only person they’ve investigated so far is him.

He told the FBI on several occasions to investigate Hillary.

If that were even remotely true, there would have been an investigation. The DoJ falls under the Executive Branch. The President of the United States is the “chief executive” of the executive branch.

You’re lying as usual. Sad that you feel the need to resort to lying.

 

[P@triot]

He said at a campaign rally on national TV that he would soon "have some dirt on Hillary". Three day's later, Jarod and Don Jr. had their meeting at Trump Tower with the Russians expecting to get dirt on Hillary. That's a violation of the Emoluments Clause. You don't have to physically get the gift. Just the "expectation" of a gift violates the clause.

Bwahahaha! Good grief...where to even begin with this gem? Let’s start with this - that campaign rally and that meeting both occurred before he was elected President. You cannot violate the Emoluments Clause if you don’t hold a public office.

 

[P@triot]

He said at a campaign rally on national TV that he would soon "have some dirt on Hillary". Three day's later, Jarod and Don Jr. had their meeting at Trump Tower with the Russians expecting to get dirt on Hillary. That's a violation of the Emoluments Clause. You don't have to physically get the gift. Just the "expectation" of a gift violates the clause.

Bwahahaha! Good grief...where to continue with this gem? Let’s start with this - information is not considered a “gift” by any metric relating to the Emoluments Clause. A “gift” in this context would be something with real, tangible, monetary value (such as a Lamborghini or diamonds).

If information was a violation of the Emoluments Clause, how could anyone hold office? The contents of a bill is information, genius. How could you vote on a bill without the knowledge of what was in the bill? And how could you hold office if that knowledge was a “violation” of the Emolument Clause?

 

[P@triot]

Here's just January's lies the month he took office...

JAN. 21 “A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.)
​

Yer welcome!

See the key word there? I bolded it in blue. When someone says “I think” they are openly acknowledging they are not certain. Therefore, how could that possibly be a lie? It’s their best guess/assumption and they are admitting as much.

The only one lying here is you.

 

[P@triot]

Here's just January's lies the month he took office...

JAN. 25 “You had millions of people that now aren't insured anymore.” (The real number is less than 1 million, according to the Urban Institute.)
​

Yer welcome!

This is now the second lie I’ve caught you in just in this one post alone.

The 5 million-plus Americans who’ve seen their health plans canceled thanks to ObamaCare will be joined by millions more this year — because the Affordable Care Act makes their employer-provided policies illegal, as well.

Less than a million, uh snowflake?

Another 25 million ObamaCare victims

 

[P@triot]

Here's just January's lies the month he took office...

JAN. 25 “You had millions of people that now aren't insured anymore.” (The real number is less than 1 million, according to the Urban Institute.)
​

Yer welcome!

This is now the second lie I’ve caught you in just in this one post alone.

The most commonly used figure is 4.7 million, based on reporting by the Associated Press last December. But there’s reason to doubt the accuracy of that figure. An analysis of a more recent poll by researchers at the Urban Institute puts the figure at somewhere around 2.6 million.

Less than a million, uh snowflake? You’re even lying about the lies from the Urban Institute. Actual numbers were much closer to 10 million.

'Millions' Lost Insurance - FactCheck.org

 

[P@triot]

Here's just January's lies the month he took office...

JAN. 25 “You had millions of people that now aren't insured anymore.” (The real number is less than 1 million, according to the Urban Institute.)
​

Yer welcome!

This is now the second lie I’ve caught you in just in this one post alone.

NBC News reported that 50% to 75% of the 14 million Americans with individual healthcare plans would receive a cancellation notice in the next year.

Less than a million, uh snowflake? By NBC’s lowest estimate, 7 million were going to lose their policy. On the high end? Over 10 million (which turned out to be the actual number). “Yer welcome”!

Health insurance policy cancellations since Obamacare - Ballotpedia

 

[busybee01]

And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.

Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears​

California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.

In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."

Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.

"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content." ​

Can't go anywhere, Twitter is a private company and can refuse service to whomever they please.

You kids probably should have baked those gay wedding cakes, then you might have a leg to stand on.

If they are acting as editors, then they can be sued for their content.

That's the bottom line.

No they cannot. They have the right to refuse service to anyone. Nunes should be forced to pay all of Twitter's legal bills.

 

[bripat9643]

And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.

Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears​

California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.

In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."

Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.

"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content." ​

Can't go anywhere, Twitter is a private company and can refuse service to whomever they please.

You kids probably should have baked those gay wedding cakes, then you might have a leg to stand on.

If they are acting as editors, then they can be sued for their content.

That's the bottom line.

No they cannot. They have the right to refuse service to anyone. Nunes should be forced to pay all of Twitter's legal bills.

If they refuse service, they are acting as editors. They are subject to being sued for their editorial content. They are not common carriers.

 

[busybee01]

And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.

Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears​

California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.

In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."

Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.

"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content." ​

Can't go anywhere, Twitter is a private company and can refuse service to whomever they please.

You kids probably should have baked those gay wedding cakes, then you might have a leg to stand on.

If they are acting as editors, then they can be sued for their content.

That's the bottom line.

No they cannot. They have the right to refuse service to anyone. Nunes should be forced to pay all of Twitter's legal bills.

If they refuse service, they are acting as editors. They are subject to being sued for their editorial content. They are not common carriers.

I guess you are going to get a legal education. Nunes will lose.

 

[bripat9643]

And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.

Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears​

California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.

In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."

Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.

"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content." ​

Can't go anywhere, Twitter is a private company and can refuse service to whomever they please.

You kids probably should have baked those gay wedding cakes, then you might have a leg to stand on.

If they are acting as editors, then they can be sued for their content.

That's the bottom line.

No they cannot. They have the right to refuse service to anyone. Nunes should be forced to pay all of Twitter's legal bills.

If they refuse service, they are acting as editors. They are subject to being sued for their editorial content. They are not common carriers.

I guess you are going to get a legal education. Nunes will lose.

We will see.