What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

ThunderKiss1965

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
11,633
Reaction score
4,710
Points
400
Location
GNO
What a condescending post this is. The Pentagon needs to root out right wing extremism and racism in the forces. This is why dumb grunts like you aren't in command positions.
For your information they found 80 cases of "extremism" without actually defining what constituted extremism. I was in the Army for over 6 years and in that whole time I might have met one white supremacist, but I met a shit load of gangbangers who signed up to get military experience and take that back to their gangs. It was a witch hunt.

I was not a grunt in the military. I worked on computer systems and managed secure networks and emails servers. Which makes me loads more smarter than dumb shits like yourself.
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
33,757
Reaction score
19,928
Points
1,788
Or maybe provide proof of your claims so you don't look like a coward. 😄

Sure you do little guy. :itsok:

Entitlement? It sure isn't. 😄
you really never heard of rhe state actor doctrine in constitutional law? wow
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
33,757
Reaction score
19,928
Points
1,788
Thank you for my laugh of the day. YOU, reviewing case law. What a joke. Do you even know what case law might be?
so you too? never heard of the state actor doctrine? well you are a foreigner so i guess you gave an excuse
 

Curried Goats

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2021
Messages
9,582
Reaction score
2,794
Points
208
you really never heard of rhe state actor doctrine in constitutional law? wow
I don't know how it applies to you in the case of social media companies since you have no right to free speech on their property to begin with.
 

pyetro

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
4,308
Reaction score
4,525
Points
1,940
This is clearly illegal. The FBI needs to be dismantled.

Can't wait for the pathetic spin.

FBI met weekly with Big Tech ahead of the 2020 election, agent testifies

FBI Agent Elvis Chan testified Tuesday to Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general​


EXCLUSIVE – An FBI agent testified to Republican attorneys general this week that the FBI held weekly meetings with Big Tech companies in Silicon Valley ahead of the 2020 presidential election to discuss "disinformation" on social media and ask about efforts to censor that information.

On Tuesday, lawyers from the offices of Attorneys General Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana deposed FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan as part of their lawsuit against the Biden administration. That suit accuses high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies "under the guise of combating misinformation" to achieve greater censorship.

Chan, who serves in the FBI’s San Francisco bureau, was questioned under oath by court order about his alleged "critical role" in "coordinating with social-media platforms relating to censorship and suppression of speech on their platforms."


Nostra left out “to warn against Russian disinformation”.
Very convenient.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
47,724
Reaction score
41,811
Points
3,615
I don't think there was russian involvement in the laptop TBH... The KGB is very good at mis/disinformation. Whomever cooked up this scheme was punching out of their weight class.

Hunter lives in California. Why would he drop off a laptop in Wilmington, Delaware?
If he supposedly made millions (or billions as I've seen it listed here), why is he getting a laptop repaired anyway?
The laptop repair guy supposedly called the FBI. Then, when HE wasn't happy with the progress of the investigation, HE took the copies of child porn he allegedly copied off of the laptop and handed them over to someone else??? Why in the world would you commit a felony yourself if there was nothing in it for you?
And, to top it all off, when Rudy was shopping the story around, even Fox news told him to go pound sand. If Fox didn't want a part of this...how lame do you think the pitch was?

So I don't see the KGB being one of the chefs of this half baked fiasco.
Um, the Biden’s are from Delaware. They have homes there, Dumbass.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
47,724
Reaction score
41,811
Points
3,615
Nostra left out “to warn against Russian disinformation”.
Very convenient.
You are the useful idiot the FBI counts on, Simp.
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
33,757
Reaction score
19,928
Points
1,788
I don't know how it applies to you in the case of social media companies since you have no right to free speech on their property to begin with.
The State Actor Doctrine would apply to tweeter, when they are acting on behalf of the FBI to censor political speech during a campaign that is harmful to Xiden
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
33,757
Reaction score
19,928
Points
1,788
Nostra left out “to warn against Russian disinformation”.
Very convenient.
Hunter's laptop was no russian disinformation...it has been confirmed to be his
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
47,724
Reaction score
41,811
Points
3,615
Hunter's laptop was no russian disinformation...it has been confirmed to be his
Pyetro is a useful dupe for anything the Govt tells him to think.
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
37,526
Reaction score
12,969
Points
1,550
Was it to censor political speech or remove lies, propaganda and misinformation?
Under the 1st Amendment, those are to be treated the same. Are you familiar with the state of political speech when the 1st was written to protect it?
 

Curried Goats

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2021
Messages
9,582
Reaction score
2,794
Points
208
The State Actor Doctrine would apply to tweeter, when they are acting on behalf of the FBI to censor political speech during a campaign that is harmful to Xiden
You would first need to have a right to political speech on other people's property for them to violate. You do not have that right to begin with.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
258,139
Reaction score
77,662
Points
2,260
Under the 1st Amendment, those are to be treated the same. Are you familiar with the state of political speech when the 1st was written to protect it?

Are you aware that the First Amendment only applies to Government censorship NOT private entities?
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
47,724
Reaction score
41,811
Points
3,615
Are you aware that the First Amendment only applies to Government censorship NOT private entities?
What do you think the “F” in FBI stands for, Trollwinger?
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
62,131
Reaction score
46,502
Points
3,645
Location
Florida
The more you hear about the corruption of the Democrats the more despicable they become.

Also, the more it becomes evident that the Democrat Dirty Tricks Department stole the 2020 election.

Like all Leftest that believe in "any means necessary" they are destroying our country for their greed.
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
37,526
Reaction score
12,969
Points
1,550
You would first need to have a right to political speech on other people's property for them to violate. You do not have that right to begin with.
And that is completely true until the government coordinates with the entity to censor speech. That's an in-kind campaign contribution when a candidate does it, censorship when the government does it and should be dealt with as such.
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
33,757
Reaction score
19,928
Points
1,788
You would first need to have a right to political speech on other people's property for them to violate. You do not have that right to begin with.
ok, so you really don't know what the state actor doctrine means...gotcha.

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288 (2001

"The nominally private character of the Association is overborne by the pervasive entwinement of public institutions and public officials in its composition and workings, and there is no substantial reason to claim unfairness in applying constitutional standards to it."[12] Part of the basis for this determination were historical statements by the Tennessee Board of Education, which had granted regulatory authority to the association and recognition of its own independent authority. For example, the Board explicitly approved the TSSAA's rules and reserved the right to continuously review them in the future. Further, employees at the association were given state pensions. Because the association could essentially "coerce" the member schools to follow its rules and the state would back it up, it was using state police power.[13] Therefore, Souter concluded, the restrictions on denial of due process would apply to the association, and the lawsuit could proceed in the lower courts"


Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961)

Also, a close symbiosis was noted between retail businesses having nearby parking and a garage being close to shopping opportunities to the point that they were a "joint participant." Based on the close interplay between the government and the company, the court found that the exclusion of black customers was a violation even though no government agency was directly discriminating: "the exclusion of appellant under the circumstances shown to be present here was discriminatory state action in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


(Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982)); , but if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
37,526
Reaction score
12,969
Points
1,550
Are you aware that the First Amendment only applies to Government censorship NOT private entities?
What do you call it when the government coordinates with a private entity to establish a narrative, but neither discloses that relationship? If it's done during a campaign, I call it an in-kind campaign contribution.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top