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

[Billo_Really]

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.

"Partly" obstruct is still a crime.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

Why are you asking these questions when your mind is already made up and you have no intention of changing it no matter what you hear or see?

You're like the line in a song by Bob Dylan...

"How many times can a man turn his head,
pretending he just doesn't see"​

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

And it also shows him admitting firing Comey to shut down the investigation.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

You people are funny.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

Spoken like a true fascist. Just like Nunes. You have no valid argument, so you try to silence the critics. Let's all go back to Germany in the '30's.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

Historically, the President doesn't interfere with the DOJ. Not in Trump world...

President Donald Trump tried to order prosecutors at the Department of Justice to indict two of his political enemies — 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey — this spring, according to the New York Times.​

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

Okay, good point. I'll give you that one. But it is still illegal to obtain assistance from a foreign government in order to win a US election.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

How many years has the ACA been in effect? I have had employer-provided health insurance this entire time. I didn't lose my insurance.

I don't normally partake in ad hominem's, but WTF are you doing quoting Betsy MacCaughey?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Okay, good point. I'll give you that one. But it is still illegal to obtain assistance from a foreign government in order to win a US election.

You mean like Hillary and the DNC did when they funneled money through her lawyer to pay Steele for that phony dossier? And then he got some of his information from the Russian government? And then they took that foreign complied document to a FISA court and got a surveillance warrant on Trump's people?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

And it also shows him admitting firing Comey to shut down the investigation.

It did? You mean I watched it twice and never heard that? Okay, then tell us the time stamp on that video when he said that. It will save us wasted time watching it again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

"Partly" obstruct is still a crime.

What did he obstruct? Flynn was charged, remember?

 

[TNHarley]

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...

Iirc, it has something to do with how they advertise themselves. Being a public platform or something.

 

[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...

Iirc, it has something to do with how they advertise themselves. Being a public platform or something.

I can see a false advertising law being argued - def. not any free speech Laws though in terms of which politics the owners may or may not promote and crap.

 

[TNHarley]

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...

Iirc, it has something to do with how they advertise themselves. Being a public platform or something.

I can see a false advertising law being argued - def. not any free speech Laws though in terms of which politics the owners may or may not promote and crap.

Yes sir. Thats why i want this settled. People have been screaming about this for years now.
Lets put it to bed.

 

[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...

Iirc, it has something to do with how they advertise themselves. Being a public platform or something.

I can see a false advertising law being argued - def. not any free speech Laws though in terms of which politics the owners may or may not promote and crap.

Yes sir. Thats why i want this settled. People have been screaming about this for years now.
Lets put it to bed.

One thing that might make the false advertising one a bad argument, is that Twitter is an unpaid platform.

Even PAID ones, like Cable news, are able to express extreme bias and say they're in the center, or fair and balanced, etc.

I think this one's pretty much out the window - and also I watched a two hour grilling interview and there's at least an argument they're putting forth that they're not even implementing a bias to begin with. They've perma-banned Leftists all over the place as well, for harrassment, and they go through each case - but it seems that, for whatever reasoning, the national narrative doesn't include their literal defense but our ethos has already accepted that it's some anti-conservative platform.

I'm not saying it's not, because I haven't taken a deep dive into it -

But I DID watch them cross examined by a Conservative for 2, unedited no commercials hours - - and they had the appearance of a plausible case.

2 - if there was a bias, I'm pretty much okay with it because any right-leaning person has the ability to design their own platform and compete - and until they can no longer do that, I'm not gunna ***** one political side or the other - - - same as I don't join in the fox news vs. msnbc bickering...I dont give a **** that they're biased.

 

[P@triot]

How many years has the ACA been in effect? I have had employer-provided health insurance this entire time. I didn't lose my insurance.

So your position is, if something didn’t happen to you, it didn’t happen?

Ten million Americans lost their health insurance. And what’s amazing is that wasn’t even the worst part. The worst part is that White House emails showed that MaObama knew that’s exactly what would happen while he was touring the nation adamantly declaring “if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance”.

 

[iceberg]

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

Why are you asking these questions when your mind is already made up and you have no intention of changing it no matter what you hear or see?

You're like the line in a song by Bob Dylan...

"How many times can a man turn his head,
pretending he just doesn't see"​

why do you post shit you can't back up and then try to back it up with a video that says nothing about what you say it is?

you're like a ******* idiot that keeps being a ******* idiot on purpose.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Okay, good point. I'll give you that one. But it is still illegal to obtain assistance from a foreign government in order to win a US election.

like hiring a former brittish agent to get dirt from russia to use on an opponent?

 

[iceberg]

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

Spoken like a true fascist. Just like Nunes. You have no valid argument, so you try to silence the critics. Let's all go back to Germany in the '30's.

you're the dick-fart that posted a video that doesn't say what you said it does. critique all you want. stop lying along the way.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Historically, the President doesn't interfere with the DOJ. Not in Trump world...

President Donald Trump tried to order prosecutors at the Department of Justice to indict two of his political enemies — 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey — this spring, according to the New York Times.​

Historically the DOJ is run by a crony of the President.