Fair enough. Trump questioned the legitimacy of the election of 2020. Would you agree that legitimacy has been recently called into question with your guys/gals?
Fair enough. Trump questioned the legitimacy of the election of 2020. Would you agree that legitimacy has been recently called into question with your guys/gals?
That's not quite being honest about what happened. As a matter of fact that's not being honest at all.
Name one time when anyone before trump held a rally in Washington D.C on the day the elections were being certified. Had a list of election deniers speak telling people that the election was stolen from them. That if they didn't fight like hell they wouldn't have a country left. Work that crowd into a frenzy and then actually instruct them to march to the capital. Then sit back in The White House watching some of those same people attack the capital, desecrate it and attack and assault police officers for over three hours while doing nothing to try and stop them.
Name a time a president ever helped scheme to appoint a set of fake electors in the swing states to try and stop the certification of an election to remain in power.
Name a time that anyone running for president claimed long before the election ever happened that if he lost the election was stolen.
Name a time when a losing candidate made false claims for years that the election was "stolen" by accusing election workers, illegal votes and conspiracies for losing an election.
Name a time when a sitting president called the head election official of any state telling him he needed to "find votes" that would change the results of that state's election.
What has been done by the democrats in is they have asked for recounts, they have taken cases to court and used the legal process to contest some elections.
But then that's the same thing some in the trump orbit did and lost over 60 cases. But that wasn't good enough for them. They chose to try to overthrow and actually steal it.
Those are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
The real TDS is within those that can read all that and shrug it off as nothing as they prepare to pull the lever for the scumbag again. If that’s not derangement I don’t know what is.
“A Better Deterrence”: Hillary Clinton Calls for the Arrest of Americans Spreading Disinformation
Jonathan Turley Criminal law, Free Speech, Media, Politics September 18, 2024
Hillary Clinton has long been one of the most anti-free speech figures in American politics, including calling upon European officials to force Elon Musk to censor American citizens under the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA). She is now suggesting the arrest of Americans who spread what she considers disinformation. It is a crushingly ironic moment since it was her campaign that funded the infamous Steele dossier and spread false stories of Russian collusion during her presidential campaign. Presumably, that disinformation would not be treated as criminal viewpoints.
Speaking on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show this week, Clinton was asked about continued allegations of Russian efforts to disseminate Russian propaganda in the United States. Clinton responded:
“I think it’s important to indict the Russians, just as Muller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda. And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States.”
The interview was chillingly consistent with Clinton long antagonism toward free speech.
Clinton, of course, was not challenged by Maddow on the fact that her campaign was the conduit for disinformation linked to Russian intelligence services.
Not only did U.S. intelligence believe that the Clinton campaign was used to make the debunked claims, but it was clearly done for purely political purposes.
Clinton efforts were so obvious by July 2016 that former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” The Russian investigation was launched days after this briefing.
Her general counsel, Marc Elias, his former partner Michael Sussmann, and the campaign were later found involved in not just spreading the false claims from the Steele dossier but other false stories like the Alfa Bank conspiracy claim.
It was Elias who managed the legal budget for the campaign. We now know that the campaign hid the funding of the Steele dossier as a legal expense.
New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said that Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
Elias was also seated next to John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, when he was asked about the role of the campaign, he denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Even assuming that Podesta was kept in the dark, the Durham Report clearly shows that Elias knew and played an active role in pushing this effort.
The Clinton campaign lied to the media, spread false claims of Russian disinformation, and was accused of being a conduit for Russian intelligence. So would the “better deterrence” have been for Clinton herself to be arrested?
Sussmann ultimately did stand trial but was acquitted. Notably, John Durham noted that “no one at Fusion GPS … would agree to voluntarily speak with the Office” while both the DNC and Clinton campaign invoked privileges to refuse to answer certain questions.
For a person who is on her fourth memoir, Clinton is remarkably hostile to free speech. Notably, in all of these memoirs, she does not address her prominent role in calling for the censorship and now arrest of those with opposing views. She also does not discuss how her campaign lied to the media and funded the Steele dossier. Perhaps that is coming in the fifth memoir.
What is clear is that Clinton herself has no fear that such prosecution would ever await her. She is one of those who may silence others but not be silenced. The public is to be protected from views that she deemed disinformation, misinformation, or malinformation.
To that end, as one of the guardians of truth, Clinton chastised the media for not being more consistently anti-Trump, a daunting prospect since the media has been accused of running almost 90 percent negative stories on Trump.
Nevertheless, shortly after the second assassination attack on Trump, Clinton called Trump a danger to the world and added that “I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for the press to have a consistent narrative about how dangerous Trump is.”
Ideally, between the arrests of those accused of disinformation and an effective state media, Clinton hopes to rein in errant thoughts and viewpoints.
In the interview, Maddow did not have even a slight objection to the implications of arresting people with criminal viewpoints. Censorship and criminal prosecutions are such mainstream concepts that they are as unsurprising as a fourth Clinton memoir.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
Just shows how stupid the lemming trumpian masses are. They can't even see it.
Fixed it for you.
The GOP has been screaming, "They gonna take mah guns!" for several decades now. It's been a lie the entire time. Anyone who has read "The boy Who Cried Wolf" understands that.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Libtards want to ban free speech, confiscate guns, and enter your home without a warrant to check for guns.
The people openly telling you they will violate your 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments are telling you Trump is a threat.
Just shows how stupid the lemming democrap masses are. They can't even see it.
Jc nirtu…
This is projection.
Do you think Harris being a gun owner changes her career long stance against guns? Do you think it changes her "values" that the second amendment does not guarantee the right of The People (a personal right, instead of a collective right) to own guns (for self defense) such as hand guns? Do you think her weekly calls for an "assault" weapons ban is fake?
I’m a recent gun owner (sold my rifle when I got out the army in 2014 due to some troubling PTSD situations) . I support the 2nd amendment. That doesn’t mean I have to support every aspect of gun ownership.
I think the caliber of ammo should be regulated.
I think the accessories to firearms should be regulated.
I think not every weapon (even if it’s all semi-auto, bolt action, etc) should be on the market.
I think there should be a mandatory firearms safety course for anyone trying to buy something larger than a handgun.
But because I support those regulations, if those regulations are implemented and properly enforced, then:
I think there should be an endorsement logo on every gun owners driver’s license, allowing us to carry in our vehicles
I think taking the firearms course and the endorsement should allow us to legally take them across state lines if we’ve taken said firearms course.
Common sense regulations lead to Americans having MORE freedoms to do what we want. Less regulations means more morons doing crap they shouldn’t be doing, which leads the American people to be all up in the business of gun ownership, having guys like you thinking we’re trying to take your guns away.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
And yes it’s 6:30 in the morning, wife went to work (RN) daughters at a birthday sleepover, and I’m bout to LEGALLY wake n bake while the dogs run around the yard while the rifle is properly locked up in a safe in the basement.
‘Cause freedom.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I don't know my friend. As long as the various levels of law enforcement are armed up like a SEAL team, I wouldn't restrict much from the general public.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Isn’t that what you wanted though? When us libs pushed back against law enforcement walking around like active duty military, you guys said we were anti law enforcement and pro crime.
And you trust the cops. So what’s the problem if they walk around like seal team 6? We the people simply need to comply, right?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I’m a recent gun owner (sold my rifle when I got out the army in 2014 due to some troubling PTSD situations) . I support the 2nd amendment. That doesn’t mean I have to support every aspect of gun ownership.
I think the caliber of ammo should be regulated.
I think the accessories to firearms should be regulated.
I think not every weapon (even if it’s all semi-auto, bolt action, etc) should be on the market.
I think there should be a mandatory firearms safety course for anyone trying to buy something larger than a handgun.
But because I support those regulations, if those regulations are implemented and properly enforced, then:
I think there should be an endorsement logo on every gun owners driver’s license, allowing us to carry in our vehicles
I think taking the firearms course and the endorsement should allow us to legally take them across state lines if we’ve taken said firearms course.
Common sense regulations lead to Americans having MORE freedoms to do what we want. Less regulations means more morons doing crap they shouldn’t be doing, which leads the American people to be all up in the business of gun ownership, having guys like you thinking we’re trying to take your guns away.
Let me just reduce the sophistry. You do not believe in the protections the second amendment provides. You believe in a privilege of gun ownership stewarded by the government with the requirements being arbitrary and capricious. That said, this does not say to me Harris can be trusted with 2A protections, it says exactly the opposite. I appreciate the honesty in your stand.
Something we both know a president can't do without a vote of congress. Nothing but noise like all politicians do in order to cater to their base. That's exactly what it means. Anyone who thinks she can actually do that has something loose upstairs. But I'm pretty sure you know that already.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Something we both know a president can't do without a vote of congress. Nothing but noise like all politicians do in order to cater to their base. That's exactly what it means. Anyone who thinks she can actually do that has something loose upstairs. But I'm pretty sure you know that already.
I did not say she can do it unilaterally. But if she had the right congress she would be on it faster than you could blink an eye. But you deflect, what do you think "mandatory buybacks" means? You can say they aren't coming for guns all you want, but we both know the desire is there to do so. Frankly I think there is some spin and gas lighting in it. They seem to think we are stupid enough to just turn them in if they make them illegal It hasn't worked but they continue to think it will happen.
The right congress? Do you mean a two thirds majority it would take to overturn the constitutions second amendment right to bear arms? Because we both know it would take a two thirds majority to accomplish that. Or do you mean heavy gun restrictions we both know would be fought all the way to the SCOTUS that would never uphold it?
Like I said, I've heard this same trope since the 80's. It's old rhetoric that hasn't held water for decades now because it gets repeated in every presidential election. But we've had Clinton, Obama, and Biden yet none have actually attempted to take anyone's guns. Some people never get tired of repeating the same false accusations over and over again but what those same people fail to realize is that most people have figured out it's false by now.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
The right congress? Do you mean a two thirds majority it would take to overturn the constitutions second amendment right to bear arms? Because we both know it would take a two thirds majority to accomplish that. Or do you mean heavy gun restrictions we both know would be fought all the way to the SCOTUS that would never uphold it?
Like I said, I've heard this same trope since the 80's. It's old rhetoric that hasn't held water for decades now because it gets repeated in every presidential election. But we've had Clinton, Obama, and Biden yet none have actually attempted to take anyone's guns. Some people never get tired of repeating the same false accusations over and over again but what those same people fail to realize is that most people have figured out it's false by now.
No. The congress that would pass things like expansion of the court. Once that is accomplished and it will rubber stamp the executives the constitution is shredded. She has already indicated she supports the late term Biden plan for "court reform". No 2/3 needed.
If that’s what you took from the post then it doesn’t matter what the argument is.
You just told two different gun owners they are anti-second amendment. You can’t be helped.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You have your conspiracy theory all lined up. Nice!
But then again now that the SCOTUS has pretty much made presidents, kings you might have a point. Which is why I tell people to be careful what they wish for.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
If that’s what you took from the post then it doesn’t matter what the argument is.
You just told two different gun owners they are anti-second amendment. You can’t be helped.
I have had multiple "gun owners" tell me they believe in the second amendment but..
There is no but, the second amendment does not grant you the right to keep and bear, it restricts the government from infringing on that right. When you start telling me all the things you think can be done to restrict rights it says you don't actually believe in the 2A and it is the same old lip service I keep hearing.
You have your conspiracy theory all lined up. Nice!
But then again now that the SCOTUS has pretty much made presidents, kings you might have a point. Which is why I tell people to be careful what they wish for.
Now light that gaslight. It's all "conspiracy theories."
Harris has said she supports the Biden court reform. This includes allowing each president to seat two new Justices during their term. It always would require the senior Justices to not participate in more than a small percentage of cases. They would like term limits but that is dead in the water, as it would require a constitutional amendment. The left has been wanting to pack the court for a while now. Once it is a rubber stamp for the left they will do as they please.
Right now there are judges that don't think they are bound by SCOTUS precedent in the inferior courts. The 4CA just recently said that SCOTUS got Bruen wrong so they will just change what it says. Thankfully the reply to the petition in that one is due 23 October and the extension was granted. We should see it this term I think, the timing should work out.
Why are gun owners in “”? Why would we lie about owning firearms?
The 2nd amendment doesn’t grant us the right to own every sort of weapon we want. Every gun owner knows this.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
And I support free beer on week days. And hell, I don't even drink alcohol anymore. You're welcome in advance because I have this work around I believe I can use to connect the dots and make it happen. Once again you have this thing "Kamala supports" that we know will never happen. There's been crazy theories about how Democrats are "gonna take mah guns" since Bill Clinton over 30 years ago. You're just the Kamala Harris version of it.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Why are gun owners in “”? Why would we lie about owning firearms?
The 2nd amendment doesn’t grant us the right to own every sort of weapon we want. Every gun owner knows this.
Because people say "I am a gun owner" like it is some magic incantation to tell you how to live your life.
You are correct, the 2A does not grant us anything. It is there to restrict the government. It is now about granting anything. My rights to arms preexists the Constitution.
If that’s what you took from the post then it doesn’t matter what the argument is.
You just told two different gun owners they are anti-second amendment. You can’t be helped.
I have had multiple "gun owners" tell me they believe in the second amendment but..
There is no but, the second amendment does not grant you the right to keep and bear, it restricts the government from infringing on that right. When you start telling me all the things you think can be done to restrict rights it says you don't actually believe in the 2A and it is the same old lip service I keep hearing.
So if we don't believe in your version of the truth that you've created for yourself then we can't believe in our own interpretation and you'll dismiss any debate as lip service ? That's what i get from your post. I also get that you believe the government should not restrict you in any regard to bear any armament. Good for you. I disagree strongly.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Because people say "I am a gun owner" like it is some magic incantation to tell you how to live your life.
Who would that be? All anyone has done is say they feel like some common sense gun control measures are needed. I'm not sure how a national background check and a gun safety course for people to carry a weapon in public is trying to " tell you how to live your life". Sounds a little over the top to me.
Quote
You are correct, the 2A does not grant us anything. It is there to restrict the government. It is now about granting anything. My rights to arms preexists the Constitution.
And who is it that has taken your right to bear arms away from you again? Bill Clinton? No. Was it Obama? No. If Kamala is elected will it be her? Once again the answer is no.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
If that’s what you took from the post then it doesn’t matter what the argument is.
You just told two different gun owners they are anti-second amendment. You can’t be helped.
I have had multiple "gun owners" tell me they believe in the second amendment but..
There is no but, the second amendment does not grant you the right to keep and bear, it restricts the government from infringing on that right. When you start telling me all the things you think can be done to restrict rights it says you don't actually believe in the 2A and it is the same old lip service I keep hearing.
So if we don't believe in your version of the truth that you've created for yourself then we can't believe in our own interpretation and you'll dismiss any debate as lip service ? That's what i get from your post. I also get that you believe the government should not restrict you in any regard to bear any armament. Good for you. I disagree strongly.
The Constitution was written to describe a form of government and restrict it's powers. This isn't some version of the truth, this is how it is.
You are welcome to disagree, even strongly, about what arms I may or may not keep and bear but that does not translate to government infringements.
Because people say "I am a gun owner" like it is some magic incantation to tell you how to live your life.
Who would that be? All anyone has done is say they feel like some common sense gun control measures are needed. I'm not sure how a national background check and a gun safety course for people to carry a weapon in public is trying to " tell you how to live your life". Sounds a little over the top to me.
Quote
You are correct, the 2A does not grant us anything. It is there to restrict the government. It is now about granting anything. My rights to arms preexists the Constitution.
And who is it that has taken your right to bear arms away from you again? Bill Clinton? No. Was it Obama? No. If Kamala is elected will it be her? Once again the answer is no.
The responses I have given have been to people who say they are gun owners. Do you even read anything or just fire off the line? Yet again you want to try and make a reality that flat out doesn't exist because you want something to argue.
The state of MD has infringed. The Firearm Safety Act of 2013 bans the sale of 45 named rifles and anything that resembles them. SCOTUS GVRed the 4CA decision in 2022 and the 4CA just doubled down on it. If you were to read the decision (pipe dream) you would see the ground work for more. States are trying to sue Glock out of existence, trying to make "parts" illegal. But I shouldn't be worried, the government is here to keep me safe and I shouldn't worry.
Bill Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapon's Ban, maybe not the best example there.
Why are gun owners in “”? Why would we lie about owning firearms?
The 2nd amendment doesn’t grant us the right to own every sort of weapon we want. Every gun owner knows this.
Because people say "I am a gun owner" like it is some magic incantation to tell you how to live your life.
You are correct, the 2A does not grant us anything. It is there to restrict the government. It is now about granting anything. My rights to arms preexists the Constitution.
Frank…come on bro. Even you know that’s starting to sound like some Sovereign Citizen type stuff. Preexist the constitution?
There’s no way you really believe we should be able to own whatever kind of firearm we want to.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)