Douglas Gabriel and Michael McKibben look at the fine print inside the Executive Order.
Make sure to check this link out for links, pdfs and other materials referenced in their discussion:
Douglas Gabriel and Michael McKibben look at the fine print inside the Executive Order.
Make sure to check this link out for links, pdfs and other materials referenced in their discussion:
Post by Legal_Latino
My legal thesis in law school was actually on Section 230 of the CDA, the very law the executive order is affecting. I wanted to include some more information to clarify some fake news I’ve been hearing online. Plus, a lot of pedes have been asking questions on the CDA. Basically here is a detailed explanation for some of you more interested pedes:
A publisher is an entity that controls the content that they present to a user—Think of CNN. Because they are in control of the content being presented (like a news article), they are legally responsible for it and any fake news that they publish (defamation for example), even if they hire someone else to write it. The less control they exert over the content they publish, the less likely they will be considered a publisher (and less likely to be held responsible for the content).
In 1996 Congress passed the CDA which includes Section 230. Section 230 was passed for two reasons, to stop the spread of pornography on the internet and at the same time to allow other speech to live freely.
Section 230 basically stated that any internet platform which hosts other users is not responsible for the content posted by those users (and therefore not considered a publisher). So, if a user were to post leaked naked pictures on Facebook, then Facebook could not be held jointly liable for hosting those pictures EVEN IF THEY DID NOT REMOVE THE PICTURES. The intent by congress was that if we protect these companies from liability from users then they will avoid taking action by limiting and censoring posts and as such, speech.
However, Section 230 contains a clause which has been the subject of a lot of legal debate. 230(c)(2)(A) provides that even if a social media platform exerts control over material that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable”, then it still cannot be considered a publisher (remember that exerting control over content usually makes you legally responsible for that content).
The problem is that the clause was almost unequivocally referring to violence and porn, but federal courts (who knows why) began interpreting “otherwise objectional” as anything that a platform finds offensive. As such, social media platforms were able to ban and censor speech just because they found it offensive. Thus, exerting control and still immune under the language of 230(c)(2)(A).
In addition to the vagueness of the term “otherwise objectionable”. Some promoters of free speech argued that 230(c)(2)(A) is an explicit condition/clause. In other words, a platform can ban things considered “obscene, lewd, etc…” without being defined as a publisher (exerting control) but as soon as they begin to exert control over content that does not meet these criteria explicitly listed, then they are risking moving into publisher territory and no longer immune from lawsuits based on the content posted on their website.
Trump’s executive order is attempting to clarify the interpretation of the law and the enforcement of the law. The executive order is basically saying, if you begin to ban or control content that is not under the list in 230(c)(2)(A) then you’re going to be considered a publisher. So social media companies have a choice, they can back off and allow free public discourse to take place on the internet, all the while enjoying their (very generous) lawsuit immunity, or they can exercise their free speech rights of association and ban everything to hell, but then they no longer have the immunity.
For those of you that want to read my 35-page thesis on the topic (Written Summer of 2019):
Betsy and Thomas discuss the Executive Order as well as updates on the vaccine wars and why Anthony Fauci can be arrested for murder. Feel free to mirror this on your own video platform.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Betsy and Thomas review the latest on the intelligence community, including John Ratcliffe’s appointment as Director of the ODNI and where Ric Grenell may wind up. Also what’s up with CIA Gina Haspel who has been laying low, staying off the Trump radar.
Remember that movie trailer by Complicated by Design we posted a few Cat Reports ago? The creator emailed us to say they were fine-tuning some of the scenes. The revised screen shot is below.
We are just loving this project and hope that by posting updates, one of the talented movie producers who lurk on our sites will see the enormous potential of a series like this. Below the video, Tyla shares a few remarks she sent to the media creator.
“Exactly. You nailed it. When I saw your first version, you had the light bulb swing in and out. It was very fast. I thought to myself, ahhh an insinuation of enlightenment.
What happens is that the prepared astral body imprints itself on the etheric body and sparks the creation process of an organ of supersensible perception. It is much like how the eye was formed in man. First came the light which “molded” the eye so that light, and eventually clear sight, could be experienced. This may sound odd, but this is well-known in spiritual science.
On the other side of the threshold, thinking, feeling and willing are transformed into the higher organs of perception – Inspiration, Imagination, and Intuition.
Some call this experience ‘enlightenment’. For me, it was as Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus, described his conversion on the road to Damascus. At the time it happened, I wasn’t particularly “spiritual” so I certainly never expected an experience like this. I was with a group of people who witnessed the experience – back in October 1984 when I was 28. Many years later, in my search to seek truth, I came across anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner. It was through his lectures that I learned about the etheric Christ and the Damascus experience.
Did you know that the Damascus experience was supposed to happen for many, many more people on the earth by now, but the evil ones (use whatever name suits you) have suppressed human evolution for centuries so that only a few of us have had the awakening? Steiner wrote about this in a lecture entitled:
This film or series is going to awaken people deeply to their spiritual connection to the divine. For over two decades after my divine experience, I spent every day “unpacking” the thought form given to me in the vision. Then in 2010, I set out to find a way to share this information with all of you. Ten years later, now in 2020, Douglas and I are doing amazing work called the Glass Bead Game where we have created a place of consciousness in the internet for truth seekers.
Some people start out with our geopolitical articles and find their way to our spiritual posts. Some find us through Neoanthroposophy and then grow curious about our outlook on world events and discover us at the American Intelligence Media. We are outlining the body of the great Goddess of Wisdom – Sophia. AnthropoSophia.”
Douglas and I write more about our personal experience of the Etheric Christ here:
If you missed the rough draft of the trailer, we posted it below. You might drop in and see how excited people are about this project. Please add your own comment if this material resonates with you. Frankly, we are getting sick and tired of all the blood, violence, and satanic messages in Netflix entertainment. Patriots are looking for richer content like this!
Here is the YT link. Subscribe so that you can see their updates: https://youtu.be/grZehGQcvnk
To: Barack Hussein Obama
From: Sidney Powell
Date: May 13, 2020
Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal
Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”
Here is some help—if truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration.
First, General Flynn was not charged with perjury—which requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1 A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused.
McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agents—which sent them on a “wild-goose-chase”—thereby making his lies “material” and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses.
Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe’s perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302.
Second, it would seem your “wingman” Eric Holder is missing a step these days at Covington & Burling LLP. Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens. Within weeks of Mr. Holder becoming Attorney General, he moved to dismiss the Stevens prosecution in the interest of justice for the same reasons the Justice Department did against General Flynn—egregious misconduct by prosecutors who hid exculpatory evidence and concocted purported crimes.
As horrifying as the facts of the Stevens case were, they pale in comparison to the targeted setup, framing, and prosecution of a newly elected President’s National Security Advisor and the shocking facts that surround it. This case was an assault on the heart of liberty— our cherished system of self-government, the right of citizens to choose their President, and the hallowed peaceful transition of power.
Third, the inability of anyone in your alumni association to find “anybody who has been charged [with anything] just getting off scot-free” would be laughable were it not so pathetic.
Many of your alum feature prominently in the non-fiction legal thriller published in 2014: Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. A national best- seller, it focuses on the egregious prosecutorial misconduct of your longest serving White House Counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler; your counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco; Loretta Lynch’s DAG for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell; and Mueller protégé Andrew Weissmann. While they worked as federal prosecutors on the Enron Task Force—under the purported supervision of Christopher Wray—they destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs; sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison on an indictment that criminalized an innocent business transaction while they hid the evidence that showed those defendants were innocent for six years. Both cases were reversed on appeal for their over-criminalization and misconduct. Indeed, Andersen was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.
Fourth, even if your many alumni don’t remember multiple cases that had to be reversed or dismissed for their own misconduct, Judge Emmet Sullivan should remember dismissing the corrupted case against Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan is the judicial hero of Licensed to Lie. It is that case that caused Judge Sullivan to enter the strong Brady order the Mueller and D.C. career prosecutors violated repeatedly in the Flynn prosecution.
Fifth, there is precedent for guilty pleas being vacated. Your alumni Weissmann and Ruemmler are no strangers to such reversals. At least two guilty pleas they coerced by threats against defendants in Houston had to be thrown out—again for reasons like those here. The defendants “got off scot-free” because—like General Flynn—your alumni had concocted the charges and terrorized the defendants into pleading guilty to “offenses” that were not crimes. Andersen partner David Duncan even testified for the government against Andersen in its trial, but his plea had to be vacated. Enron Broadband defendant Christopher Calger had his plea vacated. There are many others across the country.
Sixth, should further edification be necessary, see Why Innocent People Plead Guilty, written in 2014 by federal Judge Jed Rakoff (a Clinton appointee). Abusive prosecutors force innocent people to plead guilty with painful frequency. The Mueller special counsel operation led by Andrew Weissmann and Weissmann “wannabes” specializes in prosecutorial terrorist tactics repulsive to everything “justice” is supposed to mean. These tactics are designed to intimidate their targets into pleading guilty—while punishing them and their families with the process itself and financial ruin.
Most important, General Flynn was honest with the FBI agents. They knew he was—and briefed that to McCabe and others three different times. At McCabe’s directions, Agent Strzok and McCabe’s “Special Counsel” Lisa Page, altered the 302 to create statements Weissmann, Mueller, Van Grack, and Zainab Ahmad could assert were false. Only the FBI agents lied—and falsified documents. The crimes are theirs alone.
Seventh, the D.C. circuit in which you reside vacated a Section 1001 case for a legal failure much less egregious than those in General Flynn’s case. United States v. Safavian, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Safavian sought advice from his agency’s ethics board and did not give them all the relevant info. The jury convicted him on the theory it was a 1001 violation to conceal the information from the government ethics board. The court disagreed: “As Safavian argues and as the government agrees, there must be a legal duty to disclose in order for there to be a concealment offense in violation of § 1001(a)(1), yet the government failed to identify a legal disclosure duty except by reference to vague standards of conduct for government employees.” General Flynn did not even know he was the subject of an investigation—and in truth, he was not. The only crimes here were by your alumni in the FBI, White House, intelligence community, and Justice Department.
These are just a few obvious and well-known examples to those paying any attention to criminal justice issues.
Finally, the “leaked” comments from your alumni call further evinces your obsession with destroying a distinguished veteran of the United States Army who has defended the Constitution and this country “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” with the highest honor for thirty-three years. He and many others will continue to do so.
1As a “constitutional lawyer,” surely you recall that perjury (or false statements) also requires intent to deceive. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), the Supreme Court reversed a conviction of perjury. In Bronston, the defendant’s answer was a truthful statement, but not directly responsive to the question and ultimately misled federal authorities. The Court determined: “A jury should not be permitted to engage in conjecture whether an unresponsive answer, true and complete on its face, was intended to mislead or divert the examiner; the state of mind of the witness is relevant only to the extent that it bears on whether “he does not believe [his answer] to be true.” To hold otherwise would be to inject a new and confusing element into the adversary testimonial system we know.” Id. at 359. The FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn specifically noted that his answers were true or he believed his answers to be true—completely defeating criminal intent. Furthermore, General Flynn knew and remarked they had transcripts of his conversations.
The guy who altered evidence is reported to be Kevin Clinesmith:
“While in contact with what was reportedly the CIA’s liaison, Clinesmith was reminded that back in August 2016, predating the first Page warrant application in October 2016, the other agency informed the FBI that Page “did, in fact, have a prior relationship with that other agency.”
Beau Geste continues: An email from the other government agency’s liaison was sent to Clinesmith, who then “altered the liaison’s email by inserting the words ‘not a source’ into it, thus making it appear that the liaison had said that Page was ‘not a source’ for the other agency” and sent it to “Supervisory Special Agent 2,” Horowitz found.”
The FBI knew all along that Carter Page was not a Russian agent. The FBI had even used page as a spy on Russians. Total fakery !!!
It is outrageous that the FISC has not withdrawn all of its fake warrants. There is NO true Constitutional “Due Process” evidence adequate to spy directly on carter page, or indirectly on Donald Trump, presidential candidate by deceitful “2-hop” rule on thousands-to-millions of people not identified as ‘targets’ as required by the Constitution. The word ‘Predicate’ is not in the Constitution. In any event, all the ‘predicates’ were fake and unsupported, and Constitutional Due Process spy warrants can’t be based on fake, untrue, invalidated, preposterous ‘evidence’ bought by Hillary Clinton. Carter page was a CIA Agent, not a Russian spy. No-one went to Prague.
The ‘pee pee’ dossier was fabricated, and cribbed from bar-room jests. Papadoc was entrapped by Halper and Mifsud (FBI/CIA agents) and an Australian who gave $25 million the the Hillary ‘foundation’. Papadoc had no Russian agent contacts, and said there were none when asked. All withheld from the FISC. The written ethics of practie in the FISC require immediate notice to the court when any representations are found to be questionable. This ethics rule was violated in spades.
The ONLY REASON for the creation and EXISTENCE of the FISC was to protect the civil rights of unrepresented US Citizens from illegal spying. The FISC admits it has a very heavy duty to do so (almost as if it represents the unrepresented citizen defendants. Yet the FISC completely failed. The FISA to indirectly spy on a Presidential Candidate WITHOUT NAMING HIM AS the “TARGET” is extremely questionable, if not unconstitutional.
Yet the FISC said ‘where do I sign”, without even asking to see the Woods Records authenticating the crazy, suspicion-raising, fake claims. The rubber stamp FISC held no hearing on this constitutionally-questionable warrant motion, and did not even ask “have you told presidential candidate Trump, or later PDJT, so he can protect himself?” It is outrageous that the FISC has not held hearings to discipline the liars, withholders. ethics violators and oath-violators, and jail them or recommend prosecution.
Our reply: Our ‘Conclave Karen’ says to speak to the management, Beau Geste. Scumbag John Roberts is in charge of the FISA courts. He knows all of this is going on. Duh. It’s the plan to destroy America from the inside. He is not loyal to America.
Post from Persistence
Here are 25 GOVERNMENT HOSTED AND FUNDED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES LINKING VACCINES, THE WAY THEY ARE ADMINISTERED, AND THEIR SIDE EFFECTS TO AUTISM
JUST TO BE CLEAR
I AM NOT SAYING VACCINES DON’T WORK.
But I am saying they have insanely bad side effects.
The medical industry gets sued on a daily basis for fucking up.
WOULDN’T IT BE EXTREMELY IGNORANT TO ASSUME THAT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY WITH VACCINES?
If you so much as say anything about them being wrong without spending a week or two reading them you just being ignorant dipshits who are incapable of trying to think outside your world view
1.) What is regressive autism and why does it occur? Is it the consequence of multi-systemic dysfunction affecting the elimination of heavy metals and the ability to regulate neural temperature? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/
2.) B-Lymphocytes from a Population of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Unaffected Siblings Exhibit Hypersensitivity to Thimerosal https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3697751/
3.) Thimerosal Exposure and the Role of Sulfation Chemistry and Thiol Availability in Autism https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3774468/
4.) A two-phase study evaluating the relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccine administration and the risk for an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in the United States https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878266/
5.) Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339848
6.) The role of mercury in the pathogenesis of autism. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12142947
7.) Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534
8.) Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12933322
9.) The potential importance of steroids in the treatment of autistic spectrum disorders and other disorders involving mercury toxicity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15780490
10.) Cultured lymphocytes from autistic children and non-autistic siblings up-regulate heat shock protein RNA in response to thimerosal challenge https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16870260
11.) A case series of children with apparent mercury toxic encephalopathies manifesting with clinical symptoms of regressive autistic disorders. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17454560
12.) A prospective study of thimerosal-containing Rho(D)-immune globulin administration as a risk factor for autistic disorders. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17674242
13.) A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders, part 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043938
14.) A comprehensive review of mercury provoked autism. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19106436
15.) Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
16.) Theoretical aspects of autism: causes–a review. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21299355
17.) A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535
18.) Conjugate vaccines and autism. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21907498
19.) Hypothesis: conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250
20.) Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159
21.) Transcriptomic analyses of neurotoxic effects in mouse brain after intermittent neonatal administration of thimerosal. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24675092
22.) Methodological issues and evidence of malfeasance in research purporting to show thimerosal in vaccines is safe. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277
23.) A dose-response relationship between organic mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25198681
24.) Commentary–Controversies surrounding mercury in vaccines: autism denial as impediment to universal immunisation. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25377033
25.) Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013411002212
AND JUST FOR FUN
Here is the FULL LEGAL AFFIDAVIT FROM A COURT CASE of the ex-expert witness from the FDA on vaccines.
IN THIS AFFIDAVIT HE RECUSED EVERYTHING HE HAD EVER SAID IN COURT AND AFTER CONDUCTING HIS OWN INDEPENDENT TRIALS CONCLUDED THAT VACCINES ARE UNQUESTIONABLY LINKED TO AUTISM