Posted on

Dirty Cop Mueller’s Right Hand Man Weissmann Threatened Witnesses for Telling the Truth

Guest post by Joe Hoft

Recent uncovered documents from the DOJ’s Enron case in the early 2000’s show that sleezy Andrew Weissmann, dirty cop Robert Mueller’s top attorney, intimidated witnesses and threatened them when they told the truth.

One of the best Internet sleuths on Twitter, Techno Fog, recently requested and uncovered information on the government’s case with Enron from the early 2000’s.  Robert Mueller was head of the FBI and the person in charge of the government’s case was Andrew Weissmann.

Weissmann was a crook who never should have been prosecuting anyone.  Attorneys and authors Gregg Jarrett and Sydney Powell were on the Sean Hannity radio show and discussed Mueller’s creepy prosecutor Weissmann and the corrupt Mueller investigation –

Powell referred to Weissmann from the early 2000’s.  She claims that he should never-ever be a prosecutor.  Documents uncovered from Techno Fog confirm this.  One attorney stated that Weissman threatened that speaking with a defendant “could get his client’s indicted”.

The Court issued an order that there would be no retribution for cooperation with the defense.

This is the kind of person the Robert Mueller invited on his team to “investigate” President Trump.

Weissmann, who was involved in the early stages of the fake Russia dossier, who was at Hillary’s inauguration party, was Mueller’s first choice.

These crooks should die in prison!

The post Dirty Cop Mueller’s Right Hand Man Weissmann Threatened Witnesses for Telling the Truth appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

Rep. Nunes Calls Twitter Shadow Ban ‘Orchestrated Effort,’ Sues for $250M

Social media companies cannot simply censor content without expecting consequences. So it should come as no surprise that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) is suing Twitter for $250 million in damages. In a complaint filed on March 18, Nunes stated that Twitter “shadowbanned conservatives,” ignored lawful claims of abuse, and censored content based on political ideology. Nunes told Fox News host Sean Hannity that same night that, “This was the first of many lawsuits.” He believed that the abuse he received on Twitter was “an orchestrated effort.”

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Posted on

Elizabeth Warren: Housing ‘Should Be a Basic Human Right’

Monday at a CNN town hall, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) proposed “having a decent and safe place to live” be a basic human right. Warren said, “I have a proposal to build about three million new housing units across America. I just want to stop for a second, is anybody in here worried about the rising price of housing? That’s pretty much everybody, right? The idea is that we need to make a real investment in housing. In the same way that we think about health care as a basic human right, having a decent and safe place to live should be a basic human right.” She continued, “The squeeze is everywhere. It’s the poor, it’s the working poor, it’s the working class, it’s the middle class, it even moves up into the upper middle class that people feel squeezed on housing because we just don’t have enough affordable housing across this country. So I believe we should make a big investment in housing and by the way, if we do that, independent analysis says that we would lower rents across this country by 10%, and that’s across the board and we create an opportunity for more

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Clarence Thomas gets his wish: Nunes sues Twitter, satire accounts for $250 million

A month ago, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a call to his colleagues to find a way to rethink the landmark Sullivan ruling on libel, slander, and defamation. Devin Nunes may have stepped up to give Thomas the opportunity to make that case. The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee filed a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter, two satirical accounts, and Republican consultant Liz Mair alleging defamation and for acting as “a vessel for opposition research.”

Needless to say, this may be a Sisyphean task:

On Monday, Nunes said he is suing the cow account, other individual users and Twitter for defamation and negligence, alleging that the social media platform “knowingly acted as a vessel for opposition research” and censors conservative voices. The lawsuit — the latest one accusing a social media site of anti-conservative bias — drew criticism Monday as many, including legal experts, questioned its motivations and wondered if it could be a “publicity stunt.” …

The complaint alleges that Twitter “intended to generate and proliferate false and defamatory statements” about Nunes to influence the midterm elections; tried to “intimidate” the congressman, who is currently a ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee; and sought to “interfere with his important investigation of corruption by the Clinton campaign and alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election,” according to a copy of the suit obtained by Fox News. Nunes is seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages.

Sullivan might only pertain to Liz Mair’s portion of the lawsuit. Mair (full disclosure: a friend of mine) is accused in the suit of “conspir[ing] with (and presumably was paid by) one or more as-yet unknown “clients” to attack and smear Nunes.” Nunes’ suit lists a lot of links to YouTube videos and tweets, with special emphasis on Mair’s repetition of a Fresno Bee news report about alleged misconduct by Nunes, as well as an ethics complaint filed by Mair and another group relating to other allegations. The suit cites public statements by Mair about her hostility and disdain for Nunes, and cites tweets such as this one, which is screen-capped in the complaint:

As a reminder, Sullivan raises the standard on defamation for public persons (and members of Congress clearly belong to that class) to “actual malice,” a term which doesn’t mean quite what the normal definition of the words would suggest. It requires a showing that the defendant knew that claims were false or had an intentional reckless disregard for their truthfulness with a “high degree of awareness” for falsehood. That is very difficult to prove, although not impossible. Carol Burnett famously won such a lawsuit against the National Enquirer forty years ago or so, for instance, over false and defamatory reporting.

Did Mair cross the line? Perhaps, perhaps not, but her reliance on outside reporting will make it more difficult to prove she acted with “actual malice” in the Sullivan sense. If the case goes that far, Thomas could use this case to argue for eliminating the Sullivan standard as he did in his concurrence last month. It might be difficult to convince his colleagues based on this case, and it might not even reach Sullivan at all, as attorney Jim Bickerton told the Washington Post:

“The case is not really well thought through,” Bickerton, who has practiced libel law for nearly 40 years, said of Nunes’s suit. He noted that Nunes, a public official and public figure, will have to overcome the “actual malice” standard set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964. Actual malice is defined as “a statement made with a reckless disregard for truth,” and requires the person making the statement to have a “high degree of awareness” that it is false.

A number of the examples cited in Nunes’s lawsuit appear to be “things that are most obviously hyperbole,” Bickerton said, which along with opinion is a form of protected speech.

Nunes’ claims against the satirical accounts and Twitter have even more problems. Satire has long been a protected form of political speech, especially when the satire is obvious. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Falwell v Flynt that when no one can reasonably believe that satirical claims are true, damages cannot be awarded. No one can reasonably think that tweets from accounts called “Devin Nunes’ cow” and “Devin Nunes’ Mom” are in fact coming from a cow and Nunes’ mother. That claim won’t last long, at least not in a court that pays the least bit of attention to precedent.

What about Twitter? They have statutory protection that covers most of their alleged liability:

The other obstacle Nunes faces is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Kevin Goering, a media law expert, told The Post. Under the act, Internet service providers, such as social media sites, and their users have protections because they are not “treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Nunes also alleges misconduct by Twitter via “shadow-banning,” a practice Twitter denies but which has been substantiated a number of times. That might make for an interesting fraud case, although since Twitter is free and a private platform, perhaps that might just be limited to a truth-in-advertising regulatory issue. Twitter’s a sewer and its management are hardly honest brokers, but a defamation action isn’t going to work against them unless Twitter’s corporate agents committed the defamation themselves — and that would have to survive a Sullivan review, too.

This looks more like a publicity stunt than a serious claim. Nunes inadvertently got Sean Hannity to endorse the Sullivan standard last night, although Hannity did give Nunes a sympathetic ear in this interview. Nunes had better treasure that, because he’s not going to get too many of those in court.

 

The post Clarence Thomas gets his wish: Nunes sues Twitter, satire accounts for $250 million appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Posted on

Carson: I’ve Interacted with Racist People — Trump Is Not One of Them

Monday on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle,” HUD Secretary Ben Carson reacted to attacks on President Donald Trump proclaiming he is racist, especially in the wake of last week’s mass shooting in New Zealand. Carson batted down those accusations by relaying his own personal interactions with Trump. “There’s a narrative that’s being painted there,” Carson said. “You know, I’ve had an opportunity to interact with racist people throughout my life. And [Trump] is not one. He is so easy to be around. He treats you with the utmost respect. You know, I talked with early on about the plight of many people, particularly in the inner city. And the compassion that he showed is very impressive. But you know, he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve. He believes that a rising tide lifts all boats. And he doesn’t go around playing identity politics. He said, ‘Let’s just fix this so that everybody does well.’” Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Pompeo Pounds the ICC and its Defenders Fight Back

Pompeo Pounds the ICC and its Defenders Fight BackU.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Friday new U.S. visa restrictions on those individuals directly responsible for any International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation of U.S. personnel in connection with U.S. and allied military and intelligence activities in Afghanistan. The ICC prosecutor had previously requested approval from the ICC’s judges to launch a formal investigation into what the prosecutor called the “situation in Afghanistan.” That request is still pending.

Secretary Pompeo warned all those working for the ICC that “if you’re responsible for the proposed ICC investigation of U.S. personnel in connection with the situation in Afghanistan, you should not assume that you will still have or will get a visa, or that you will be permitted to enter the United States.”

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/

Posted on

Has the Tenth Amendment Become a Lie?

Has the Tenth Amendment Become a Lie?In America, the liberty of We The People is at risk, not from a foreign government, but from our own.

The founders clearly intended that the Federal Government would have a defined set of powers delegated by the Constitution. All other powers necessary for governing would be reserved to the state governments. A single quote in James Madison’s Federalist Papers No. 45 supports that view:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/