dChan
Anonymous ID: e16baa May 26, 2022, 8:26 a.m. No.16345003   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Court Testimony Shows How Spygate Conspirators Deceived The FBI

…Baker treated Sussmann as a confidential source and kept Sussmann’s identity secret from other agents. As a result, agents investigating the supposed Trump-Alfa Bank network were kept in the dark concerning Sussmann’s role in bringing the data to the FBI. Consequentially, agents were also unaware of Joffe’s role in procuring the data and whitepapers.

Sussmann’s Legal team claimed the HC campaign would not have wanted Sussmann to pass the Alfa Bank information to the FBI, his legal team also challenged the prosecution’s case byarguing that Joffe had no reason to use Sussmannto share the Alfa Bank info with the FBI; because Joffe was a CHS for the FBI.

Questioning last week by Sussmann’s lawyers, that in September 2016, when Sussmann was meeting with Baker on behalf of Joffe, Joffe had presented FBI Special Agent Tom Grasso a copy of the Alfa Bank whitepaper, under the presumption that Grasso served as Joffe’s handler. Those questions seemingly served to counter the prosecutor’s claims that Joffe used Sussmann to sidestep his handler.

However, yesterday when the defense had Grasso testify on behalf of Sussmann,Grasso revealed that he was not Joffe’s handler. Rather, Grasso, who knew and had a long working relationship Joffe as a CHS.

Questioning of Grasso, Sussmann’s lawyers attempted to bolster their argument that Sussmann was rightly concerned with the “intel” Joffe shared and thus gave it to Baker out of a concern for national security. Butthe plan backfiredwhen on cross-examination Grasso revealed several facts damaging to Sussmann’s defense and supportive of the prosecution’s legal theory of “a look, a leak, and a lie.”

First, Grasso testified that “in Oct 2016,” the tech exec had “called Agent Grasso and provided some info on the ties between the Alfa Bank/Trump Organization. Joffe further informed Agent Grasso that there was an ongoing investigation on this matter, something Agent Grasso had been unaware of”

That testimony is significant because it shows thatwithin two weeksof Sussmann meeting with Baker, Joffe knew the FBI had launched an investigation into the Alfa Bank “intel,” even though FBI agents testified that they were holding the investigation “close.” The only logical explanation for Joffe’s knowledge is that he knew of the Alfa Bank investigation because Sussmann told Joffe that he had given the data to the FBI.

Grasso also testified that “Joffe specifically asked him not to disclose his identity to other people in the FBI.” Grasso said, Joffe claimed he wanted to stay anonymous because “this is very sensitive information. People’s safety could be at risk.” Because of that request, Grasso did not contact Joffe’s handler to inform him that Joffe had provided Grasso supposed intel—something he had done in the past when Joffe gave him information.

Joffe’s demand for anonymity with Grasso parallels the tech executive’s alleged use of Sussmann to take his anonymous tip of the Alfa Bank hoax first to the FBI and then later to the CIA. It alsofurther refutesSussmann’s argument that Joffe had nothing to gain by having Sussmann go to the FBI with the tip on his behalf. Clearly, Joffe had a motive for having others provide the Alfa Bank info to the FBI without it being connected to him, because he used his connection with Grasso to repeat the process, when Joffe could have instead provided the information directly to his handler.

Grasso passed the Alfa Bank “tip” on to the agents working the case in Chicago, without informing them of Joffe’s involvement in providing the data. FromChicago’s perspective, the FBI had received two separate reports of data supposedly connecting Alfa Bank and the Trump organization. It appeared as though Agent Grasso, who was out of Pittsburgh, was working with one source and the FBI in D.C. was obtaining intel from an apparent second source, when in fact, Joffe served as the source in both cases.

During his cross-examination of Grasso, lead prosecutor introduced this theory to the jury when he asked Grasso “whether he knows whatcircular reportingis and whether he has ever encountered someone planting information with two different parts of the FBI so it looks corroborating.” While Grasso responded that he had “never encountered that,” the special counsel is sure to stress in its closing argument that the evidence suggests that is precisely what happened here.

That is why it wasimperativethat Sussmann lie to Baker—so that his client Joffe could feed the Alfa Bank theory to other parts of the FBI and thereby bolster the theory of Russia collusion.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/26/court-testimony-shows-spygate-conspirators-deceived-the-fbi-using-same-strategy-twice/

Anonymous ID: e16baa May 26, 2022, 8:45 a.m. No.16345130   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5174 >>5261

Is Big Tech Bum Rushing The Supreme Court On Censorship?

May 26, 2022. LONG ARTICLE

NetChoice v. Paxton—the lawsuit that may determine the fate of free speech on social media platforms—has taken a dramatic turn. Just short of two weeks ago, the large platforms—including the likes of Amazon, Google, Twitter, and Facebook, all acting through their trade group, NetChoice—made an “emergency application” to Justice Samuel Alito.

This sort of application is familiar in cases involving grave harm, such as an execution. But is there really any risk of such harm or other emergency in this case? Or are the platforms trying to bum rush the Supreme Court so as to sidestep the ordinary course of judicial inquiry? The Supreme Court needs to be careful that it is not being manipulated….

Big Tech Doesn’t Like Texas’s Law

The case arises out of the Texas free speech statute that bars the largest social media platforms from discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. In response, the platforms claim their censorship of speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Texas counters that they are common carriers, which serve as conduits for other people’s speech, and so can be barred from discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. In other words, the platforms are not being restricted in their own speech, but only barred from discriminating against the speech of others that they carry in their conduits.

These are complex questions, and even the slightest hint from the Supreme Court as to its answers will have outsize implications in the courts below. It therefore is disturbing that the platforms, speaking through NetChoice, have asked the court to take a position in a rushed “emergency application.” Such portentous questions should not be decided in a hurry. So why do the platforms want them resolved in proceedings that were briefed on only a few days’ notice?

Already in the district court, proceedings were accelerated, because the platforms sought a preliminary injunction. And because the platforms were seeking to bar the Texas attorney general from enforcing the statute, there was no discovery on a key question for the constitutionality of the statute—namely, whether the platforms have been cooperating with government to censor Americans. Such coordination is very dangerous, and states have a compelling interest in preventing it….

Big Tech Appears Scared of the Truth Coming Out

Why would the platforms make so many crudely erroneous or at least misleading statements to the Supreme Court?

The answer lies in what appears to be their strategy—to bum rush the Supreme Court. The claims of “irreparable harm” and an “emergency” have no basis in fact. Because the relevant portions of the statute are without damages remedies, the platforms could easily just wait for private claims against them to wind their way through the regular processes of the courts, with time for detailed inquiry. But that is precisely what the platforms cannot afford.

And it is not just that their arguments are weak; they also surely are worried about discovery. If by claiming an “emergency,” they can elicit discouraging words from the court about the Texas statute, the platforms can escape the in-depth discovery that would otherwise occur in private suits against the platforms. For example, they can avoid discovery about their cooperation with government in censoring Americans.

So they seek accelerated special proceedings—to avoid what eventually would be full discovery and to avoid careful scrutiny of their erroneous claims. And to get those fast-moving proceedings, they make specious claims of irreparable harm.

It would be shameful for the Supreme Court to decide the constitutional questions in these circumstances. Emergency proceedings are no substitute for careful deliberation. What is needed is the ordinary and orderly due process of the law.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/26/is-big-tech-bum-rushing-the-supreme-court-on-censorship/

Anonymous ID: e16baa May 26, 2022, 8:51 a.m. No.16345174   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>16345130

 

I had to cut a lot from this article

 

Anons this is important to read in full to understand how TX approached this lawsuit, andthe fact Big Tech is fucking freakin out means theres a good chance TX will win. Read the very long and detailed article, and pray the SC either declines to take it or take it up because Clarence Thomas had released a very detailed opinion how it should be regulated as common carriers

Anonymous ID: e16baa May 26, 2022, 9:04 a.m. No.16345261   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>16345130. More of the article

Is Big Tech Bum Rushing The Supreme Court On Censorship?

…… In other words, the only risk for the platforms is that they will have their claims decided in ordinary and orderly court proceedings. That is not irreparable harm, let alone an emergency.

Why Claim an Emergency If It’s Not?

So why claim an emergency? Why use implausible arguments of irreparable harm to get an emergency order from the Supreme Court?

That’s where it gets interesting. The effect of the platforms’ strategy is to rush the Supreme Court into deciding the constitutional questions without the full briefing and arguments that the questions deserve. The special proceedings supplant careful inquiry and reasoning with demands that the court act quickly, even perhaps spasmodically.

Just why the platforms might want to avoid more careful consideration of the issues is apparent from their emergency application to the Supreme Court. It repeatedly makes claims that are at best questionable.

Tech Companies’ False and Questionable Claims

The emergency application claims the Texas anti-discrimination statute would prevent the platforms from removing pornography and spam. But this is simply untrue. The statute bars viewpoint discrimination, not content discrimination, and so leaves the platforms free to remove porn and spam.

The statute applies only to platforms with more than 50 million monthly active users in the United States, and the platforms claim this number is arbitrary in excluding smaller platforms and that there is “no . . . legitimate reason” for it. But, as is abundantly clear from earlier briefing in the case, the focus on the largest platforms ensures that the statute applies only to what are genuinely communications common carriers. Such carriers—conduits for other people’s speech—can be defined functionally or by market dominance, and the size qualification ensures that the statute meets both definitions.

The platforms’ application also claims that the statute’s definition of social media platforms “is content based, because it excludes certain websites based on content—like news, sports, and entertainment.” But that statement is grossly misleading. In fact, as the emergency application notes elsewhere, the statute excludes services that consist “primarily of news, sports, entertainment, or other information or content that is not user generated.”

Thus, the statute’s recitation of “news, sports, and entertainment” information is just illustrative. The statute goes on to exclude services that provide any other type of information or content that is not user-generated. So the claim of a content-based definition of the platforms is simply not true.

The platforms even claim they have an expressive right to exclude some colors of opinion, because this exclusion is an expression of the platforms’ views. Similarly, railroads once thought they were constitutionally protected in excluding some colors of persons. Undoubtedly, this exclusion expressed their views. But conduits or common carriers do not have an expressive right to discriminate.

Topping it off, the platforms say that Florida’s law against Tech censorship is “similar” law—even though they are very different. The point is to create confusion so that Court will attribute the poorly drafted Florida fiasco to Texas.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/26/is-big-tech-bum-rushing-the-supreme-court-on-censorship/

Anonymous ID: e16baa May 26, 2022, 9:23 a.m. No.16345376   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>16345289

Part of the article

Murkiwski is leftist scum trying to steal Alaska again

 

An honest examination of the incumbent’s finances seven months into the race, however, reveals that, if anyone’s, it’s Murkowski whose loyalty is being purchased. According to public campaign finance data compiled by OpenSecrets, nearly 85 percent of the senator’s contributions have come from out of state. Only 15 percent came from Alaskan residents in the current election cycle.

 

In contrast, Murkowski’s Donald Trump-endorsed primary challenger Kelly Tshibaka, who previously served as a commissioner in the Alaska Department of Administration, is funded by an even split of in- and out-of-state contributions.

 

Tshibaka, whose campaign has been blessed by the state party, has raised more than $2.5 million to unseat a three-term incumbent. Tshibaka is also far more reliant on small-dollar donors compared to her opponent, who is the descendent of a political dynasty. Murkowski inherited the seat held by her senator father, Frank, when he became governor and appointed her in 2002.

 

Nearly 30 percent of Tshibaka’s contributions have come from small individual donations of less than $200, according to OpenSecrets. Murkowski, who’s raised more than $5 million to protect her incumbent status, is financed by large contributions from individuals and political action committees (PACs) providing more than 89 percent of her funding. Less than 5 percent have come from small individual contributions.

 

A major super PAC supporting Murkowski also appears to be funneling money from the Lower 48 into the Alaskan contest under the guise of resident leadership, even as the incumbent lawmaker opened her campaign with a condemnation of outside influence.