>DOUGH
The Jerusalem cross was used for various Crusader states.
>Protzman
the way he holds that crystal trophy over his head is same pose as some weirdo magician, what's his name
https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/05/holiday-weekend-news-dump-implodes-merrick-garlands-biden-investigation-testimony/
Holiday Weekend News Dump Implodes Merrick Garland’s Biden-Investigation Testimony
Over the long weekend, Weiss gave away the deceptive word game he has been playing with Congress — and Garland has been playing with America.
A new letter sent by Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss to the House Judiciary Committee suggests Attorney General Merrick Garland lied to Congress when he testified that Weiss “has full authority” to charge Hunter Biden in “other jurisdictions.” Whether Garland committed perjury will all come down to the meaning of the word “has.”
Late Friday, just as Americans unplugged for the long Independence Day weekend, Weiss confirmed he didn’t really have “ultimate authority” over the Hunter Biden criminal investigation. In his letter, Weiss gave away the deceptive word game he has been playing with Congress — and Garland has been playing with America. More significantly, the letter suggests Biden’s attorney general lied to Congress and that everything the IRS whistleblower has said is true.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4082309-court-ruling-prompts-fears-of-wild-west-of-disinformation/
Court ruling prompts fears of ‘Wild West of disinformation’
An order limiting the Biden administration’s communication with social media companies could make it harder to curb disinformation as the 2024 election nears.
A federal judge Tuesday curtailed communication between certain Biden administration agencies and social media companies after a GOP-led challenge to efforts to combat disinformation, arguing attempts to do so violated protected speech.
The ruling left experts concerned about a “chilling effect” on attempts to moderate false information online.
“If we end up with basically no meaningful content moderation, then it is going to be a Wild West of disinformation,” said Darrell West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Technology Innovation.
Two Republican state attorneys general argued that the Biden administration “coordinated and colluded with social-media platforms to identify disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content.” The result, they said, was a “campaign of censorship” executed by the administration.
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, ruled in their favor, ordering that Biden administration officials cannot contact social media companies relating to “in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.”
Officials from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Justice, the State Department and the FBI were told to cut those communications with the companies.
The case had primarily taken aim at attempts to curtail disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, which Republicans decried as a violation of the First Amendment.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Wednesday that administration officials disagree with the court decision.
“Our view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take action or to take account of the effects of their platforms,” Jean-Pierre said, adding that the administration will “continue to be responsible in that way.”
The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal Wednesday evening and expects to request a stay of the district court’s decision, a department official said. That appeal will next go to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is primarily packed with GOP-appointed judges.
Alice Marwick, principal researcher at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Center for Information, Technology and Public Life, said the ruling perpetuates a narrative that cracking down on disinformation — false information meant to mislead — is code for government suppression.
“This [ruling] is part of a political ploy to change the meaning of disinformation from information that’s incorrect and harmful to a sort of political slur — the idea that labeling something disinformation is tantamount to censorship,” Marwick said. “What this ruling does is it really continues that narrative.”
The lawsuit, brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, has seen support from Republican lawmakers and public figures who say social media platforms moderate right-wing content at greater rates than on the left.
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) called the order a “huge win for the First Amendment and a blow to censorship.”
It’s not likely the ruling will have an immediate impact on online disinformation, Marwick said. But over time, social media platforms might choose to limit their moderation efforts out of fear of legal and political ramifications.
In the years that have followed the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 presidential election — events during which misinformation and disinformation exploded online — social media companies have already begun taking less stringent approaches to moderating content on their platforms.
YouTube announced last month that it would stop removing content that perpetuates false claims of “widespread fraud, errors, or glitches” in the 2020 or other past U.S. presidential elections. Meta also said last month that it would roll back a policy meant to curb misinformation related to COVID-19, and in November, Twitter said it would not stop users from spreading false information about the virus and its vaccines.
The trend away from strictly moderating false content could make it easier to spread disinformation surrounding the nearing 2024 election, West said.
“If you take this ruling in conjunction with decisions that major platforms already have taken, it just creates a huge problem for 2024,” he said. “I think we’re going to face a tsunami of disinformation.”
Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said an expected “explosion” of disinformation generated by artificial intelligence as the presidential election nears exemplifies the risks posed by decreased communication between government officials and social media companies.
“It’s unclear, in the wake of this order, the extent to which a government can alert social media providers to intelligence it’s seeing or information that it has about particular kinds of trends and misinformation and disinformation,” he said.
Administration officials were not barred in all cases from communicating with social media platforms. The order indicates that Biden administration officials can confer with platforms about criminal activity, national security threats, threats to public safety and posts “intending to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures.”
But even with those exemptions, the order’s sweeping directive leaves room for interpretation.
“This is a very broad-based decision,” West said. “And it actually, I think, marks new territory in terms of First Amendment rights.”
https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/05/if-alleged-doj-misconduct-is-true-a-district-judge-could-dismiss-the-whole-case-against-trump/
If Alleged DOJ Misconduct Is True, A Judge Could Dismiss The Whole Case Against Trump
The conduct claimed is perhaps unprecedented and certainly flagrant. If proven true, the judge would be well within her rights to consider dismissal.
Lost in the breathless headlines over the indictment of President Trump for alleged violations of the Espionage Act is a story that deserves much more attention than it has received thus far: the allegation that a senior official at the Department of Justice attempted to shake down Trump’s co-defendant’s lawyer. It is a scandal in the making that could result in the investigation of senior DOJ officials, which should lead to public congressional hearings, and that might even result in the entire case against Trump being dismissed.
Trump’s co-defendant is Waltine “Walt” Nauta, a Navy valet who served in Trump’s White House and who remained a personal aide to Trump after he left office. Several weeks ago, Nauta’s lawyer, a distinguished, highly-regarded Washington attorney named Stanley Woodward, leveled accusations against senior members of the Department of Justice, including DOJ Counterintelligence Chief Jay Bratt, who is now a part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors. According to news reports, Woodward claimed in a sealed letter to D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg that, in a meeting to discuss Nauta’s case, Bratt indicated that Woodward’s application to be a D.C. Superior Court judge could be impacted if he could not get Nauta to testify against Trump.
If true, and I see no reason why Woodward would make such a threat up — and especially no reason why Woodward would risk his career by making such a representation to a federal judge — Bratt’s alleged misconduct could result in heavy sanctions, and is a potential ground for dismissal of the entire case against Nauta and Trump. Depending on what exactly was said, Bratt could even face criminal prosecution himself.
In cases of flagrant prosecutorial misconduct, courts have the discretion to dismiss indictments altogether. If Woodward’s claims are proven, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon would be well within her rights to consider a dismissal here. The conduct claimed is perhaps unprecedented and certainly flagrant, amounting to nothing less than an effort by a high-ranking DOJ official to deprive a defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel through inappropriate and potentially unlawful acts.
At the very least, Trump and Nauta deserve answers. Courts routinely allow discovery by the defense in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct — including depositions and requests for documents and communications — in order to determine the scope, breadth, and effects of any misconduct that occurred. The defense team in this case should seek testimony from Bratt to get to the bottom of what he said and why.
As importantly, defense counsel should also seek to subpoena any communications between Bratt and others in DOJ and the White House relating to Woodward’s judgeship application and Bratt’s approach to Woodward more generally. My assumption is that these communications will be eye-opening, and may reveal even more misconduct on the part of the DOJ, the special counsel’s team, and their political masters.
The legal teams defending Trump and Nauta surely know all of this, and I am confident that they will pursue this and other lines of defense aggressively. But the American people also deserve to know the full details of misconduct by senior officials at the Department of Justice.
Republicans in Congress should demand answers publicly and aggressively. The House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction to investigate matters relating to the administration of justice in the federal court system. It has the power to subpoena Bratt, the other lawyers involved in the Trump prosecution, and senior Biden administration officials to get to the bottom of this.
Make no mistake, this is a huge deal. Bratt’s conduct may even fall within the ambit of federal criminal statutes. Depending on what exactly was said, Bratt’s conduct could constitute attempted witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1), attempted federal bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3), attempted extortion by a federal official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 872, or attempted subornation of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622.
If the Department of Justice is truly committed to the open and transparent treatment of this case, a special counsel should be empowered to investigate Bratt’s actions and any other alleged misconduct by Jack Smith’s team.