Facing Catastrophic Consequences New York Times Now Outlines Construct of Ukraine as USA Proxy Province

February 26, 2024 | Sundance |

I find it very interesting this report surfaces in the New York Times and not The Washington Post first. This material distinction showcases the motive for the outline is heavily domestic in nature; meaning, the core of domestic USA politics (specifically the White House) needs to admit that Ukraine is a proxy province in order to retrigger support for policy. (NEVER gonna happen)

[Inside Baseball] – Watch the responses to this report from CNN (State Dept) carefully and watch the responses from WaPo (CIA/Intel). The more subtle and/or quiet the response(s), the more certain these influence institutions were collaborating on the material report to the New York Times.

The White House is admitting the CIA and larger IC apparatus, which includes the State Dept., has been heavily controlling all activity in Ukraine for the past decade.The only reason to admit this now very publicly is because they are losing voter support. THIS EXPLAINS WHY BIDEN IS CALLING FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING!!

The US’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) maintains 12 secret bases in Ukraine along the border with Russia, and last Thursday CIA chief William Burns made his 10th secret visit to Ukraine since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion.

The Times is now reporting the USA (State Dept.) was responsible for the coup in Ukraine (color revolution) and took control over political operations in 2014. We have long suspected this; many have reported exactly this reality; however, this is the first time it has all been admitted.

(NYT) – The C.I.A.’s partnership in Ukraine can be traced back to two phone calls on the night of Feb. 24, 2014, eight years to the day before Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Millions of Ukrainians had just overrun the country’s pro-Kremlin government and the president, Viktor Yanukovych, and his spy chiefs had fled to Russia. In the tumult, a fragile pro-Western government quickly took power.

The government’s new spy chief, Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, arrived at the headquarters of the domestic intelligence agency and found a pile of smoldering documents in the courtyard. Inside, many of the computers had been wiped or were infected with Russian malware.

“It was empty. No lights. No leadership. Nobody was there,” Mr. Nalyvaichenko said in an interview.

He went to an office and called the C.I.A. station chief and the local head of MI6. It was near midnight but he summoned them to the building, asked for help in rebuilding the agency from the ground up, and proposed a three-way partnership. “That’s how it all started,” Mr. Nalyvaichenko said. (read more)

Source: The New York Times, based on more than 200 interviews with current and former officials in Ukraine, the United States and Europe.

The report tries to paint various Ukraine officials as the originators of the operation to use Ukraine as the tip of the spear against the Russia construct; however, it doesn’t take a deep weeds walker torealize that part of the narrative is needed to protect the U.S. foreign influence policy from public ridicule.

The White House needs support for their Ukraine proxy. The public opposition to that continued policy agenda is a problem. The politicians are caving to pressure from the people. The IC needs to change the narrative urgently; thus the admission takes place.

(I hate all of them, every single one of them, ALLThey will not get voter support, regardless of what damnable story they tell people, the IC and Admin are terrorists and have destroyed millions of lives in Ukraine.)

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/02/26/facing-catastrophic-consequences-new-york-times-now-outlines-construct-of-ukraine-as-usa-proxy-province/

US Supreme Court to hear landmark social media cases

By Brian Fung, CNN

Published 12:00 PM EST, Sun February 25, 2024

(Anon’s this is fantastic, rememberClarence Thomas’s Opinion on Social Media and Free speech April 5, 2021. Everything they are mentioning in this article was in Thomas’ opinion, and guess what, he gave future Plaintiffs ways to fix it.see attached, I’ve read through this 2-3 times it’s so profound.)

The US Supreme Court is set to make a pivotal decision about what Americans can see on social media as it takes up two cases this week that could transform the internet as we know it. On Monday, the court will consider arguments on whether to give Texas and Florida significantly more control over social media platforms and their content, highlighting the central role that those services now play in modern American life.

The crux of the matter: Can these platforms decide for themselves what content goes on their sites — and what can be removed?

The states want to keep Facebook, TikTok, YouTube and others from removing users’ posts — potentially even ones that promote hate speech or eating disorders, lie to voters about elections and more. But that push is running up against the First Amendment.

A ruling for the states could even change how Americans hear about the upcoming 2024 elections everywhere from Instagram to X and beyond.

Texas and Florida officials argue their laws imposing restrictions on content moderation are constitutional because they seek to regulate social media platforms’ business behavior, not their speech. But opponents including NetChoice, an industry group suing to block both laws, say they infringe on the platforms’ own First Amendment rights and that their breadth could lead to vast unintended consequences. For example, a group of political scientists told the court the laws effectively require platforms to treat “dangerous and violent election-related speech” the same as innocuous speech and don’t give social media platforms enough freedom to moderate threats against election officials.

Is restricting content moderation constitutional?

Monday’s Supreme Court showdown in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice will determine whether states can forbid social media companies from blocking or removing user content that goes against platform rules. The state laws at issue also allow individuals to sue tech companies for alleged violations. The Florida and Texas laws are broadly written, but officials from both states say the laws will keep social media sites from unfairly silencing conservatives. Social media platforms have insisted for years that they don’t discriminate against right-wing speech.

Signed in 2021 by Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida’s SB 7072 prohibits tech platforms from suspending or banning the accounts of political candidates in the state, with violations carrying steep possible fines of up to $250,000 per day. It also allows individual social media users to sue platforms if they believe they have been unfairly censored or “deplatformed.”

The Texas law, signed in 2021 by Gov. Greg Abbott, makes it illegal for any large social media platform to “block, ban, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminate against expression.” Like the Florida law, Texas’ HB 20 permits individual internet users to sue social media platforms for alleged violations.

Social media platforms are now so important as a new public square, the states say, that we need new laws to make them follow free speech ideals, even though the First Amendment applies to governments and not private businesses. The tech industry argues that the laws violate the companies’ own First Amendment rights to decide what speech to welcome on their private platforms.

Lower courts have split on the dispute. In the case involving the Texas law, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2022 that social media platforms do not have “a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”

But the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the same year that Florida’s “restrictions are substantially likely to violate the First Amendment,” because governments can’t make social media platforms “speak,” even if it’s through posts by third parties.

Now, the Supreme Court could settle that debate once and for all.

Are tech companies more like publishers or public utilities?

The NetChoice cases reflect a deep divide in how many people see social media. Supporters of the state laws say social media should allow all speech, without judging its message. Opponents say the platforms have the right to decide what content they display….

(lawfags read article and Thomas's opinion, you'll love it)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/25/tech/us-supreme-court-landmark-social-media-cases/index.html