>Was right about Braverman tho
???
How so?
Braverman is an enigma.
If he flipped or sought protection, why did he go to work for Eric Schmidt after 'disappearing'.
And his husband still works for KKR, with Patreous, doing Atlantic Council events.
Seem pretty loyal to globalists still.
Unless they are running a long counterintel op as insiders.
>Sound like an MSM Shill
wtf?
Have you not been paying attention?
The 'Truth Act' is what the next 'establishment' administration will use to shut down every alternative news outlet, chans, t_d, etc.
The MSM is dying on the vine because nobody trusts their shit anymore. Expose and take away their elite/govt/CIA sponsors and that crap will die on its own.
That is my point… the truth always comes out on its own.
You don't need the govt to enforce what THEY determine is the truth.
That is the exact opposite of the first amendment, which allows people to say things the govt doesn't want you to say or willing to admit.
Why is that confusing?
Do YOU want the govt to be able to shut down InfoWars or OANN or Ben Swann or anybody else they determine is 'lying'?
No, I totally get the point.
I'm saying blowback is a bitch. This law WILL be used someday against you and me, I guarantee it.
When the political winds change, and saying that Obama was a criminal becomes an illegal lie. Like in Germany, where one isn't allowed to question the holocaust.
The MSM are dying on their own. The people see through their lies. We don't need a new anti-first-amendment law to fix that.
Grid protection gear is actually pretty good about preventing that kind of problem (misbehaving generators).
But take out a few large transmission level transformers?
Then you have a problem… because they are highly custom and the lead time is months to years to replace.
So you take out enough of them at the same time? Boom. That part of the grid is gone, for a long time.
>www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadcasting-false-information
That is a pretty narrowly defined law, the equivalent of yelling fire in a movie theater.
How far would you want to let them take it?
Should I not be able to call HRC a criminal on TV if I can't provide the evidence?
The key is that the grid is designed around n-1 contingency… which basically means that it is redundant enough to handle one large isolated problem.
Some things, maybe n-2.
But if you have a coordinated attack against 2 or 3 major choke points?
The grid just isn't designed for those kinds of threats.
Such a law would just be… problematic.
What about legit whistleblower situations?
Would the station/reporter lose their FCC license unless they could prove the allegation?
Would they reporter be jailed unless they outed their source?
That is all I'm saying. While such a law sounds good, it has chilling first amendment repercussions.
You aren't thinking hard enough if you can't see that, or imagine a future where the same law is used against the truth tellers, to protect the liars.