Biden admin ‘pauses’ controversial Disinformation Governance Board: report

So? It was opposition research. Nothing illegal about that.

We do know that the Clinton campaign lied about Trump's connection with the Alpha Bank. You probably still believe that's true.

 

It's unpaused.

Homeland Security’s Rebooted Disinformation Plan Is No Better Than the First.

“Compounding these dangerous conditions, the Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Mayorkas has prioritized all the wrong things: climate change, diversity and equity, LGBT Pride month, white supremacists, and now, ‘disinformation.’ To put Gorelick, the director of the information wall of separation, in charge of disinformation lacks self-awareness at a minimum, and handicaps their own efforts to garner public trust in their disinformation efforts.”

​

"The federal government has no business determining what is truth, it is nowhere near the mission of Homeland Security, and Jankowicz had a consistently wrong record of identifying “disinformation.”"

"Chertoff and Gorelick, leaders of Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ Homeland Security Advisory Council, have been tasked with giving recommendations on how DHS “can garner public trust surrounding its disinformation efforts.” What the left and the Biden administration fail to recognize is that it cannot gain the public’s trust regarding misinformation or disinformation."

They can't.

"Americans have suffered through far too much of such labeling and censorship since 2020 related to COVID-19, vaccines, masks, lockdowns, elections, and more. The federal government, politicians, tech companies—separately and in concert—have developed a significant reliance on censoring content that goes against their narrative. They’ve only recently started admitting this tactic. Americans are right to distrust the administration’s spin regarding disinformation."

When the GOP resumes the majority they need to shut this down.

 

As I suspected, the administration is just not going to give up on having their own Ministry of Truth.

 

Actually, he broke........https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

But Mueller decided not to charge Donnie J due to ignorance of the law..........which isn't supposed to be a defense............but then Mueller is a Repub.

MUELLER CONFIRMS: DON JR. WAS TOO STUPID TO COLLUDE
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...irms-don-jr-too-stupid-to-collude-with-russia

 

How wonderful it must be for members of The Following to go through life simplistically boiling nuanced things down to fallacious bumper sticker slogans. Details, and truth, are just too complex. "Ministry of Truth" indicates a level of understanding approximating an elementary school student.

 

No money change hands, so that law wasn't broken either. Exchanging information is literally protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

That's a rather ironic reading on my comment!

Actually I was noting that my prediction came true:

However far quicker than I thought and hey, I'm supposed to be the pessimist on those kinds of things.

Meanwhile your support of this Stasi-like "Homeland Security" initiative isn't complex at all.

 

You edit my cogent rebuttals!

 

I can't edit that which doesn't exist.

 

It's pointless to try to talk to you. When you can't win a discussion you simply edit out any response.

 

You want a government "ministry of 'truth'"? Look at how well that is working out on campuses and social media "fact checking liars."

GOOD: Court halts university’s ‘harassment policy’ pending free speech lawsuit.

"This is another huge victory for students in Texas," said Speech First Executive Director Cherise Trump in a press release. "The court's ruling sends a clear message to all universities that restrictions on student speech will not be tolerated simply because listeners find certain ideas to be offensive or controversial."

"UH's imposed "harassment policy" was "unconstitutionally broad" and could use viewpoint discrimination to "punish speech."

"the policy gave the university the right to publish speech both on and off campus, as well as on social media. Harassment was defined as an all-encompassing term that included "denigrating jokes" and "negative stereotyping."

On and off campus?

"Speech First is arguing this policy could be lopsidedly applied to crack down on conservative speech."

That's exactly what the "Safetiests" will do claim that everything they disagree with is "negative stereotyping". They already do that by claiming everything they don't like, like deadlines are "white supremacy".

"The University's policy subjects students to formal discipline for 'harassment' for merely expressing mainstream conservative opinions that other students find objectionable,"

Why are you not concerned about this portion of the left being in battle after battle after battle to control the communication of OTHERS? How about if they instead work on policing their OWN speech and we'll all do the same?

 

While Mueller stated assigning a monetary value to the type of material Donnie J was being offered would be difficult the fact that money didn't change hands was immaterial to whether the law was broken.

 

Winning a debate with you is never a problem.

 

Well, according to the computer scientists who discovered the traffic it is true.

At the same time, defense lawyers for the scientists say it is Mr. Durham’s indictment that is misleading. Their clients, they say, believed their hypothesis was a plausible explanation for the odd data they had uncovered — and still do.

The Alfa Bank results “have been validated and are reproducible. The findings of the researchers were true then and remain true today; reports that these findings were innocuous or a hoax are simply wrong,” said Jody Westby and Mark Rasch, lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist and one of the researchers whom the indictment discussed but did not name.

Steven A. Tyrrell, a lawyer for Rodney Joffe, an internet entrepreneur and another of the four data experts, said his client had a duty to share the information with the F.B.I. and that the indictment “gratuitously presents an incomplete and misleading picture” of his role.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/us/politics/trump-alfa-bank-indictment.html

 

Exchanging information is protected by the 1st Amendment. It's impossible to place a value on information.

 

You should know by now not to challenge me on the facts. From Mueller's report........

i. Thing-of-Value Element

A threshold legal question is whether providing to a campaign “documents and information” of the type involved here would constitute a prohibited campaign contribution. The foreign contribution ban is not limited to contributions of money. It expressly prohibits “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value.” 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A), (a)(2) (emphasis added). And the term “contribution” is defined throughout the campaign-finance laws to “include[]” “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101((A)(i) (emphasis added). The phrases “thing of value” and “anything of value” are broad and inclusive enough to encompass at least some forms of valuable information. Throughout the United States Code, these phrases serve as “term of art” that are construed “broad[ly].” United States v. Nilsen, 967 F.2d 539, 542 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (“thing of value” includes “both tangibles and intangibles”); see also, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(b)(1), 666(a)(2) (bribery statutes); id. § 641 (theft of government property). For example, the term “thing of value” encompasses law enforcement reports that would reveal the identity of informants, United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir. 1979); classified materials, United States v. Fowler, 932 F.2d 306, 310 (4th Cir. 1991); confidential information about a competitive bid, United States v. Matzkin, 14 F.3d 1014, 1020 (4th Cir. 1994); secret grand jury information, United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 680 (6th Cir. 1985); and information about a witness’s whereabouts, United States v. Sheker, 618 F.2d 607, 609 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam). And in the public corruption context, “‘thing of value’ is defined broadly to include the value which the defendant subjectively attaches to the items received.” United States v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731, 744 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations recognize the value to a campaign of at least some forms of information, stating that the term “anything of value” includes “the provision of any goods or services without charge,” such as “membership lists” and “mailing lists.” 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(1). The FEC has concluded that the phrase includes a state-by-state list of activists. See Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 475 F.3d 337, 338 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (describing the FEC’s findings). Likewise, polling data provided to a campaign constitutes a “contribution.” FEC Advisory Opinion 1990-12 (Strub), 1990 WL 153454 (citing 11 C.F.R. § 106.4(b)). And in the specific context of the foreign-contributions ban, the FEC has concluded that “election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns,” including “flyers, advertisements, door hangers, tri-folds, signs, and other printed material,” constitute “anything of

 

Your literally arguing something I did not claim say, or insinuate

Please educate yourself on what the fairness doctrine was. At its core it required truth in what was claimed/said.

We need to find a way to bring the truth/fact back in not only our political discourse, but our public discourse. We as a country are imploding on ourselves because our leaders lie, and then it cascades down and then everything becomes a lie. Most of them are done for political gain, but when repeated because of confirmation bias, they are used to empower those same politicians.

 

Ok, how w would information be valued?

 

When you dishonestly edit my replies I'm sure inside your head it seems that way.

 

Do you read what you post?

Who do you propose determines what is "truth" and what is "lies"? And we all know where that goes, everything that is at variance with the Left's latest narrative is a "lie", and if there is no "right to lie" that operationally will be "no right to disagree with the Left's latest narrative." And that's unconstitutional, never going to happen, move on.

The answer to bad speech is MORE speech, it's never censorship in our Constitutional Liberal Democracy.

 

She also pushed the Biden Laptop is Russian disinformation lie.
In her "Scary Poppins" video, she implies that people that criticized the official Covid narrative were liars.
With that kind of record, it is kind of transparent as to why they wanted her for the gig.
Now we just have to fear this thing coming back to life when we're not looking.

 

Yes, apparently you dont

The Election was stolen........is that a lie ? Without proof of the accusation, it is !

"bad speech" is not what I said. I said LIES.

 

Actually it's just one of the things that I'm especially fabulous at.

Your "truth" claim is heavily infected with the fallacy of verificationism. The truth of a matter is independent of proofs; for example, it was always true that Bill Clinton had Lewinsky perform sexual acts on him. Anyone who said it was true, was being truthful and anyone who said it was false was telling a lie, it did not become true when the DNA results were produced, though Bill Clinton and most of the Left denied it until then and then admitted it afterwards.

​

If any group in this nation gets the power to censor speech that they will term lies, they will term whatever is outside of their received narrative as "lies" and prohibit it. That is what Social Media and Universities are doing now with their limited ability to censor, and that's why in our Constitutional Liberal Democracy, government is forbidden from exercising this illegitimate power over any of us.

And that is as it should be.

 

No, your rebuttal is filled with an even bigger fallacy:

The Election lie IS a lie because given the MULTIPLE chances, and multiple investigations no evidence was ever found to support the charge..

Clinton was proven to have had sex with Monica, he was just never given the punishment the right wanted.

​

And yet again, your basing your debate on the same fallacy in your first paragraph. Your again making the claim that right wing accusations are being censored, but yet you leave out that until they are proven, they are lies. And given the multiple attempts, and the freedom and time to prove them, they still cant be proven. The right in this country has operated over the last 6 years under the guise of “if we make the claim, its on you to prove it wrong”. Thats not how it works…but in rightwinglandia, thats just another Tuesday

 

I assume an assessment would be made of how much an oppo research firm would charge for such info. I mean, had Russia not published.....through Wikileaks.......the material it hacked from the DNC for free, how much would Trump have paid for it?