Posted on 03/15/2024 7:40:33 PM PDT by RandFan
@TuckerCarlson
This is Rep. Dan Crenshaw as he walks out of the Capitol after voting to give Joe Biden the power to shut down news sites that dare to challenge him. Crenshaw tells reporter Liam Cosgrove that U.S. intel agencies don’t meddle in domestic news coverage, when of course he knows that’s untrue. Watch his face as he says it. Liar.
@DanCrenshawTX
Tucker lying for attention, as usual. Maybe since he lost his production assistants at Fox News he can no longer do basic research or read short legislation. Nothing in the TikTok bill gives anyone any authority to shut down news agencies. Tucker is mad about a bill that simply stops the CCP from stealing the data of tens of millions Americans and using TikTok to push their propaganda. 90% of conservatives in the House voted for this bill.
None of this is surprising, since Tucker never misses an opportunity to defend America’s enemies, and of course garner some clickbait on his Chinese TikTok account.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
It doesn't matter what the bill says.
Axe Fatti Willis if the "laws" can be twisted.
Axe E. Jean Carroll if the "laws" can be twisted.
So quit Furiously jack-assin' about this.
Very true.
We can argue over definitions all night
Remember FISA is foreign too but they use(d) it domestically
I hate TikTok too but this law is bad
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Why not have a MAGA Republican candidate run as a write-in, in Dans’ congressional district?
How many pages does it consist? I am genuinely asking.
Any more than ONE SENTENCE: "This bill is to ban the availability of TikTok in the United States of America and it's territories" means it is TOO LONG and FULL of DEEP STATE BULLSHIT
Re: 45 - it’s about 12 pages.
I doubt a one sentence bill would ever pass constitutional muster.
Can you name any bill ever passed by the House that is one sentence long?
Re: 39 - well, at you’re open about it.
You wish that a foreign adversary of the US had more seriously injured a U.S. military member.
Probably stuff from 150 years ago. And some Constitutional amendments. A one, OK, several sentence bill just like mine would be more than enough. Name the website, mention that it will be banned. Explain how that specific website will be banned. Maybe throw in some language that forbids adding any other website to the ban list using this bill as precedent. Any other banned websites get their own bill.
Maybe a provision that the company can be raided, and property seized while it is investigated. Employees resisting or destroying evidence can be jailed and prosecuted. Everyone else can go back to chy-nuh. And when the investigation is done, the property can be collected and returned to chy-nuh.
They won’t win, there was one up against him in primary but his district is very prosperous and he apparently gets things done for them so they vote with their wallets
So Sen. Rand Paul is lying too?
@RandPaul The House TikTok Ban is not securing our nation—it’s a disturbing gift of unprecedented authority to President Biden and the Surveillance State that threatens the very core of American digital innovation and free expression.
No, not lying.
The President can only do what the law calls for.
If he exceeds that, there’s legal redress.
Thanks for posting the link.
That said, this really does appear to have been written with sufficient breadth that a Biden DOJ could target a Musk-owned X for example. Beyond that, the formerly anodyne “The bill gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to the bill. “ sends a chill up the spine, knowing the corrupt partisanship of that court.
Maybe Crenshaw’s objection is sincere, but he is at best mistaken, IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.