Posted on 12/01/2020 5:16:03 AM PST by White Lives Matter
Attorney Sidney Powell said on the Sean Hannity show on Fox News Monday night that a witness to election irregularities was beaten up and is in the hospital. Powell spoke about the attack while speaking about witnesses needing protection as a reason some are not going public and signing affidavits. Powell said some are in the government, others are in roles that require confidentiality, and that they need protection by the government.
Powell: “They’re gonna lose their job. Their lives have been threatened. Uh, one witness we know of got beaten up and is in the hospital. There have been all kinds of repercussions against people who have come forward to tell the truth. And no, Democrats don’t like whistleblowers, they only like liars who claim they’re whistleblowers.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
I’m not humblegumnner but yes that is what he does.
You should work for Twitter and Facebook who also have a noble effort at censoring people. How much do they make per click for the amount of time they work on their sites?
Get off you high horse, who made you the judge of what I can and can’t read? Bet you were for stopping Breitbart before they got big. I post my entire post and still get crap from you guys so stop pretending to be noble.
I am more than happy to click websites if they got something worth reading. It’s called freedom of speech.
“.. Uh, one witness we know of got beaten up and is in the hospital. ”
CNN: “no, it was Covid 19!”
Could have been FBI agents
Or as they call it looking into the matter.
.38 caliber whitewash.
The man is as dumb as a box of rocks, I've posted that to him a dozen times, because it's true. You might be as well, but we'll see.
Hg once got all over me for posting an American Thinker article. Congrats for falling in line with him.
I suppose you think those other sites I mentioned deserve mockery by you and the hg gang of aholes.
I have supported this site for years as well. I just do it anonymously.
Sand
Pound some
Don’t need to read your passive aggressive insults, nor do you tell me what I must agree with our not agree with.
We need to find the perps and beat them to death.
If Biden wins, there will be a purge.
So here you are, talking shit on a thread that I'm NOT EVEN ON.
You've got yourself an obsession, Karen. Yes you do.
I'm flattered but you still ain't getting those pictures you asked for.
I love this woman
Totally owning most of the media.
What are you doing about it?
I knew you'd come. Your life isn't possible without a day of trying to make everyone around you more miserable.
You seem to succeed well with your own itsy-bitsy posse.
That would entail controlling “the media.” Which Democrats do, and Republicans don’t.The sovereign remedy for this problem is for Republican office-holders to sue for libel, in the teeth of the illegitimate New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision which makes it essentially impossible for such suits to proceed.
Justice Scalia explained why Sullivan was wrong, and Justice Thomas wants to overturn it. Sullivan was handed down in 1964 by the Warren Court, and it was a disgraceful unanimous decision based on flawed (well, it was written by Wm. Brennan) legal reasoning:
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”Now we all love us some freedom of speech and press, but the conceit that 1A touched libel law at all was novel in 1964. The reason is quite simple: the Bill of Rights was designed to reify existing rights, and not to modify any of them.We know that because the framers of the unamended constitution (uncapitalized because it was then unratified 😣) didn’t put it in the original, and only added it under political duress from the Antifederalists. Being accused of changing any right at all was the very last thing they wanted to risk because the legitimacy of the new federal government was still hanging in the balance.
The BoR should be understood as consisting of two parts
- Amendments 1 thru 8, which enumerate specific rights which Americans were concerned about at the time, and
- Amendment 9
and
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
which articulate the intent of the Federalists WRT the issue of rights in general. They articulate, that is, what the Federalists wanted people to assume when they called for the ratification of the document in the first instance.
- Amendment 10
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So the true meaning of the BoR is that “if a right isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then the Constitution does not affect it at all.” The states, under (if that is the word) the Articles of Confederation had libel laws, and those laws were not touched by the Constitution. Any more than pornography laws were.
In handing down Sullivan the Warren Court trampled the original meaning of the BoR.
The reality, we all know, is that journalists - that Democrats of all stripe - love emergencies. And since journalists and Democrat office holders are birds of the same feather, there is never occasion for a Democrat to need to sue for libel. Republicans, OTOH, are routinely libeled - and inhibiting libel suits damages the public discourse by granting journalists undue influence.
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. — Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)People are disabusing themselves, painfully, of the notion that journalists are reliably truth-tellers. Absent the threat of libel, there is no reason for the non-card-carrying Democrats in the journalism profession to restrict themselves to the truth any more than a Democrat senator speaking on the floor of the Senate must do so.
“The DNC makes the mafia look tame.”
:::::::::
Ton degree the mafia at least had rules .
Yes they had mandatory cuts from business owners but also protected them. To a degree better than paying taxes that get wasted.
The Dem party wants a totally subservient population while lining their pockets
Oh, definitely! The mafia was much more honorable than the Democrat party — on many levels.
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.