The part from C-Span you're looking for starts at around 14 minutes and 10 seconds.

I was hoping for audio or something. It’s all hearsay

Yeah, we need first - hand info for it to be credible and even then it's debatable.

Audio of this would be very damming...or a sworn affidavit

Of course, I was hoping it was a phone call.. Damnit, someone needs to bug that room.

They weren’t going to do this over the phone

Well they should have so we could expose them for being cowards!

Or to have had them recorded. If this is all true, it shows that the US Government is filled with pussies that kowtowed to terrorism

That’s obvious amongst politicians and it became so when we gave 500 mil to Iran and a nuclear program..

Worst deal ever

@GothamMuse Here are some thoughts on that story which totally happened.
@Uncivil Law

https://youtu.be/B7zNeyWmuzM

As far as the justice yelling, if it was not true, wouldn't the other justices have came out publicly and debunked it. I dont think that has been done.

I'd be amazed islf they're even aware of a fringe right talk show host's fan fiction. Even if they somehow were aware, it wouldn't warrant 'debunking'. It's childishly facile drivel, targeted toward exactly who you'd expect to think about taking it seriously.

Who are you debunking?

Boss hog

Apparently Supreme Court justices should have the time and inclination to personally address every whack job's clearly absurd stories. The video posted above captures the essence of how ridiculous it was and the not so extremely subtle red flags regarding the source.

we should make a law that mandates SCOTUS to hear every claim of fraud. The people has a right to be heard! It is taxpayer money, now the taxpayer want to speak, and the SCOTUS should be made to listen. To-every-single-one. 😄

@Zuluzeit

(Im giving shouldism a try)

You'll be an ist in no time. You're a natural. @Doc

And it would still be a better use of our taxes 😂

Are we getting ready for another stream?

woot

Are we talking about some more trump scotus bullshit

lol

Trump lost. period

As an outsider looking in, reviewing all thats been written about, videos, testimonies and lack of hearings to facilitate discovery, guess better we suggest America has lost period

Trump lost and deservedly so. He was too worried with <twitter, msm, corona, you name it> to look at what Dems were doing at State level <stealing>. So serves him well. You can't defeat the swamp by being naïve.

That sentence is redundant. Just cause you want to count votes twice isn’t a justification for applying that philosophy to other parts of your life 😂

That’s a traditionally conservatives viewpoint. It’s not that he wasn’t robbed, it’s that he was naive.

Lol the “that sentence is redundant” comment actually made me snort. Took me a second to get it.

@RobertGrulerEsq this meme made me think of you, Merry Christmas!

@WaffleWaffle I don't really blame Trump, he was too busy campaigning to realize he was being backstabbed by the GOP. If the Party had his back at all they would have been challenging this election starting on election night when any fool could see fuckery coming. But Trump gambled he could win big enough to make fraud impossible to achieve on the sly. He achieved that goal, but they just did the fraud right out in the open and agreed not to mess with the down-ticket races (a tacit agreement I assume). There won't be any cheating in the Georgia runoff because the GOP is totally in on the steal.

so...he didnt drain the swamp?

The swamp is vast and deep

Just like the "Curse of Oak Island"

so no drain?

Promises were made. I have questions.

The drain is more of a trickle at the moment. Its like ridding your lawn of weeds. You got a lot of work to get it all out. Some mask themselves to blend in as much as possible

To be fair, he's done a good job of shedding people he hired. 👍

Yes as I stated you can rid the noticable ones, but there are ones well hidden

Sounds hard. Maybe not the most responsible promise to make, kinda like repealing Obamacare. No one knew it was so complicated...except everyone.

Part of obamacre was good, but others not good. As Trump an admin have looked at every aspect of that package. So taking out the individual mandate was good while keeping the pre-existing conditions being protected

Obamacare*

Also price transparency is a good step also

I was expecting a drain and a lock up.

I got neither.

@Zuluzeit that is a great point. the swamp draining started with his own administration!

he actually tried and started with the most corrupt people he could see!

I feel like there should be mandatory demagogue loyalty tests. That's the only way we can know for sure.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-740.html

@Liberty or Death, you just advanced to level 6!

I hadn't even heard of this case. I was just looking for updates on other cases. They are supposed to respond by today, so we will see.

SOooooo you think that Twitter is a "defacto government" interesting thought

smh

Twitter Terms Of Service have replaced the Constitution as our founding document. LOL.

They might qualify seeing as they are a gatekeeper for communication

@Darkangael, you just advanced to level 11!

I think that is why Sen Ted Cruz was trying to get Twitter and Facebook CEOs to admit that they were digital public squares in one of the hearings over the last 4 years. If Twitter and Facebook were considered a kind of digital public square then it could potentially be argued that Marsh v. Alabama would apply. But without a statement like that I think it would be difficult. But as I am not a lawyer I don't know for sure. It is interesting to think about though.

Its just not a Free Speech issue. It WOULD be a Free Speech issue if Congress created a law that prohibited Twitter, FaceBook and the like from suspending or canceling account.

once they've allowed the president to have a voice, they're not allowed to delete or cancel his account, those are official government records.

eh it's just your 1st right my 2nd one already needs a permit. Hey I can drive a car in all 50 states but my "permit" doesn't let me protect myself in all 50 states. What's up with that?

driving a car is a privilege. breathing air is a right.

i'd say the 2nd amendment has been under attack for some time, and i hope the backlash to the next couple years is a huge reversal in policy via scotus

Do not hang a future on scotus or any elected body.

My thought process is that Marsh v. Alabama might apply, if they were a "digital" public square. Its a stretch but then again some of the more interesting court cases involve a bit of a stretch. Marsh v. Alabama, the courts ruled that a private company acting like a pseudo government entity is bound by the Constitution. So, could FB/Twitter because of their size and the number of users be considered the digital version of a public square, in a similar way.

@AntiFish03 Agreed. Marsh can apply if a public forum is established, good cases to look at: Knight v. Trump, Packingham and Pruneyard. Knight and Packingham both recognize digital public forums. Knight confirms that interactions between citizens and government accounts/officials are protected the same as the physical counterparts.

@AntiFish03 Packingham is cited in the Knight decision and recognizes social media writ large is the modern town square/public space. Pruneyard is similar to Marsh in that even within privately owned structures (a mall) if there are spaces set aside for public speech, viewpoint discrimination protections can be applied and enforced by the courts.

@AntiFish03 @FaithJoy Please also see Twitter's Prospectus filed with the SEC. While not a "contract" as such, it is a statement upon which investors can rely as a truthful and honest representation and which the SEC can cite in fines/investigations etc. "The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve–and do not detract from–a free and global conversation." P 97 https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/TwitterS1100313.pdf

It comes down to whether that would be enough for a court to rule that Twitter is bound by the requirements of the Constitution and specifically the 1st Amendment?

@AntiFish03 @FaithJoy It's a solid start given that it's a sworn statement and representation to the federal government. They make the representation that they are a public forum: "Twitter is a global platform for public self-expression and conversation in real time. By developing a fundamentally new way for people to create, distribute and discover content, we have democratized content creation and distribution, enabling any voice to echo around the world instantly and unfiltered. Our platform is unique in its simplicity: Tweets are limited to 140 characters of text. This constraint makes it easy for anyone to quickly create, distribute and discover content that is consistent across our platform and optimized for mobile devices. As a result, Tweets drive a high velocity of information exchange that makes Twitter uniquely “live.” We aim to become an indispensable daily companion to live human experiences.
...
As a result, when events happen in the world, whether planned, like sporting events and television shows, or unplanned, like natural disasters and political revolutions, the digital experience of those events happens in real time on Twitter. People can communicate with each other during these events as they occur, creating powerful shared experiences."
P. 7

note: "global platform" "democratized content creation and distribution" "unfiltered" and "indispensable daily companion to live human experiences" 1. It shows intent to operate as a platform not publisher (see also Section 230) and 2. They represent themselves as the digital analog to the physical experience. The reasonable interpretation is that they are offering a "public forum" or "digital town-square" which exist in the physical world.

The one key piece that still need establishment that would come through discovery is the relationship between Twitter & Govt, how frequently their actions mirror policies and positions of government officials, how often they interact with users in a way the government could not do, but coordinate those actions or provide information to government agencies/agents as quasi-governmental actor or agent.