Message from @MikeHaydenOnCoffeeBreak
Discord ID: 433628855354261514
There you go
What the Ape said
Lol i just don't get this whole paranoia over russian bots
Like, even if they are spouting propagandistic half-truths and russian talking points, it doesn't justify banning them outright
on principle
Scape goats
They are trying to find a excuse for their mistakes and lack of competence
hmmm
<:think_woke:378717098681171988>
Russian press is a rogue player, both sides want them out of their sandbox.
but... but... RT is right wing propaganda... <:think_woke:378717098681171988>
/sarcasm
makes you think
They might be shitting on the left now, but they have no loyalty. Can't have that in America.
dunno, whenever I've seen a political RT story, it looks like a headline the guardian would run
not that i've studied it real intensely or anything
https://lawfareblog.com/how-cohen-raids-and-trumps-reactions-edge-us-toward-confrontation
I will put this as bluntly as I know how: There is no way that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York would have sought or executed a search warrant against the president’s lawyer without overpowering evidence to support the action. The legal standard for such a search requires only probable cause that criminal activity is taking place. Under normal circumstances, which these are not, the prudential and policy factors counseling against such an action would be powerful.
For starters, the Justice Department is institutionally cautious about searches involving attorneys acting in their role as attorneys. As Paul Rosenzweig noted, “the U.S. Attorney’s Manual has an entire section that limits how and when the offices of an attorney may be searched. Realizing full well that such searches are in derogation of the value of the [attorney-client] privilege, the manual requires high-level approvals, the exhaustion of other investigative avenues, and specifies procedures that are to be followed to limit the intrusion on privileged documents.” Moreover, the Justice Department would have been additionally cautious about seeking any warrant against this particular lawyer—precisely because doing so makes clear that a ring is closing around the president. Going after a prominent person’s lawyer for matters related to his representation of the client is, after all, an aggressive act toward the client, not just toward the lawyer. And Trump is, as he puts it, a counterpuncher.
This is the kind of step that would predictably elicit a reaction. The Justice Department simply would not take such an action lightly or without evidence that emphatically supports it. Add these prudential, legal and policy factors together and they cumulatively suggest that the evidence supporting the warrant application likely exceeds—probably by far—what is legally required.
SO impeach Trump and let Pence fight the Syrian World War 3
🌩
Pence / Mattis 2018
Any good?
For PJW not my favourite
Then why did you link?
cus he made good points
Then gib summary
do I link every video he makes?
it's legit less than 5mins
can you explain it in 4?
If you pay me
i'll think about it
for longer than 4 minutes?
Ooo
Paul Ryan is out?
```7. The FBI Never Treated Hillary Clinton This Way. This is perfectly obvious. Hillary wasn’t merely allowed to delete 33,000 documents from her computer server three weeks after revelations that she had a private computer server, she was protected by the DOJ and the FBI, which allowed her personal attorney, Cheryl Mills — who was also under investigation — to invoke attorney-client privilege to stop the FBI from investigating Hillary’s email scheme.```