Posted on Dec 20, 2022
Judicial Watch: Decorated Veteran and FBI Analyst Sues FBI after Being Falsely Accused of...
740
24
15
7
7
0
FBI
Lawsuit
Edited 2 y ago
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
The entire FBI needs dismantling, the building razed, and the earth where it stood salted.
(2)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
LTC Trent Klug again, the FBI did not censor. They ASKED others to censor.
I know the 1st is not the 4th. But we have a robust history of case law on this involving 3rd parties helping the government. FBI cann9t seize my bank records without a warrant. But they can ASK my bank, and if the bank turns over my records without a warrant, it's perfectly OK. They can't tap MY phone without a warrant. But if the guy I'm calling consents to a tap on HIS phone, they're in the clear.
You talk about liability for going outside policy. But it appears this WAS policy.
I know the 1st is not the 4th. But we have a robust history of case law on this involving 3rd parties helping the government. FBI cann9t seize my bank records without a warrant. But they can ASK my bank, and if the bank turns over my records without a warrant, it's perfectly OK. They can't tap MY phone without a warrant. But if the guy I'm calling consents to a tap on HIS phone, they're in the clear.
You talk about liability for going outside policy. But it appears this WAS policy.
(0)
(0)
LTC Trent Klug
SFC Casey O'Mally Yes, they did.The FBI used a private company as an agent of the government to silence speech they didn't like. They violated the First Amendment to the Constitution using a third party in order to go around the Constitution. If you're okay with that, well...
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
LTC Trent Klug I didn't say I was OK with it. Nowhere did I say that. I specifically stated it was wrong.
The question becomes whether it was LEGAL. I don't see that as an open and shut case. They asked a 3rd party to help their government. The 3rd party consented. On the face of it, that is clearly legal and Constitutional as established by case law. The question is whether this SPECIFIC case is somehow different enough from existing case law to warrant a challenge at the Supreme Court. I don't see it meeting that bar.
You say agent of the government. Was there a contract? Did money change hands? Was there any form of OBLIGATION on behalf of either the government or Twitter? I have seen exactly zero evidence that there was. If not, then there is not an "agent" relationship. It was a private company helping out - just like when phone companies collect and store data and then hand THAT over without a warrant. Or even with a warrant, as they have no obligation to store that data in the first place, and they do it so they CAN hand it over later.
If there is a legal policy, however distasteful, you follow the policy. Following LAWFUL orders is a perfectly valid defense here.
As I said, they were betting their lives and their livelihoods. Pretty high stakes. And I don't fault them for not taking that gamble.
The question becomes whether it was LEGAL. I don't see that as an open and shut case. They asked a 3rd party to help their government. The 3rd party consented. On the face of it, that is clearly legal and Constitutional as established by case law. The question is whether this SPECIFIC case is somehow different enough from existing case law to warrant a challenge at the Supreme Court. I don't see it meeting that bar.
You say agent of the government. Was there a contract? Did money change hands? Was there any form of OBLIGATION on behalf of either the government or Twitter? I have seen exactly zero evidence that there was. If not, then there is not an "agent" relationship. It was a private company helping out - just like when phone companies collect and store data and then hand THAT over without a warrant. Or even with a warrant, as they have no obligation to store that data in the first place, and they do it so they CAN hand it over later.
If there is a legal policy, however distasteful, you follow the policy. Following LAWFUL orders is a perfectly valid defense here.
As I said, they were betting their lives and their livelihoods. Pretty high stakes. And I don't fault them for not taking that gamble.
(0)
(0)
LTC Trent Klug
SFC Casey O'Mally Violating Constitutional rights under color of law or a lawful order from a superior is not legal. The FBI colluded with Twitter, Facebook, and Google to censor Freedom of Speech. You can't say its okay for subordinates to follow orders when it violated the Civil rights of citizens. Heads, lots of heads, should roll.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google