Trump Justice Dept. Tried To Use Grand Jury To Identify Nunes Critic on Twitter (nytimes.com) 261
The Justice Department under President Trump secretly obtained a grand-jury subpoena last year in an attempt to identify the person behind a Twitter account dedicated to mocking Representative Devin Nunes of California, according to a newly unsealed court document. From a report: But Twitter fought the subpoena, as well as an associated gag order barring the company from talking about it publicly. Twitter executives raised skepticism about whether the Justice Department might be abusing federal criminal law-enforcement power to retaliate against a critic of Mr. Nunes, a Republican who is a close ally of Mr. Trump, in violation of the First Amendment. Ultimately, according to a person familiar with the matter, the Justice Department withdrew the subpoena this spring, after President Biden took office.
What was going on behind the subpoena remains murky. The filing -- a motion to suppress the subpoena and lift the gag order that Twitter filed in March -- shows that the Justice Department sent the company a demand on Nov. 24 to provide identifying information about the user @NunesAlt. Twitter appears to have immediately been suspicious about the legitimacy of the request. The user of that account, the filing said, "appears to be engaged in clear First Amendment activity, discussing stances on current events, government policies and one elected official in particular -- Congressman Nunes." The filing provided examples of some of the account's tweets, such as a photograph of Mr. Nunes with text superimposed over his face: "Believe in conspiracy theories. Even if there is no evidence."
What was going on behind the subpoena remains murky. The filing -- a motion to suppress the subpoena and lift the gag order that Twitter filed in March -- shows that the Justice Department sent the company a demand on Nov. 24 to provide identifying information about the user @NunesAlt. Twitter appears to have immediately been suspicious about the legitimacy of the request. The user of that account, the filing said, "appears to be engaged in clear First Amendment activity, discussing stances on current events, government policies and one elected official in particular -- Congressman Nunes." The filing provided examples of some of the account's tweets, such as a photograph of Mr. Nunes with text superimposed over his face: "Believe in conspiracy theories. Even if there is no evidence."
Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all projection. They fear their opponents are doing the things they themselves would do. They assume everyone is just as bad as they are.
Re: Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:2, Insightful)
> They assume everyone is just as bad as they are.
And unfortunately for all of us, they are just as bad, if not even worse.
There is really no good choice, especially in a system where you can only decide between two corrupt parties whose primary objective is to enrich themselves, gain more power and push idiotic moral views (mostly anchored to a decaying and rotting superstition) on everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:4, Informative)
There is really no good choice, especially in a system where you can only decide between two corrupt parties whose primary objective is to enrich themselves, gain more power and push idiotic moral views (mostly anchored to a decaying and rotting superstition) on everyone.
Douglas Adams got it right. The only person qualified to hold positions of power are those that don't want it.
"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Re: Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
And unfortunately for all of us, they are just as bad, if not even worse.
Really? Please show me the grand jury subpoena that was filed during the Obama administration in an attempt to unmask someone who annoyed a Democratic congressman.
Both sides are not the same. That doesn't mean either side is wonderful, it means there are significant differences, and insisting they are the same is the way you fight to keep the status quo.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They assume everyone is just as bad as they are.
Pretty much. In effect, that makes them a lot worse than anybody else.
Re: (Score:3)
Radical left?
I didn't know the CPUSA is still relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. From here it looks like they operate as members of Congress, the media, teachers, and school boards.
But that's just how it looks, right? Not like they actually come out and say that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, and Obama was in office twice as long as trump, and actually working as a President, not a reality show host
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Was someone under the impression that Russia, along with every other major power in the world, didn't try to influence our election outcomes? That isn't a significant finding, it isn't even news. It also isn't collusion or anything gate without Presidential collusion. And Mueller found evidence of attempts to INFLUENCE not to INTERFERE. Interfere would imply some sort of active attempt to disrupt the process beyond information campaigns. Further, this largely to
Re: Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:5, Informative)
Both sides cast votes in the name of dead people.
Is there any serious study of the prevalence of this in Republicans vs Democrats? Because, anecdotally at least, post southern strategy it seems to be mostly Republicans who do that. Take, for example, the story in the news right now of the Trump supporter who voted in the name of his missing wife who he is now accused of murdering. Sure, it's just one data point, but if you add up all the data points, what do they add up to?
Re: (Score:2)
In this example, they add up to one.
Re: (Score:2)
"but if you add up all the data points, what do they add up to?"
Not much. When you add up all the fraudulent votes on both sides, there's only convincing evidence for a handful on both sides.
Re: (Score:3)
Selection Bias. There's a reason the plural of anecdote is not data. The media only tends to report vote fraud when it's provably committed by someone on the right. When it's on the left, they cry "no evidence" while ignoring significant circumstantial evidence.
Your post is a fine example of selection bias.
Re: Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time election officials either R or D look for vote fraud they find more committed by Rs than by Ds.
There's no partisan bias here if even the Rs find more R fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Citation seriously needed. Looking at the Heritage Foundation's database [heritage.org], there are maybe slightly more cases involving Republicans than Democrats, but the cases involving Democrats tend to involve hugely higher numbers.
For example, California convicted a couple of Republicans for falsely claiming residency when registering as candidates. But the first page also has this case [djournal.com], where 66 of 84 absentee ballots were wrongly included and public officials (including the
Re: Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
In your first example, it was a tiny local election for Alderman with 317 total votes. As far as I can tell the intimidation was statutory since there was a rule requiring candidates to be more than 150 feet from the polling place and they were not. Also, the Mayor was an independent. I could not find out what party the police chief belonged to. Also, it looks like the original loser who filed the suit and then won due to the suit was actually a democrat. The fraud in that case was just that the Notary who was notarizing absentee ballots was doing it without the voter present (which, honestly makes the whole system there sound a little messed up if you have to be present to submit an absentee ballot), but it does not sound like they were doing it in favor of one party or another, and I can't find anything suggesting that the notary had a political affiliation.
Your second example is also for tiny local elections with at most 270 total votes. This one is pretty egregious though, with a judge of elections fraudulently voting in exchange for bribes. It is completely unclear how it happened though. Apparently he just went into a booth and voted over and over while no-one was looking, but that implies either an election without registered voters or that he made up a bunch of fake voters to use. Those are not characteristics of typical national elections. Ok, some more information. This ballot stuffing was in Democratic primaries. So this is not really a valid example since there were nothing but Democrats involved in the first place. It also showcases something weird about US elections. Real primary elections involve all the potential candidates from any party. Party primaries are not real elections, they are just a way for the parties to game the system by backing just one candidate in the real election. How parties pick their candidates should just be an intra-party matter that is regulated only by their own internal rules. Many states seem to tread it that way, but others have some bizarre bastardized system where they treat Democrat and Republican primaries as part of the actual election (thereby further institutionalizing the broken two-party system). It's just messed up.
So, basically both of your examples are pretty flawed. We're really talking about general elections, not primaries. That is the problem with counting something like this of course, it really does matter a lot what criteria you set at the start.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aw, are you not getting enough "good" attention?
Maybe you can be line Nunez and have your president search them out...
Oh, right he is no longer in office, bummer for you
Re: (Score:2)
So you're claiming a post alleging Leftist conspiracy was unfairly voted down despite providing no evidence? You could have at least improved the post and tried to justify the claim as right now this post looks an awful lot like flamebait nonsense.
Of course the post you copied even makes the point that asking for evidence makes me a bad guy so we'll see what I get here.
You've got Fox News, Newsmax, OAN (Score:3)
Dave for a handful of late night comedy shows the right wing dominate American media. If there's no reports of Dem voter fraud that's because there's nothing to report.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an abuse of power really. There's no legal recourse to it, because that's how our system works.
However:
“For individual members of Congress to highlight political speech they do not like and demand cable distributors engage in viewpoint discrimination sets a terrible precedent," Fox said.
Being that is not what they did. Like- at fucking all, you almost have to wonder how much the system is supposed to tolerate before it tries to excise the cancer.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no TWO representatives just brought up a talking point, which got turned down.
vs the Justice Department doing actual actions to restrict freedom of speech.
The House of Representatives covers a lot of much smaller communities, from backwater rural redneck areas, to major city areas. And they are addressing the concerns of their area. If the Rural Redneck where the average Education Level is 8th grade, they often will have an some Far Right GOP, who will push all the conspiracies and crap they believe.
Re: (Score:2)
They wrote letters to the networks. How is that not merely exercising freedom of speech?
I suppose there might be concern that it would be followed by regulation or other retaliation, but as you say that would be unconstitutional... So once elected people aren't allowed to have opinions?
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I'm not surprised Barr was trying to out their faithful lackey's Twitter prankster. Poor Devin just couldn't deal with a labeled parody account making
Re: Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:4, Informative)
Bitch please nobody has been charged with treason. They couldn't even charge the Rosenbergs with treason.
Re: Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:5, Informative)
The Espionage Act is encoded in Chapter 31 of Title 18 of the United States Code. It is an extension of the Defense Secrets Act of 1911, and has absolutely nothing to do with treason.
They are not the same thing.
It's really sad that people grow up to be as ignorant as you. It's no wonder you evolve into gross little partisan hacks.
Re: Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's horse shit.
Just because the abuse of power is important doesn't mean that spreading misinformation is OK.
And obama charged whistleblowers with treason to silence them. In fact more charges of treason than any president before him. Imagine that, this administration abused secret courts like FISA in order to spy on their political rivals.
Nobody was charged with treason.
They were charged with divulging defense secrets.
FISA court abuse is also an entirely separate issue that exists outside of the domain of "in order to spy on their political rivals"
A member of a Presidential campaign was communicating with known foreign intelligence operatives, and that campaign had literally had the audacity to ask the said hostile foreign power for help in its election.
Sure that's all blowhard bullshit, but still: The DOJ did their job, and anyone who thinks they shouldn't investigate that shit is the lowest fucking form of political filth.
FISA abuses are real. And they happen every fucking day. Trying to tie them to some imagined political corruption is not helpful.
Just like calling every fucking person you don't like a traitoris not fucking helpful.
Until we start slapping these dumb fuckers when they say stupid shit, it will be fucking impossible to have an actual conversation about what's really going on, because there's no fucking agreed upon reality anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
omg your such a child.
Unlikely. Even a child is generally taught the basic English homonyms at an early age. A stage I see you skipped.
Maybe if you actually served in the military you would have a better understanding that spying against your country is treason.
No. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of opinions from dim-witted washout E2s.
The point is the abuse of power in order to silence whistleblowers.
It's not an abuse of power.
It's the use of a bad fucking law for its intended purpose.
Attack the stupid fucking law- the Espionage Act, which literally exists because treason does not cover divulging defense secrets.
Using a FISA court to spy on a political rival.
The FISA court is abused every day against people. You just don't give a shit, because you didn't v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you are so caught up in tribalism
If being ideologically opposed to overtly corrupt politicians is a tribe, then yes, I'm in it.
you still think Im a member of the 'other tribe'.
You're right. I don't know that you're one of the people who is for overtly corrupt politicians.
I'm judging you based on the level of misinformation you're flinging.
Since it is high, and since your original post that I objected to was literally a Tucker Carlson rant diluted in dishwater, I figured my assumption was safe.
If it was not, forgive me. But it doesn't change anything.
Youre litterally sitting there, typing with rage, convinced Im some perceived political enemy.
Nope. I think you, as an ignorant f
Re: (Score:2)
>>omg your such a child
My, how childish... and you expect us to read any of the rest of your gibberish?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump still wins for committing the most treason. Plus an insurrection to boot.
Trump was not found guilty of treason in a court of law.
Re:Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Au contraire, the alt-right *love* Israel; it's a place they can send the Jews to get rid of them without all the bad PR that resulted from the camps.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Au contraire, the alt-right *love* Israel; it's a place they can send the Jews to get rid of them without all the bad PR that resulted from the camps.
And the Jews attack the Muslims, and they can't get enough of that particular mechanic. The alt-right gets to point and say "See, they're doing it too, so it's okay that we want to engage in ethnic cleansing".
Re: (Score:3)
Plus there is the super-Christian added bonus of the Jews rebuilding the Temple of Solomon and triggering the end of times, which any good alt-righter masturbates to nightly
they really are irredeemably corrupted
Re: (Score:2)
The proper legal process for "such a thing"? It really depends on what "such a thing" is. If "such a thing" is a serious investigation of a suspected crime, then sure. If no crime was legitimately suspected, then no, they did not follow the proper legal process for "such a thing" because there is no proper legal process for a corrupt attempt to abuse the legal system to attack a critic. Now, you can claim that there's no way to discern intent, but the legal system in fact attempts to do that all the time. T
Re:Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You literally excused using the government judicial office (which suppose to protect and represent citizens and to protect the constitution) to probably harass a citizen exercising his/her constitutional right for a free speech to a company exercising it's right to enforce it's rules to ban a melting snowflake calling for violence from it's platform.
Way to go Mr.
Re:Freedom & small government, uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberties, rights, and democracy are all optional extras that will be discarded at the first chance in the game of politics. The only way that politicians will respect the norms of governance is if the citizens demand it. Instead what we have are a set of apathetic voters, voters with an us-versus-them mentality, and voters with just plain nutcake views, and modern politicians are catering to them. Now Nunes may indeed be a nutcake and a true believer in his delusions, but many politicians are just pandering.
What citizens need to do is object when politicians trample on our liberties or our democracy, even when that politicians is one of the ones you like1 That is, if you are a Republican fan in the stands with red face paint then you must boo when your team cheats. If you are a Democrat in the stands with blue face pain then you must boo when your team cheats also. Stop cheering when your side tramples on the other players, carries the ball when the refs aren't looking, and other sportsing analogies. In short the citizens need to stop being sports hooligans and demand better from the players.
Re: (Score:2)
...and 70 million other US Twitter users remind you they find it, whatever it is, wherever they can.
You are free to stick to MSNBC and CNN. Freedom is a twisted thing, no?
Re: (Score:3)
I think that it's fair to argue that, in general, people on the alt-right are more likely to be racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, bully, promote violence, promote rape, promote murder, etc. As a group, they seem to be more likely to engage in the things that are against the policies on social media platforms. You can argue that somehow that makes the social media platforms skewed towards the far left, but it seems to me that it's just that they're skewed towards politeness and civil discourse.
It's s
Inb4 whatabout Obama DOJ subpoenaing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, it's very different when someone tries to incite violence against a sitting senator
Citation needed
Re: (Score:2)
Devin? is that you?
fuck off you simpleton
Re: (Score:2)
None of those examples are anything like the example from The Fine Article. All of those had national security issues. You can come down on any side of those you want. Personally, I tend to come down on the side of whistleblowers and think that, for example, Manning should have been pardoned. As it was, Obama only commuted the sentence rather than a pardon. I don't recall anything about Trump pardoning any of those people. War criminals, sure, but we know how Trump felt about leakers. Anyway, the examples y
I'm not sure what's scarier (Score:3)
The Justice Department employing unconstitutional tactics to silence free speech, or Twitter erecting themselves as the last rampart to defend the 1st amendment...
Re: (Score:3)
Lol. You said erecting.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the often overlooked elements of free speech is freedom from *compelled* speech. For example cannot force an adult American to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. That is just as much a First Amendment right as the freedom to express your own opinion on the commons.
Twitter policing speech on its own turf is actually them exercising their First Amendment rights. I know it feels like Twitter is the commons, and so it feels like their polices violate your rights, but that's just not the case.
Re:I'm not sure what's scarier (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who gives a flying fuck if some dimwitted politician is no longer welcome on some fucking internet forum is too fucking stupid to form an opinion on a topic as complicated as freedom of speech.
You know what the difference between the FBI and Twitter is?
Twitter can't break into your fucking home and kill you for suspicion of a crime.
He's been suing a cow (Score:4, Informative)
Did it have a cool name (Score:2)
Nunes is a tool (Score:3)
Nunes doesn't do anything but make noise, he hasn't done anything whatsoever for his constituents. Needs big daddy gov to save him from ridicule, what a tool.
Please stop (Score:2)
not the darkest (Score:2)
I'm glad to know I don't live in the darkest timeline.
CIA Manual for Psychological Operations (Score:3)
I'm not providing a link because I don't want to provide explicit targets. The pdf can be readily and easily found.
pg. 6 - 7
"5. Development and Control of the "Front" Organizations
The development and control of "front" (or facade) organizations is
carried out through subjective internal control at group meetings of "inside
cadres," and the calculations of the time for the fusion of these combined
efforts to be applied to the masses.
Established citizens-doctors, lawyers, businessmen, teachers, etc.- will
be recruited initially as "Social Crusaders" in typically "innocuous"
movements in the area of operations. When their "involvement" with the
clandestine organization is revealed to them, this supplies the psychological
pressure to use them as "inside cadres" in groups to which they already
belong or of which they can be members.
Then they will receive instruction in techniques of persuasion over
control of target groups to support our democratic revolution, through a
gradual and skillful process. A cell control system isolates individuals from
one another, and at the appropriate moment, their influence is used for the
fusion of groups in a united national front.
6. Control of Meetings and Mass Assemblies
The control of mass meetings in support of guerrilla warfare is carried
out internally through a covert commando element, bodyguards, messengers,
shock forces (initiators of incidents), placard carriers (also used for making
signals), shouters of slogans, everything under the control of the outside
commando element.
When the cadres are placed or recruited in organizations such as labor
unions, youth groups agrarian organizations or professional associations,
they will begin to manipulate the objectives of the groups. The
psychological apparatus of our movement through inside cadres prepares a
mental attitude which at the crucial moment can be turned into a fury of
justified violence.
Through a small group of guerrillas infiltrated within the masses this
can be carried out; they will have the mission of agitating by giving the
impression that there are many of them and that they have a large popular
backing. Using the tactics of a force of 200-300 agitators, a demonstration
can be created in which 10,000-20,000 persons take part."
Double Standard? (Score:3)
So Twitter protects NunesAlt as exercising his First Amendment rights. When Twitter banned Trump (who was also exercising his First Amendment rights), the entire Left side came to their aid saying as a private company Twitter is not compelled to allow Free Speech. It seems you have Free Speech on Twitter as long as they like what you are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I thought we were all aware of the 50+ losses in courts.
No. I'm aware of many court cases ruled 'no standing', 'laches' and 'moot'; it seems to me that the US court system is unwilling or incapable of protecting elections.
Maybe if the courts actually heard the evidence and ruled on it we might have had closure by now.
Cautionary Tale for Canada (Score:2)
Yet more of Trump shitting on the Constitution (Score:3)
The best thing that could happen right now is for the Republican party to split off into the 'real' Republicans, and the 'Trump party'. Then everyone will know who are the power-grubbing traitors (the latter) and who are the actual patriots (the former).
Re:Still milking Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
They would not be able to "milk those sweet sweet Trump outrage clicks" if he didn't even tried to make those "sweet sweet outrages". Like my grand-mother said in her time in much nicer words: "When you are a dick, don't blame other who say that you are a dick".
Re:Still milking Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still milking Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump's Big Lie is simply virtue signalling for a Republican dictatorship.
That sounds about right given that according to the Trumpublicans there are two kinds of election results, (a) elections they win and (b) electoral victories that are 'unfairly stolen' from then through electoral fraud perpetrated by George Soros, the deep state and the lizard people. Eventually they'll decide to end this 'democracy' thing and press for elections where only a single Republican candidate, approved by the dear (and most orange) leader, is allowed to stand, a Bible in one hand, a gun in the ot
Re: (Score:2)
And he doesn't even have to hold the Bible right-side up to get the effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still milking Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
Regarding that third thing that remains persistent on a society desperate enough to want and need it, remember his Democratic predecessor ran and won on basically the exact same concept, preying on a nation completely fucked by politics to follow a leader promising Hope and Change.
MAGA is NOT "hope and change", though. It's "turn back the clock to benefit white people". It's more about preventing change than instigating it.
MAGA types are of course in deep denial about this. But the simple truth is that in the past, America was better for het white males and worse for everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
If something isn't working, we can either stay the same (and have it keep not working), try something new that we haven't tried before, or go back to something we've done in the past.
The last option is rarely palatable since all of the reasons it were abandoned are well known. So usually what one does is promote a *variation* of what was done in the past that might be devoid of the negative aspects
As an example, if a particular food additive were shown to be ve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She's just moving the party away from Trump now that he's served his purpose
No, she isn't. Trump is moving her away from the party. And all he has to do is exist and let her dig her own hole.
The only hope for the sane at this point is that adherence to Trump will sink the Republican party.
Re: (Score:2)
And by Purged you mean she's still a US senator and still likely to coast to reelection
She is neither.
She is a Representative, and her stance that "overthrowing the government is wrong" has made her not very popular in her district. She will probably lose her primary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still milking Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Trump will not stop going off about the election. The GOP is holding up Trump as the leader of their party. How can they simultaneously have "more important things to focus on" and Trump as their leader? If the leader of the party talks about it pretty much every single time he makes any sort of public statement, then how is Cheney somehow the one who won't drop it.
Also, can you elaborate on what these conspiracy theories Cheney was going on about were?
Re: (Score:2)
The simple fact is that they claimed they were tossing Cheney out of leadership because she kept talking about it rather than letting it die in the past. Meanwhile, the leader of the Republican party would not stop talking about it. Your deflections are pointless, the truth is that Cheney was kicked out for not being politically correct (the original definition of the term). The current Republican party line is to tacitly accept Trumps claims by not speaking out against them. They try to maintain plausible
Re:Still milking Trump (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still milking Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
It's entirely possible to admire the fact she stood up to the Big Lie without agreeing with everything else she's ever said or done.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheney represents the powerful and deceitful
Ya. She does.
Which is way different than Trump... I guess?
Your definition for "establishment" seems to be "not a complete fucking moron"
Re: (Score:3)
For example Dick Cheney might have been a dick in many regards, but there were moments where people with a more Liberal inclination would have agreed with him.
For example in 2004 Bush sought to amend the Constitution to include a ban on Same Sex Marriage. Cheney did not support Bush in that instance.
According to Cheney everyone should be given the same freedoms on the federal level and it would be up to the individual states to decide how they handle marriage.
This go
Re: (Score:2)
Being a traitor is basically required by Critical Theory.
In the movie What About Bob, the main character is cured by his Dr.'s book Baby Steps despite only reading the title on the front cover.
That sounds about as in-depth as your understanding of Critical Theory. Our government is about the perfect setup for Critical Theory, because freedom of speech is so highly valued. The ability to hold nothing sacred and actually discuss the relative faults and merits of laws and ideas are exactly what we are set up to do. The Constitution has within itself a framework f
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Insightful)
More like Nunes (of the rugged individualist party) got his panties in a bunch because someone was making fun of him. So Nunes decided to call in some favors over hurt feelings. I sincerely doubt a satire twitter account was leaking confidential information. If that were true then someone would have archived the original post since the internet doesn't forget.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's literally zero content to this article outside of conjecture.
What are you talking about? The first paragraph of the article links to a court document. The first sentence of said document is:
The government has issued a subpoena (the “Subpoena”) for “[a]ll customer or subscriber account information ”for the Twitter user @NunesAlt (the “Account”) from October 1, 2020 to present.
Re:Where's the beef? (Score:5, Interesting)
It appears to Twitter that the Subpoena may be related to Congressman Devin Nunes’s repeated efforts to unmask individuals behind parody accounts critical of him. His efforts to suppress critical speech are as well-publicized as they are unsuccessful. He recently sued Twitter, attempting to hold it liable for speech by the parody Twitter accounts @DevinCow, @DevinNunesMom , @fireDevinNunes , and @DevinGrapes , and asking the court in that case to order Twitter to disclose information identifying those accounts. Each of these accounts were engaged in anonymous political speech critical of Congressman Nunes.
Given Congressman Nunes’s numerous attempts to unmask his anonymous critics on Twitter — described in detail herein — Twitter is concerned that this Subpoena is but another mechanism to attack its users’ First Amendment rights. Recent litigation also alleges that Congressman Nunes may be using the government to unmask his critics.
I really can't see any explanation for your post other than that you're deliberately lying.
Re: (Score:3)
> There's literally zero content to this article outside of conjecture.
Only technically. If you read the linked PDF, exhibit G, it says that the issue being investigated is "Criminal Threatening".
They are asking Twitter to reveal the name of the person who allegedly committed this crime.
Twitter says, "no, this is just Nunes doing his civil lawsuits again."
The judge isn't going to buy this argument. The USADC office told Twitter to get bent and comply on 1/27/2021 - this is Biden Administration manageme
Re: (Score:2)
This sicko must have loved "The Passion of the Christ".
Re:Impersonating government is not a “critic (Score:2)
Doesn't Twitter offer an 'authenticated' checkmark? Why would anyone using Twitter assume that anything unverified was real?
Re: (Score:2)
They suspended that program during most of Trump's Presidency because it appeared as if Twitter was giving legitimacy to the conspiracy theories posted by specific real people.
Re:The real story here is that... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Is a subpoena to find out what kinds of wildlife lurk in Dorsey's beard. I mean, there have to be plenty as yet undiscovered species therein. If they sustain themselves on old mayonnaise they could thrive.
Maybe some lice and a gerbil or two.
Re:Okay for Obama to spy on Trump but not this ? (Score:5, Informative)
A subpeona is a public out-in-the-open thing.
You must have missed the second sentence of the summary. Emphasis mine:
But Twitter fought the subpoena, as well as an associated gag order barring the company from talking about it publicly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)