YouTube Censors Senate Floor Speech With Whistleblower's Name (thehill.com) 382
SonicSpike shares a report from The Hill: YouTube has removed a video from its platform that shows Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) stating on the Senate floor the name of a person who conservative media have suggested is the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the impeachment inquiry of President Trump. The company, home to millions of hours of video content, said in a statement on Thursday that "videos, comments, and other forms of content that mention the leaked whistleblower's name" violate its community guidelines and will be removed from the site. "We've removed hundreds of videos and over ten thousand comments that contained the name. Video uploaders have the option to edit their videos to exclude the name and reupload," Ivy Choi, a spokesperson, said in the statement, which was first reported by Politico.
The video clip removed by YouTube comes from the Senate impeachment trial, when Paul mentioned a name that has circulated in conservative media as the whistleblower. Paul did so after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts declined to read a question he submitted including that person's name. Paul says he does not know if the name he said on the Senate floor is the whistleblower's or not, but he said it was wrong for his speech to be censored. "It is a chilling and disturbing day in America when giant web companies such as YouTube decide to censure speech," he said in a statement. "Now, even protected speech, such as that of a senator on the Senate floor, can be blocked from getting to the American people. This is dangerous and politically biased. Nowhere in my speech did I accuse anyone of being a whistleblower, nor do I know the whistleblower's identity." Important to note: Federal whistleblowers are protected from retaliation by the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). "This law protects federal employees who disclose illegal or improper government activities," notes Study.com. "Generally, this means the government can't fire, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or discriminate against a whistleblower."
The video clip removed by YouTube comes from the Senate impeachment trial, when Paul mentioned a name that has circulated in conservative media as the whistleblower. Paul did so after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts declined to read a question he submitted including that person's name. Paul says he does not know if the name he said on the Senate floor is the whistleblower's or not, but he said it was wrong for his speech to be censored. "It is a chilling and disturbing day in America when giant web companies such as YouTube decide to censure speech," he said in a statement. "Now, even protected speech, such as that of a senator on the Senate floor, can be blocked from getting to the American people. This is dangerous and politically biased. Nowhere in my speech did I accuse anyone of being a whistleblower, nor do I know the whistleblower's identity." Important to note: Federal whistleblowers are protected from retaliation by the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). "This law protects federal employees who disclose illegal or improper government activities," notes Study.com. "Generally, this means the government can't fire, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or discriminate against a whistleblower."
Buckle in boys (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure there'll be plenty of reasonable discussion here on /.
Re:Buckle in boys (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we're long overdue for extending the 1st amendment protections to citizens who use the predominant media of the day for daily communication; namely all these public access platforms.
We need to start looking at how corporations exert the kind of power formerly reserved for governments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was a statement made in the houses of government. Google censoring it, is as evil as fuck.
Brought to you today, Google's version of what the government is saying and doing, don't worry, you wont hear or see anything the executives of Google do not agree with.
Wow the corruption of the democratic process right their, talk about bloody evil. When the government says it, the citizens have a FUCKING RIGHT to hear it, you fuckers at google. Evil is as evil does, not their choice.
Re:Buckle in boys (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a statement made in the houses of government. Google censoring it, is as evil as fuck.
As the discussion here seems to be focused on the First Amendment, it's important to note that Google, YouTube, or whatever non-government entity you want to talk about, has a First Amendment right to determine what speech is broadcast on their platform.
Brought to you today, Google's version of what the government is saying and doing, don't worry, you wont hear or see anything the executives of Google do not agree with.
Then go elsewhere. I do that. (Fox News viewers generally don't though.)
Wow the corruption of the democratic process right their, talk about bloody evil. When the government says it, the citizens have a FUCKING RIGHT to hear it, you fuckers at google. Evil is as evil does, not their choice.
The First Amendment protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other. Or from Google. Or Google from us.
Re: (Score:3)
As the discussion here seems to be focused on the First Amendment, it's important to note that Google, YouTube, or whatever non-government entity you want to talk about, has a First Amendment right to determine what speech is broadcast on their platform.
A corporation has no natural rights at all, because it is not a natural person. It has exactly the rights that we the people choose to give it in law, no ore, no less. No amendments apply in any way.
The First Amendment protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.
You and I are humans with right, a corporation is not. "Natural person" is the legal term for a living human being, that is, a person with rights. "Legal person" is the broader category. Legal persons have no natural rights, not being natural persons. Could this be more clear?
We currently give Google righ
Re: Buckle in boys (Score:4, Informative)
they can choose what is on their platform (as you say), BUT!!! then they are ALSO RESPONSIBLE for the content they DON'T CENSOR!
That is incorrect. Federal law protects them from responsibility despite censoring content they deem objectionable; the Communications Decency Act Section 230.
47 U.S.C. 230 [cornell.edu] that states:
Re: (Score:2)
When the government says it, the citizens have a FUCKING RIGHT to hear it, you fuckers at google.
That's right. But the people do not have a right to compel Google to provide even the tiniest iota of assistance. You want to hear it; go sit in the gallery at the US Senate, or find someone willing to let you know what was said.
Re: (Score:3)
I completely agree with both you, and GP. I think that it is possible to be evil and legal simultaneously—they are not mutually exclusive, and they do not concern the same properties, nor should we attempt to make one into the other. Allowing some small decoupling between the two is part of a healthy system .
However, I have the opinion that, given the balance of power in today's society, the rapid adoption of technology, and the increasing reliance on it to be heard at all, spaces that are advertised
Re: (Score:2)
I meant to say a small decoupling between morals and law, but it seems I implied evil and law.
Strangely still appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be correct, except that Google is pretending it's a platform or common carrier so it isn't liable for all the crap it does not censor. Once you start censoring one viewpoint over the other (which does not extend to stuff that's clearly illegal you fuck-wits), you're editorializing and you're liable for all the content posted.
Re: (Score:3)
That's right. But the people do not have a right to compel Google to provide even the tiniest iota of assistance.
Google has no right to exist, except as we provide one. We have every right to compel Google to do any thing that it pleases us to so compel, as a condition for allowing it to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't they both be evil is fuck?
Google does democracy a disservice by censoring speech directly from the floor of one of our most important government institutions. The correct remedy is to not dance to Google's tune like children after the Pied Piper. Their attempts to use their position to influence the availability of information on the actual events taking place within our government are evil. I am of the opinion that we need to redefine the relationship between corporations, physical human beings, and
Re: (Score:3)
According to most scholars and lawyers, the whistleblower would not fall under protection because they did not follow proper protocol. Whistleblowing is very specific and very limited. The Inspector General reviewed the whistleblower report and decided it was too politically charged to be admissible, instead the whistleblower went to Schiff, Vindman and apparently journalists to blab about it, at that point the whistleblower no longer has the protection of the law.
Re: (Score:3)
So someone starts a rumor, which is then disproved by official records, and they still deserve "whistleblower" protection?
Or is this just Adam Schiff's parody of how whistleblower protections are supposed to work?
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're long overdue for extending the 1st amendment protections to citizens who use the predominant media of the day for daily communication; namely all these public access platforms.
We need to start looking at how corporations exert the kind of power formerly reserved for governments.
No.
Just no.
We need to teach the fucking herd that social media is not to be taken seriously.
It's not YouTube .gov
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly do you plan to teach the herd that they themselves are not to be taken seriously?
More reality TV?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no actual law governing the disclosure of whistle blowers name.
This is something the media and 'social media' platforms have been using to censor information.
The actual protection to a whistle blower extends to discrimination and termination. This isn't actually applicable in this case, but the media wants to pretend it is a legal precedent to discourage retaliation.
There is nothing stopping anyone from disclosing this information legally and any organization censoring it is operating in a manner t
Re:Buckle in boys (Score:5, Informative)
Retaliation against a whistleblower may not just take the form of sanctions from their employer. If the whistleblower's name is published, it could lead to online smears, death threats, or worse. It is reasonable for a media-outlet to exercise discretion when a whistleblower could come to serious harm if their identity is exposed. Media are free to restrain themselves voluntarily, even if the law allows them to do something.
During the 1979-1981 Iran hostage crisis, a Montreal newspaper discovered that 6 US diplomats were holed up in the Canadian embassy in Tehran. Canadian officials learned of the story and pleaded with the paper not to publish the story. The dilemma was obvious: exposing the truth would place people in danger, but burying the story would be a violation of freedom of the press. In the end, the reporter refused to file his story, and he had support at the paper. Instead, the story was delayed until the 6 Americans were spirited out of Iran, posing as Canadian citizens.
Sometimes it's appropriate for the media to practice discretion.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If it were reasonable to believe the widespread disclosure of Eric Ciaramella's name would result in serious harm to Eric Ciaramella, then people could point to the actual serious harm caused to Eric Ciaramella by the already-widespread disclosure of his name as evidence.
They of course can't, which makes it clear the belief isn't reasonable. People still persisting in refusing to allow the use of Eric Ciaramella's name are being censorious asses for no remotely-rational reason.
Re: Buckle in boys (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone is willing to walk into a pizza parlor with a loaded AR-15 because they heard on the internet it had an underground sex ring involving major political figures, it's reasonable to assume there are people out there crazy enough to go after the whistleblower.
Re:Buckle in boys (Score:4, Insightful)
Retribution for an illegal coup attempt? How shocking!
"You come at the king, you best not miss." - Omar
Re: Buckle in boys (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except when carveouts related to privately owned public spaces are created, which exist today in other forms in the analog world, and it's just a matter of time before they are brought to the digital one as well.
No, I'm not advocating for it, I just recognize the direction we are headed.
Re: (Score:2)
At least the odds of it being taken down on /. and the poster cancelled over it is up around, oh, Powerball territory...
The ol' non-RTFM dupe-factory might have faults, but aside from one specific instance in its entire 23+ year history (due to a court-issued C&D, IIRC), they haven't taken anything down that I'm aware of.
Re: (Score:3)
And this is why we keep coming back. There's just nowhere else... Soylent News is the backup to Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Soylent news is only a backup if you are missing misogynistic and racist viewpoints on any given topic.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't have Good Censorship without Bad Censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you are free to ignore it. But I'd prefer to use my own brain to decide, rather than ceding my agency and critical thought to another.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no legal requirement to censor the name of a whistle blower.
If Slashdot were to censor the name they would be engaging in a mechanism that is in use for a publisher and not a platform provider. They should therefor lose their protection as a public voice.
Then they would be guilty of any publication that was at odds with the system of law.
Provided they act as a publisher and do no censor posts then they can claim to be just a publisher and not at risk of acting discriminator in their selection of pu
Re: (Score:2)
Ooops, I meant act as a platform and not a publisher to avoid the risk of discriminatory actions.
I wish I could edit posts....
Re: (Score:2)
If Slashdot were to censor the name they would be engaging in a mechanism that is in use for a publisher and not a platform provider. They should therefor lose their protection as a public voice.
Then they would be guilty of any publication that was at odds with the system of law.
Provided they act as a publisher and do no censor posts then they can claim to be just a publisher and not at risk of acting discriminator in their selection of published content.
You are totally wrong, you ignorant fuck.
Federal law strongly protects Internet services that engage in moderating their content, specifically and expressly in order to encourage them to do so. (The original idea was that they wanted services to censor porn, and had to give them protection to get them to do it)
It's at 47 USC 230, if you're interested in reading it and, contrary to appearances, have the wits needed to google for it.
Re: Buckle in boys (Score:4, Informative)
Nope! The safe harbor covers everything! The operative language is at 47 USC 230(c):
What you're failing miserably to do is to look at the statute in the relevant context.
In traditional media, publishers knew what was in the books and periodicals they printed, and had editorial discretion not to print, or to edit, and therefore, as publishers, were liable for what was in the printed matter. A bookstore, on the other hand, merely sells books, often without a thorough knowledge of their contents, and so is not liable, unless it actually knows or has reason to know of what it's selling that's problematic.
As this was applied to computer bulletin boards, the rule developed that if you do not know, and have no reason to know, of what's being posted on your board, and aren't moderating it in the slightest (not even for spam, malware, or illegal content), then you aren't liable for it. But if you do know, or have reason to know, and you are moderating, even just a little, then you're treated as a publisher and face liability for everything, even the things you miss or moderate incorrectly. This results in everyone making a beeline for no moderation at all.
The law directly quoted above says that the providers of the service (e.g. webmasters, etc.) are just not to be treated as publishers of information that comes from someone else, period, the end, because liability comes from being a "publisher." Furthermore, so long as they are blocking "otherwise objectionable" material in "good faith," they also face no civil liability.
Whether something is objectionable is up to the service. It says so right in subsection (c)(2). Acting in good faith is pretty damn easy, and certainly applies here. There is not a single word in the law that requires that it only apply to obscene or pornographic content. It's way broader. Further, for about 25 years now, court after court after court has upheld its use in just this way.
So good try, but maybe try harder next time, loser.
Re: Buckle in boys (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where does this fall under "taken in good faith" or "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable?"
It is clearly not in good faith, since it blocks only a single viewpoint. It is clearly not obscene content.
Correction: ERIC CIARAMELLA (Score:4, Informative)
Washington Examiner [washingtonexaminer.com] uses Eric Ciaramella's name. You can find the correct spelling there =)
He also said medicare payment was slavery. (Score:3, Informative)
By the way he was dropped out of college and his father in law created a board to certify him as an ophthalmologist. If there was a fair God he would be in jail for practicing medicine without license and billing the government for services he was not qualified to provide.
Doctors don't have to take Medicare (Score:5, Informative)
Rand Paul is a terrible person.
Re: Doctors don't have to take Medicare (Score:3)
It's disadvantageous to everyone else.
Medicare will only pay for a percentage of what something is worth. Usually about 25%. So providers have to list their prices at an exuberant amount so that 25% is closer to 100%. Insurance companies know this, so they are able to negotiate down.
However, if you are paying cash for a procedure, for all this too work you have to pay the exuberant amount. No price cuts for you. So they get to deal with defaults and bankruptcies from patients who can't pay and pay up the
Re: (Score:3)
No price cuts for you.
This is not true. I've done software work for a hospital billing company and yes, the charges were set to high multiples of what Medicare would pay. But if someone was self-pay, they instantly got something like a 66% discount, which brings it back down closer to what commercial insurers would pay.
Re:He also said medicare payment was slavery. (Score:4, Interesting)
'his father in law created a board to certify him as an ophthalmologist.'
That may or may not be true, but is it really germane?
The question is, which is more evil.
Not allow recorded public record to be distributed on your platform.
Or
Provide protection for someone that spoke out [right or wrong] for something
that they though needed to be investigated.
And, how do you do no evil here?
Re: He also said medicare payment was slavery. (Score:3, Insightful)
Good, it's harassment plain and simple (Score:3, Informative)
Paul may be protected by the speech and debate clause but there are two big reasons why no social media should be helping this.
1. It is clearly intended to harass and threaten the whistleblower and anyone else who these trolls might choose to claim is the whistleblower.
2. What is known is that the whistleblower is an intelligence officer, that the source of the leaks of the person's name had to have come from a person who had signed an NDA to keep government secrets and vis a vis Valerie Plame, it is a Federal crime for someone with that knowledge to reveal the identity of the an intelligence officer in some situations.
Social media sites should not facilitate either of these crimes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He never reported these concerns to his supervisor, as is required of a whistle-blower. He reported them to the Democrat party. That is called a crony informant, not a whistle-blower.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good, it's harassment plain and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course he reported it to his supervisor. That's easily verified. Why would you even bother lying about a silly detail like that?
Lying about something easily verified and/or a silly detail (like crowd size)? You must be mistaken, surely no one would do that -- and certainly not over 14,000 times in just 3 years. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be mistaken, surely no one would do that -- and certainly not over 14,000 times in just 3 years. :-)
That's just the court jester's job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He did and his supervisor (the Inspector General) decided that it was too politically slanted to be admissible as a whistleblower report.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He never reported these concerns to his supervisor, as is required of a whistle-blower. He reported them to the Democrat party.
No. He went through the proper channels and it took several days for the complaint to make its way to the House of Representatives.
But of course, low-information voters like you don't know a thing.
Crony Conspirator not Crony Informant ... (Score:5, Informative)
The rephrased question by Ron Johnson that Adam Schiff declined to answer: "Recent reporting described two NSC staff holdovers from the Obama Administration attending an all hands meeting of NSC staff held about two weeks into the Trump administration and talking loudly enough to be overheard saying, ‘We need to do everything we can to take out the President.’ On July 26, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee hired one of those individuals, Sean Misko. The report further describes relationships between Misko, Lt. Col. Vindman, and an individual alleged as the whistleblower. Why did your committee hire Sean Misko the day after the phone call between President Trump and Zelensky? And what role has he played throughout your committee’s investigation?"
If true that is a Crony Conspirator not Crony Informant.
Re: Good, it's harassment plain and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The name was not outed publicly by a government official. The NY Times published a description of who the whistleblower is (basically a resume without a name), and RealClearInvestigations [realcleari...ations.com] revealed the name shortly after. The third independent source was the impeachment inquiry itself when Schiff's team forgot to redact the name from one of the SCIF transcripts. From then on, it's been some weird 1984 dystopian censorship phenomena where no one at the MSM (including Fox News) dare utter Voldemort's name (
Re: (Score:2)
Can love of country overwhelm the
incessant lure of politics? Is there
anything that good people can
regard as sacred? I'm not sure that
anyone is willing to set aside
mendacity in the search for honesty,
especially in social media. The
lurid lights of internet-fame make the
least meaningful statement
akin to the utterances of a prophet.
Can't stop information - it wants to be free.
Re:Good, it's harassment plain and simple (Score:4, Informative)
To be a whistle blower you need 1st hand account of what happened.
Simply incorrect. Nowhere the WPA says that whistleblowers are protected only if they have first-hand knowledge.
And every allegation made by the whistleblower turned out to be correct.
Re:Good, it's harassment plain and simple (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, I forgot we're in Magic Libtard Land, where literally ZERO of the House's impeachment witnesses described any first hand accounts of the supposed Ukraine phone call, yet somehow all the left's sheep KNOW that it's true anyways.
Lt. Col Vindman was on the call and confirmed the veracity of the transcript that was released by Trump. You traitors simply can't face the truth of your treason.
Jesus Christ (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is Rand Paul so interested in this? (Score:2, Insightful)
You have a window in your office, and you see, or think you see, a possible mugging or a fight or whatever outside. You call the cops with "hey, I think I see a bad thing happening." A cop shows up on the street and finds victims and perps, and once he's on the scene he is learning way more than the useless tidbit you gave him and within seconds he's vastly better informed about what's happening than you are.
Why would anyone care about you anymore? You're already "obsolete." Thanks for the lead, but it you
Re: (Score:2)
You have an excellent question, I am not sure why this is still an active issue. What happened and how is a real issue, it amounted to an attempted coup. Which useful idiots happened to get used to implement it is hardly relevant, they would have found somebody - There was/is no shortage of people trying to smear the president with 3rd-hand or "made up from whole cloth" information.
I would also note that no one seems to bother to protect, say, Paula Jones, far from it, they plastered h
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except this situation is more like when you and a buddy worked together, someone was political opponents with your mutual friend and you said you were gonna get him arrested. Then a few months later after your buddy moved to the DA's staff, you called him up and discussed how to write-up a complain about that someone. Then right afterwards the DA changed the rules to allow for hearsay complaints (they used to require first-hand knowledge) and shortly afterwards you sent in a "tip" about how you heard from t
Re: (Score:3)
Except he didn't see a mugging or fight. He overheard someone talking about what looked like a mugging or fight. Then security camera footage showed something that might look like a mugging but might not, and the alleged victim states he wasn't mugged. His wallet was also still full of cash.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is still evil (Score:2, Flamebait)
This guy was outed long ago. The intention was for him to testify right up until it was discovered that he coordinated with Schiff's office. Schiff even publicly declared that there was a need for him to testify:
https://thefederalist.com/2019... [thefederalist.com]
Schiff then outed the rumormonger himself before redacting his name from a public transcript that was released:
https://noqreport.com/2019/11/... [noqreport.com]
Then you Chief Justice Roberts refusal to read a question that his name in it even though the question did not have any ref
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Next on the list is George Or (Score:3)
I know it! (Score:2)
The whistle-blower's name is ~ ` ^ &7 [NO CARRIER]
Slippery Slope (Score:2)
Censorship is evil. Censoring what goes on in Congress is wrong and pointless. This is a bad precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I mean, historically censorship has been evil because historically it's been the Big Bad State doing it. When it's a private corporation flexing its muscle to control discourse, that's a different animal because free speech includes the freedom to control the channels you own. Freedom is pretty messy in practice, it turns out.
Anyway, the point is, many consider the total control of owned resources by private entities to be an unmitigated benefit to society. Youtube's house, Youtube's rules.
Re: (Score:2)
The governments who censor would no doubt also claim to 'own' their channels of information. A coalition of private companies who control all channels of information could be just as harmful as a government in controlling the flow of information for their own benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you did there.
hahahahaha (Score:2)
You hypocrite fuck. You don't believe any of that bullshit, Rand.
Your father was 10x the libertarian you are, and he still had no problems calling the statist goons [techdirt.com] to ransack his supporters when it was to his benefit. Too bad they called bullshit and smacked him down [domainnamewire.com] roflmao.
It's just cheap talking points for your cynical game, the same as every other politician.
Trump wanted to face his accuser (Score:2)
Trump argued he had a right to know who the whistle blower was so he could "face his accuser." But the thing was, the whistle blower wasn't his accuser. His accuser was Congress. Wanting to name the whistle blower was always just about intimidation and retribution.
The sort of witness intimidation that Trump engaged in in the past, and seems to want to do now, is more reminiscent of the behavior of petty dictators and mobsters than a government leader. It's scary interesting how fast Americans have turned
Proof YouTube is a publisher, not a provider (Score:2)
Also the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) does not say anything about censoring to hide a whistleblowers name. So using that as an excuse isn't an excuse.
Barbara Streisand approves (Score:2)
Good job, YouTube!
Re:He Who Must Not Be Named (Score:5, Insightful)
Even before the Senator said his name, his lawyers received death threats. I'm sure that everyone's being nice and civil now that his name is out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
An impeachment trial is not a traditional legal trial. It had different rules, otherwise it would be a civil trial or criminal trial (which will hopefully happen after our orange sack of hair in chief loses re-election this fall). Different words for different purposes. I won't do your research for you, look up what exactly an impeachment trial is and educate yourself, please. You're making the rest of us look bad.
Re: (Score:2)
We all know it's that 'CIA' guy already. (Score:5, Insightful)
> An impeachment trial is not a traditional legal trial. It had different rules, otherwise it would be a civil trial or criminal trial (which will hopefully happen after our orange sack of hair in chief loses re-election this fall).
That's a poor excuse to ignore all manner of legal principles in conducting a political fishing expedition. Yes, yes, we know, you were trying to dig up whatever you could on his finances, but that's not been going so well and your friend "Reality Winner" got her ass arrested some time back.
> Different words for different purposes. I won't do your research for you, look up what exactly an impeachment trial is and educate yourself, please. You're making the rest of us look bad.
I know what it is, but I also know that it was never meant to be used like this. Clinton was impeached after being found guilty in court of perjury. He lied to try to avoid responsibility for sexually harassing one of his employees by pressuring her to sleep with him by telling the court falsely that he wasn't having 'sex' with Monica, so he just wasn't the sort of guy who would do such things.
You tried to impeach Trump on very general charges with the hope of thwarting his investigation into Biden & Romney's quid-pro-quo with the Ukraine. But I'm sure you think it's just coincidence that four in Congress have kids who work for Ukrainian oil companies, including those two and that they hired him for a huge amount when he had no actual experience. Right?
Re:Eric Ciaramella (Score:5, Insightful)
It would certainly have brought more clarity if the White House hadn't ordered most of the witnesses to ignore subpoenas.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It would bring even more clarity if the House committees actually had subpoena power, but since the House did not vote to grant that power - the summons they issued were merely requests, not subpoenas [apnews.com].
Furthermore, subpoenas which demand you do not have the right to counsel present [washingtonexaminer.com] are invalid and illegal, too.
So if there were actual legal subpoenas issued, with authority granted by the House, you would have a point; given that neither happened, your complaint is moot.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/el-chapo-outraged-that-his-trial-included-witnesses [newyorker.com]
Re:Eric Ciaramella (Score:5, Informative)
What about "right to face your accuser", what about a public hearing of ALL the evidence, what about the rules of evidence about "hearsay" and "best evidence".
The Senate decided none of that was necessary and they could proceed straight to acquittal, that's what happened. You're confused about where the rules of a trial apply.
This was a kangaroo court operation from start to finish, it flew in the face of 500 years of common law and jusiprudence, and it failed by a huge margin.
It failed on a near party line vote with one Republican, the previous presidential candidate for the party, joining in voting to convict. And did none of that other stuff, you must only get you news from the Fox News commentators.
But we do have common ground in thinking the continued censorship is stupid at this point: Eric Ciaramella
Re: (Score:2)
This is important because
the motives for "blowing
Re:Eric Ciaramella (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump himself released a 'summary' confirming the main thrust of the complaint
That's a subjective interpretation. The materials released showed Trump seeking Ukrainian assistance in investigating potential corruption.
The complaint is that he did that for self-serving grounds. The defence is that he's obliged to do that in his role.
Releasing a transcript showing that he did it wasn't conclusive towards either argument.
Pence would be prez after Trump was removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Donald Trump crossed a line he used the power of the office of president to attack Joe Biden. If you believe otherwise you are lying to yourself because you love Donald Trump. Trump had plenty of ways to investigate Biden without withholding military aid to an ally currently under attack. He did so to solicit an attack on a US Citizen and political rival.
That is a Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200 event. It's
Re:Pence would be prez after Trump was removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Donald Trump crossed a line he used the power of the office of president to attack Joe Biden. If you believe otherwise you are lying to yourself because you love Donald Trump.
Which, according to the impeachment and acquittal that just happened, is false. He never did that - per the process to decide if he did do what you claim. I guess reality isn't comfortable for you so you will continue to make your own reality. Strike one.
Trump had plenty of ways to investigate Biden without withholding military aid to an ally currently under attack. He did so to solicit an attack on a US Citizen and political rival.
Two things wrong here: the funds were released in time in accordance with the actual bill passed (they had to be released by September 30th, 2019), and there were not active Ukrainian/Russian military actions during the time in question. So you fail again, strikes two and three - you're out.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
the GOP held Senate, made possible by rampant voter suppression fueled by the Supreme Court overturning the Voting Rights Act in all but name,
You mean the Supreme Court tossing out the unconstitutional parts of the Voting Rights Act?
acquitting Trump with no witnesses called
False. There were 18 witnesses called, and the transcripts of 17 of those depositions were released. It is not the job of the jury to call witnesses, it is the job of the House to collect and present the witnesses. Why you want to excuse the incompetence of Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, and the rest of the House Democrat leadership is bewildering.
Would you Call North Korea a Democracy?
Nope, I would call North Korea the logical conclusion of Bernie's Socialist
The president is obligated to drain the swamp. (Score:5, Insightful)
Donald Trump crossed a line he used the power of the office of president to attack Joe Biden.
You're proposing that politicians have immunity from investigation and prosecution for violation of US law, when the decision makers are, were, or might be, political opponents.
That would be a recipe for a kleptocracy: A criminal gang could call itself a political party, or infiltrate one, and proceed to loot the US government and taxpayers. Investigation or prosecution by anyone not of their own party/gang would itself be forbidden, and their own gang, of course, wouldn't bother. So the laws against such behavior can't be enforced against politicians. (Profit!) Thus Pelosi's claim that "No one is above the law!" falls flat. The US becomes the world's richest banana republic.
So it looks like Trump, as chief law enforcement officer of the US, was obligated to look into political corruption, even if it was committed by a potential competitor for his office, even if he risked impeachment to do it.
But if effective immunity really WERE the law of the land, what of the people - essentially all rabid Democrats - who investigated Trump, along with his family and associates? Shouldn't THEY be held to the same standard?
Now what would THAT look like?
Nope, I'm not (Score:2)
You'll find what happened with Biden's son is perfectly legal. The laws against family members taking jobs in exchange for favors only apply to US companies. That is not an accident. Haven't you ever won
Re: (Score:2)
More like Americans should simply not actually be asking other nations to be involved in such an investigation, and should always be directing information they may have about any such investigations to the FBI.
Asking someone from another nation to do something which may influence a domestic election, regardless of the incentive, is
Re:Eric Ciaramella (Score:5, Interesting)
What about "right to face your accuser"
The whisleblower is a witness, not an accuser.
what about a public hearing of ALL the evidence, what about the rules of evidence about "hearsay" and "best evidence".
Totally undermined by Trump by forcing his staff to ignore subpoenas.
Dude, just stop watching Fox Noose and actually look at the facts.
Oh, sorry. Facts don't matter. It's only who screams them louder.
Re: Eric Ciaramella (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So wha. People have known that since day one, it's not news.
He was alleged "whistlblower" who was used to try to undermine a legitimate presidential election and twart the will of the people.
*Sigh*. If I wanted to hear the official party propaganda I'd just turn on Fox News.
*squawk*
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, this is a private company, they are under no legal obligation to post anything. It's unAmerican and scuzzy, but not illegal. And that Youtube might have arbitrary or foolish policies and makes silly decisions should be no surprise to anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Youtube needs to be regulated like other traditional broadcasters. If they keep this up, I am sure they will bring it on themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but tradional broadcasters certainly have no legal obligation to broadcast anything any third party creates (which is more-or-less what Youtube does) and they have literally done exactly the same in this particular case. They also exercise nearly unlimited "editorial discretion", which is how they implement the extremely slanted perspective. Its not that they directly attack the right, they simply provide one side of any story to the same effect.