Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Sues US Government Over Attempt To Unmask Anti-Trump Account (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the anonymous-coward dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: According to Twitter's suit, filed today in Northern California District Court, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has attempted to use a "limited-purpose investigatory tool" to unmask the owner of the Twitter account "@ALT_USCIS." The account, one of several "alt" or "rogue" government accounts that appeared in the wake of Trump's ascent to the presidency, was used "to express public criticism of the Department and the current Administration," according to Twitter's complaint. In the suit, Twitter writes that @ALT_USCIS has purported to be a dissenting member of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. On March 14, Twitter received a summons from Customs requesting records that could reveal the identity of the account's operator, including IP logs and any associated phone number or mailing address. In addition to the Department of Homeland Security and its subagency, the lawsuit names four individuals as defendants: DHS secretary John Kelly, acting CBP commissioner Kevin McAleenan, and special agents Stephen P. Caruso and Adam Hoffman, who issued and served the order itself.

94 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by jimmifett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems that only now twitter is concerned about the free speech of it's users.

    Stop, this is too much. I can't take it anymore, I'm going to have liquids shoot out my nose from laughter.

    1. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a private corporation, Twitter is allowed to decide what its users are allowed to post on its service. As a public entity the government is not.

    2. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by negRo_slim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah they wear their politics on their sleeve. Personally I'm not OK with purportedly neutral global communications platforms pushing such a political agenda. It's their right but people should be very wary of engaging in business with such a company.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    3. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by GWXerog · · Score: 1

      Vee's Law. Never fails
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    4. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is possible to be both legally in the right, and a hypocrite. Also, jimmifett never said they didn't have that right.

      Why is it that every time someone tries to talk about the concept of free speech, someone always has to try to shut them down by bringing up how the 1st Amendment does not apply to private corporations? It's irrelevant to the discussion. No one said they had a legal requirement to not censor, you people are always the first to bring up the 1st Amendment.

    5. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Well, it's in their terms of service. But then an AC probably knows squat about the legalities of it.

      https://twitter.com/tos

      https://support.twitter.com/ar...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by jimmifett · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quite the opposite, i'm very much pro-free speech. Also not alt-right (aka, leftists that are fed up with left authoritarianism).

      I find it hilarious that twitter purports itself to be a platform of free speech when that is the absolute last thing they are with their shadow bans, zero transparency or ability to address bans, etc.

      They can run their crap company into the ground however they choose, but for them to claim they are protecting the free speech of their users, that is just too much to take seriously.

    7. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      The most anti-free speech action you could ever take would be to require private entities (not government)

      The most anti-free speech action you could ever take would be to turn a blind eye to censorship by private entities, then feign shock when it turns out the government encouraged that censorship.

      This isn't a theoretical thing either, we saw it with Bush's administration withholding government contracts from Qwest over refusing to participate in (at that time illegal) warrantless wiretapping (and then arresting the CEO for financial statements that had been made, that were no longer correct after the withdrawal of the government contracts).

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    8. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      That was good. Thank you.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Moronic non-sequiturs. Never fails.

    10. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Why do they need to care about their users? It is a burden on them, and they don't want to have to do it in cases where they shouldn't have been asked to do it.

    11. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You can not do it fraudulently. You can not claim to support free speech and they secret deny it, in order to fraudulently misrepresent yourself to retain end users. So news service can not claim to be fair and balanced if they are not, they can not censor one side, whilst promoting another and then claim fair and balanced to promote a lie. Once you claim to be a public service you are bound by that claim and can not censor. Telecommunications companies can not claim their service as private and censor anyone they disagree with whilst claiming it is a public service. So no, censorship is not a right, that goes right along apartheid, where citizens for what ever reason were censored from participation in society by other citizens, collectively. Once you are open to the public, you are bound by the rules and regulation of that public and the provision of a public service, no censorship of legal content no exclusion of individuals. Otherwise declare it as a private members only service.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You have that completely wrong. The concept of free speech is that NOBODY, including but not limited to the government, gets to tell me what I can and cannot say. Anything less is NOT freedom.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    13. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      As a shepard must watch over his flock, so must corporations that wish to profit from their "Users".

    14. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by z3alot · · Score: 1

      What one sees as the "concept of free speech" is obviously dependent on your definition. If you are speaking of the free speech legislated in the first ammendment, it only protects the people from government, not from private individuals. In fact the only constitutional provision which limits the actions of private individuals is the 14th ammendment, which outlaws slavery.

      Now there could in principal be federal or local laws which somehow protect free speech from infringement by other private individuals, but I'm not aware of an example, and indeed this is usually not the case (nor should it be in my opinion).

    15. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The shepherd definitely doesn't want the sheriff running off with the sheep.

    16. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Billy Madison!

      [channels "Spock"]

      "Ah yes, the classics!"

      [/channels "Spock"]

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    17. Re:HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Seems the moron is the person that didn't understand the argument.

      Twitter are claiming that they're a bastion of free speech.
      Twitter's actions to other people demonstrates that they have no interest whatsoever in supporting actual free speech.
      Twitter are thus laughable hypocrits.

      Of course they're free to do that. They're still comical cunts destroying their own business.

    18. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah they wear their politics on their sleeve. Personally I'm not OK with purportedly neutral global communications platforms pushing such a political agenda. It's their right but people should be very wary of engaging in business with such a company.

      Well start your own then.

      If you dont like Twitter, dont use them. Even by the most European of Euro standards, Twitter is still a private organisation, not a public utility and not subject to carrier regulations.

      Realistically, I'd be more concerned that the government is trying to force Twitter to reveal the name of someone who is merely making fun of the government. We're not talking about threats or attacks, we're talking about parody here.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    19. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Twitter is still a private organisation, not a public utility and not subject to carrier regulations.

      But companies can't do whatever they want. They can't deny service to blacks or gays or whatever.

      Realistically, I'd be more concerned that the government is trying to force Twitter to reveal the name of someone who is merely making fun of the government. We're not talking about threats or attacks, we're talking about parody here.

      But the issue isn't the parody, but the fact it's a government employee.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    20. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You have that completely wrong

      No you do.

      The concept of free speech is that NOBODY, including but not limited to the government, gets to tell me what I can and cannot say.

      No, they can SAY what they like, because they have free speech too. What they can't do is prevent you from speaking. Making you go elsewhere (i.e. not twitter) is not preventing you from speaking.

      Anything less is NOT freedom.

      The only people with the power to physically stop you is the government. If you're not being physically stopped, you are free. If you get disinherited by your parents due to being excessively obnoxious, that's not an infringement of your free speech. Neither is getting banned from twitter.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    21. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      All businesses establish acceptable conduct standards. It's perfectly legal to deny a potential customer service based on individual behavior.

      The government does not have arbitrary power to grab information or suppress free speech on the part of its employees.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Ironically, the Constitution defines treason. Doing something not legal according to the Constitution does not qualify.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Nope, the 14th amendment did not outlaw slavery. It outlawed slavery without due process of law.

      Anyone who has been convicted of any crime, no matter how small, can be forced into slavery. In fact they can be bought and sold throughout their incarceration. This is not only legal, but it is standard practice in the US.

    24. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You can say whatever you want, as long as you don't say it where people can hear it? Yeah. That's what free speech means. NOT.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    25. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You can say whatever you want,

      Yep.

      as long as you don't say it where people can hear it?

      You're making shit up, which is you right as a moron with free speech.

      Yeah. That's what free speech means. NOT.

      No, it really is. Free speech is not the same as forcing people to listen and to expend resources to give you a platform. Free speech is not the same as not being disinherited for being a wanker. Free speech means you won't go to prison for it.

      That. Is. All.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    26. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by segin · · Score: 1

      Does that mean I have the freedom to stand in your living room and scream at you that you're a mindless twat?

    27. Re: HAHAHAHA, Free Speech! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You just did dumbshit.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  2. shocked! by LetterRip · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm shocked! Shocked to see the Trump administration abusing criminal investigative tools for political purposes.

    1. Re:shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, it's a crime for federal employees to post to Twitter while on the clock?

      Someone should tell the president.

    2. Re:shocked! by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      Makes sense.

      By the way, we suspect you of being a government employee posting on /. during work hours. We've got a subpoena that requires you to hand over your computer, cell phones, hard drives, passwords to any online accounts you use, etc.

      We're just checking if you're a government employee, of course, so your data will be completely safe with us and there is no chance that we'll use anything else we may find against you.

    3. Re:shocked! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not a crime for a government employee to post to Twitter while working. If it were, Trump would have been impeached multiple times by now.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:shocked! by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is a crime to release official information without permission, And even more of a crime if it's sensitive or classified. There's this category of "For Official Use Only". . .

    5. Re:shocked! by LetterRip · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uh, yeah. If they really only want to see if it's an employee doing it on company time, then it's no longer "political". That's actually a crime for a federal government worker to do such. The only real problem would be if it's not a government worker and they harass him - at that point I'll be concerned.

      They cited tax law on imports as the basis for the warrant.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

      How exactly are tweets criticizing the President related to investigate power for

      determining the liability of any person for duty, fees and taxes due or duties, fees and taxes which may be due the United States"

      Obviously there is zero relationship, and this is purely an attempt to abuse unrelated investigative powers for political purposes.

    6. Re:shocked! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's actually a crime for a federal government worker to do such.

      So, as I sit here at McChord Air Force Base in Washington State, in my cushy job as a C17 Mission Planner, you are telling me I'm breaking the law prattling on Slashdot? Is that why we have and Official Social Media Policy that talks about using Social Media on GOV computers? Oh, that's right, you don't work for the government and in fact have no idea what you are talking about.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    7. Re:shocked! by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2

      Time for a refresher on the current state* of speech restrictions promulgated by government-as-employer. I think most people would understand that, when acting as an employer, the government has significantly more latitude than it would against a private citizen. At the same time, most people would understand that this lattitude has bounds of its own.

      So cribbing the major part of the link above (but do read the whole thing), the place that the court put that balance* is that the government may not fire an employee based on the employeeâ(TM)s speech if (all of):

      1. 1. the speech is on a matter of public concern
      2. 2. the speech is not said by the employee as part of the employeeâ(TM)s job duties
      3. 3. the damage caused by the speech to the efficiency of the government agencyâ(TM)s operation does not outweigh the value of the speech to the employee and the public

      The application of these three standards to the instant case I think weighs in favor of the employee, but ultimately that's a fact-bound decision that would require reviewing what his or her job duties are, what the topic and contents of the tweets were and what sort of proof the government produces about the harm to the agency.

      * Note: This is the current state of the law as it is, not the law as I wish it to be. You could say that this is the praxis of the law, not the truth of it. I have no beef with people that wish argue about what the law ought to be or what is a more correct interpretation of it. They may even be right and the practice of it currently wrong (it's surely happened many times in the past), that does not change what is currently practiced.

    8. Re:shocked! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you know the rules don't apply to the boss.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:shocked! by Woldscum · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah. If they really only want to see if it's an employee doing it on company time, then it's no longer "political". That's actually a crime for a federal government worker to do such. The only real problem would be if it's not a government worker and they harass him - at that point I'll be concerned.

      They cited tax law on imports as the basis for the warrant.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

      How exactly are tweets criticizing the President related to investigate power for

      determining the liability of any person for duty, fees and taxes due or duties, fees and taxes which may be due the United States"

      Obviously there is zero relationship, and this is purely an attempt to abuse unrelated investigative powers for political purposes.

      Maybe they are investigating who is PAYING for this account? Who and what they are doing with money from somewhere?

    10. Re:shocked! by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So?

      Maybe you don't understand, if this was a criminal prosecution they would have brought charges against a John Doe and applied for a warrant. Using the national security tool they are using (designed for foreign actors outside US jurisdiction) bypasses the requirement to obtain a warrant and avoids that nasty complication of proving the speech in question is NOT protected speech.

      Your blatant disregard of how this bypasses standard criminal procedures by waiving it away blatantly ignores that they are doing it this way so they don't have to get a subpoena and document why this speech isn't protected. Any time the wrong procedure is being used like this you can bet dollars to donuts the are abusing the process because what they are doing would have never met the requirements for a valid warrant. Don't cheer lead so hard that you ignore abuse of power.

    11. Re:shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I doubt it's that hard to verify: https://www.doi.gov/notices/Social-Media-Policy

      Granted, this may not apply to Frosty's situation directly, but I doubt the "Official Social Media Policy" is classified.

    12. Re:shocked! by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      His description of process is correct. I fail to see how this could be viewed as mentally unstable communication. Can you be more specific in your criticism?

    13. Re:shocked! by crow_t_robot · · Score: 1

      As a federal employee you are allowed "limited personal use" of your issued computer during work hours to do things like check your personal e-mail, read the morning news or send a quick tweet if you so choose.

    14. Re:shocked! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Uh...they weren't using the official USCIS twitter account. They were using "@ALT_USCIS", which is not a government account. They suspect that the person using it is a government employee.

    15. Re:shocked! by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      Since when do you have to PAY for a Twitter account?

    16. Re:shocked! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Uh...last I checked, twitter accounts are free.

    17. Re:shocked! by subanark · · Score: 1

      Um... no due to:

      1. Part of the presidents job description is talking to the people, this includes twitter

      2. The president isn't a "paid by the hour" job.

      That being said this job might allow various small breaks, and as long as he is not using government equipment he should be fine as far as conduct goes.

      The government might have a case if they think he is a threat to national security though. As you really don't want to take chances with someone who might bend the rules.

    18. Re:shocked! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      And yet trump has done exactly that several times.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    19. Re:shocked! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Seriously, it's a crime for federal employees to post to Twitter while on the clock?

      Someone should tell the president.

      The President is the President - he gets to define his job roles. For someone who's working in the federal government, unless posting to Twitter is part of their job description then it would fall under the "honest services fraud" statute. Remember the "3 crimes per day" number? That's part of what we're talking about.

      Regardless of whether it's a crime the government - like any employer - has every right to determine if employees are doing personal twitter during working hours and/or from work computers. Sorry if you don't like it.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    20. Re:shocked! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      That's actually a crime for a federal government worker to do such.

      So, as I sit here at McChord Air Force Base in Washington State, in my cushy job as a C17 Mission Planner, you are telling me I'm breaking the law prattling on Slashdot? Is that why we have and Official Social Media Policy that talks about using Social Media on GOV computers? Oh, that's right, you don't work for the government and in fact have no idea what you are talking about.

      If you have an official policy that allows you to do it, then it's likely not a problem as long as you stay within the policy. How do you know what the other departments are doing? Also, are the things tweeted from that account allowable under policy?

      It's impossible to make a blanket statement either way, but an employer does have a right to know if their employees are doing something not allowed on company time.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    21. Re:shocked! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      It's not a crime for a government employee to post to Twitter while working. If it were, Trump would have been impeached multiple times by now.

      Trump is President - he can make whatever rules he wants as the executive. I know it sounds like of funny how you said it, but it's also pretty stupid.

      --
      Do you have ESP?
    22. Re:shocked! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      If you have an official policy that allows you to do it, then it's likely not a problem as long as you stay within the policy. How do you know what the other departments are doing?

      Because intertube policy is often written on paper and published as an official document. I know, right? Who knewâ¦

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    23. Re:shocked! by Woldscum · · Score: 1

      No. Who ever controls the account is being investigated by following the money. Maybe they are a paid troll? Or paid by some organisation that is being investigated? If it is for taxes it is for money. Could be tax free political money being spent on this troll account and against IRS rules?

    24. Re: shocked! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      The President is the President? That dumb bitch works for me. He doesn't get that, but are you really too fucking stupid to understand it?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    25. Re: shocked! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You are a fucking moron. Trump does NOTâget to make the rules up as he goes. Witness the upcoming impeachment.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    26. Re:shocked! by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If they were investigating a crime they would have gotten a warrant. Their goal is persecution, to make the (legal) criticism stop.

    27. Re:shocked! by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Ummm... no, he doesn't. Article II of the United States Constitution defines the President's job. Most prominently, he's the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. Considering the Pres is defined in the Constitution and most of the gov employee labor laws are subject to the Department of Labor... I would guess that Congress or the Supreme Court would be the only ones that could do any disciplinary action.

      It also says that the President isn't immune to being "removed from office" should he be found guilty of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. That whole checks and balances thing.

    28. Re:shocked! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      It is a crime to release official information without permission

      Fuck that bullshit. The law itself is wrong. Government secrecy is tyranny.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  3. Re:Treasonous behavior by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "Examples must be strongly made."

    Vladimir, this sentence unmasked you.

  4. Re:Treasonous behavior by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    Ahh what? Law'n'order authoritarian loons like you can join the SJW left on clusterfuck island, where the would-be apocalypse is eternally televised. Meanwhile, the rest of us will watch from time to time to remind ourselves of what happens when liberty is trampled by the likes of such people.

  5. Re:Treasonous behavior by ausekilis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's amazing how quickly we forget about our own Constitution. The same document that created the job for the President protects the public's right to criticize him. Sure, we can't overtly slander or libel him, but we can say a lot of other things.

    IANAL, but Penn and Teller said it well on their show BS: "To call someone an idiot or a moron is defamatory and you open yourself up to a lawsuit. But to call them an asshole or motherfucker, you're expressing an opinion and you're pretty much in the clear."

  6. Re:Treasonous behavior by harperska · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What sort of backwater third world dictatorship do you think you live in where vocal criticism of the dear leader amounts to treason?

  7. NOT Treasonous behavior by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    By its' very definitiion. . .

    The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    Hint: we're not at war.

    Now, this very well COULD meet the legal definitions of sedition, as well as the employees in question being sanctioned for violating policy. . .

    1. Re:NOT Treasonous behavior by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Hint: we're not at war.

      What do you think the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs" are for?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:NOT Treasonous behavior by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      For increasing the appropriations for DHS and DoD and the profits of drug lords, obviously. The names are just propaganda.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:NOT Treasonous behavior by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Hint: we're not at war.

      Could have fooled me. We still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration wants to cut everything to pay for a massive increase in military spending (on top of already spending more than anyone else), is screaming that Muslim extremist terrorists are everywhere, and certainly acts like everyone outside the GOP party is an anti-american enemy.

      Frankly, I think the administration is by far the biggest national security threat facing America right now.

      Serious violations of the constitution and freedom of the US, initiating wars of offense to prop up popularity, or colluding with foreign powers; all of those should make the administration an enemy. I can't rule out any of those being true of Trump. None of those require the context of war. Any definition of treason that doesn't cover those possibilities is not a great definition of treason.

      I'm not talking constitutional law here, I'm not a lawyer, so take your response you're typing up now and cram it. There's obvious reasons not to put a mechanism for declaring a sitting president an enemy and a traitor and being able to punish him in that way, and I expect the founders assumed congress would have impeached such an individual or the people would rise up and sort things out. I dunno. Not everything needs to be legalese. Trump can be a traitor without there being a war going on.

    4. Re:NOT Treasonous behavior by CrashPoint · · Score: 1

      Hint: we're not at war.

      What do you think the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs" are for?

      Marketing.

    5. Re:NOT Treasonous behavior by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Please get back to me when the Congress passes a formal Declaration of War on "Drugs" or "Terror". Laws have definitions, and to even sustain a charge, much less a conviction, on a charge of treason, the United States must legally been in a State of War with a given nation. We haven't been in one since World War II ended.

    6. Re:NOT Treasonous behavior by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Might I direct you to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, aka the "War Powers Clause"

      Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

      The Congress has not declared War since 1941.

    7. Re:NOT Treasonous behavior by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > Hint: we're not at war.

      Thank you for your reassurance that we're not at war. I had mistakenly believed otherwise based on all of the military activity both abroad and at home. We must protect our domestic flights against an attacker taking over the flight with the use of nail clippers.

      > unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

      I would mention the euphemism of enhanced interrogation.

      Because we're not at war, and we don't torture. Those two statements alone are worthy to win this year's Kellyanne Conway award for credibility!

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  8. Re:BULLSHIT MOTHERFUCKER... apk by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    The server did not need to be authorized, and unintentional mishandling of classified material has not resulted in Federal prison in any case I could find. I'm not impressed by her IT people.

    Go complain about Trump and the emoluments clauses.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  9. Re:BULLSHIT MOTHERFUCKER... apk by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Hey, you know who's doing it today?

    About half the current administration.

    http://www.theverge.com/2017/1...

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  10. Re:Bullshit by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Here's your citation: https://twitter.com/

  11. Too bad federal prosecutors report to Trump by laughingskeptic · · Score: 2

    Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime. https://www.justice.gov/crt/co...

  12. Re: Treasonous behavior by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Huckabee has said that it is treason to go against your government. Someone needs to tell him that treason is committed against a country, not a government.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  13. Re:BULLSHIT MOTHERFUCKER... apk by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

    You would only be in prison if you had signed a document that says you agree to these requirements to receive a security clearance.

    It is not illegal for a general citizen of the US to possess or read a document the US Government has deemed top secret. If it was it would be illegal for the majority of US citizens to read the information on parts of Wikileaks. See the Pentagon Papers case if you don't believe me.

    Granted Hillary signed the document and you might find yourself a victim of illegal rendition BUT the point stands if you have never signed the documents required to get a security clearance it is not illegal for you to possess or read a TS marked document.

    APK=>Dumb motherfucker

  14. Totalitarianism by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  15. Not the defendants by radaos · · Score: 1

    >> the lawsuit names four individuals as defendants

    Nope, it names four individuals as plaintiffs. The defendant is as yet unknown.

    1. Re:Not the defendants by radaos · · Score: 1

      Uh, ignore my comment. Too tired to read the filing properly.

  16. Re:BULLSHIT MOTHERFUCKER... apk by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

    Of course when Trump discusses nuclear policy in earshot of the public nobody bats an eye. And it's not because we held HRC to a much higher standard (we did), it's because he does so much wrong shit that by the time you start complaining about one thing he's already doing something else.

  17. Re: Treasonous behavior by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    That's right! Disseminating bullshit via Twitter is the President's job!

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  18. Re: Free speech by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    And this is what happens when both sides refuse to respect free speech. First you have Rice unmasking political opponents, and now this.

    False equivalency, but good attempt at trying to deflect Donald Junior

    There *are no* good guys here.

    Both (R) and (D) on the whole want to violate the shit out of your privacy and civil rights. They simply have (sometimes) conflicting plans on how to keep the sheep distracted, controlled, and well-sheared. The scary part is how many of and/or how often their plans *don't* conflict and where they agree.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  19. Re:Treasonous behavior by bluegutang · · Score: 1

    The USA.

  20. Re: Treasonous behavior by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Huckabee has said that it is treason to go against your government.

    King George III called, he'd like to have a word with his subject, Mr Huckabee about the subject.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  21. Re:Why can't people just accept Trump won already! by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    While we're on the topic of investigating Clinton, I think we should open an investigation into Whitewater.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  22. Re:Hypocrites by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    If the government is going to Trumple upon our rights, especially free speech, then government should treat all speech with equal disrespect. Whether it be speech praising Trump for starting WW III or whether it be condemning the illiterate moron pu**y grabber unable to speak in complete sentences for his tiny handed failure to take away health care.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  23. Re:If it wasn't for that meddling Moose and Squirr by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    I believe that the presidential candidate which Russia elected IS some kind of vegetable.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  24. Re:Treasonous behavior by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    The bar for slander or libel is a lot higher for a public figure. It could be argued that a US president could be considered a public figure. Penn and Teller's BS show is BS. Calling someone "an illiterate idiot tiny handed pu**y grabber unable to speak in complete sentences" is not defamatory. Especially if it is true. And truth is an absolute defense against either slander or libel.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  25. Re:Treasonous behavior by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points. That was going to be my answer.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  26. Re:Let's just agree by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    But Clinton has bigger hands.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  27. Re:You a "spirit cooking" satanist too? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Snopes.com has a good article on the uranium issue. Clinton was part of a panel that reviewed the sale of 51% of a uranium country to a Russian company. Obama's foreign policy at the time was to try being friendly to Russia. This is a complete non-issue.

    The deaths at Benghazi are more the fault of Congress. Clinton had asked Congress for more money for security, claiming that the current one was insufficient to defend embassies and consulates. During the actual fighting, she was an ocean and half a sea away, and could do nothing about it. I suspect she also has no military command experience, and issuing orders to those in the fight would have been a real bad idea.

    The CIA was perfectly within its rights to tap a foreign national in Trump Tower. I don't know the details, but Trump Tower is not soley Trump's residence.

    Techincally, I'm not a devil, and I don't worship swine.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  28. Re:Reduced to impersonating me? Yes by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    SEEZS FAKES

    FAKES APK can't provide links to actual good quotes so he makes up

    Fakes APK --BLOWHARD--. Tell me moar about your FAKE hosts. Love you long time!!!!!

    *Everyone knows APK unstable and bareley literate so fuck yours self with a compond miter saw

    APK

    P.S.=> Proves yous actually compent and yours faks hosts provides security instead of plecebo fuck shit stain hillary lover. Stop hiding behind fakes users or you fraid to might have man up

    --
    Time to offend someone
  29. Re:Treasonous behavior by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    What sort of backwater third world dictatorship do you think you live in

    It isn't that freedom-hating, anti-American facists like him think they live in a backwater third-world dictatorship, it's that they're trying to create it. Accusing others of treason is nothing but projection.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  30. Re:LMAO - Snopes is "pro George Soros" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Snopes provides sources. Read the articles. If you're not convinced, track down the sources. It really doesn't matter if they're biased as long as they provide verifiable information to back up what they say.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  31. Re:Treasonous behavior by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Funny. I'm the same age you are then.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.