So, I clicked on "See the List" & at that time, it took you here:
Now it takes you here:
And, once I saw what it was, I took all the screen shots, and then I backed up to the original tweet 👇to see who this guy was.
And this is who he is:
And then I searched for "Trump Accountability Project" and similar terms & came up with these:
Which takes you to these two "winners."
Because they are doing this all out in the open, because they are totalitarian thugs.
But after I started tweeting about it, they took off two of the tabs from their list: the "Appointees" tab and the "Donors" tab, which had the list of judges and campaign donors. See 👇
The test for whether spoken words are free speech or not is called the Brandenburg test from a SCOTUS case in 1969. It is also called the "imminent lawless action" test. ONLY if the speech rises to that level does it fall outside of the protection of the First Amendment.
In essence the speech must be the kind that does or inexorably is known to lead to "imminent disorder." (This standard is from another SCOTUS case in 1973, Hess.)
This is a very high bar & effectively renders almost all speech that doesn't actually result in violence, protected.
The "speech" in Brandenburg took place at a KKK rally, disparaged Blacks & Jews, suggested "revengance" should be had against the Congress for "suppressing" whites, & explained there would be a "march on Congress" on July 4th of 400,000, followed by marches in FL & MS.
The US govt needs to & is going to spy on foreigners overseas & also here, in our security defense.
FISA or no FISA, that will happen.
The only questions are who “gate keeps” it & how & what the standards are & whether the standards differ inside the US.
There is no question in my mind, at all, that the federal govt has unlimited power to spy on foreigners overseas for our national security intelligence purposes.
None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Domestic spying- of foreigners here & of US persons here & abroad- present different issues.
And there is an age old problem of whether/if/when/how information obtained from intelligence can be used in the criminal process.
These issues must be debated vigorously & our rights as US persons jealousy guarded.
In my view the case before the SCOTUS this morning on free speech at base is not that complicated:
The govt, just like any other actor in our society, can speak.
But unlike some other actors, in speaking, the govt cannot tell others what to say or not say.
The govt can add its voice to the free exchange of ideas in the open marketplace of discussion . And it can say that its information or viewpoint is the “official” govt version.
It CANNOT, however, insist that alternative info or views be suppressed, directly or indirectly.
It has to compete openly for respect and primacy and supremacy for its views in the marketplace of ideas, just like every other speaker.
Anything else is a violation of the citizens’ First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court this morning is going to hear argument in the case about how the govt communicates to social media companies.
The case is Murthy v Missouri, case No. 23-411. (It was previously named Missouri v Biden.)
I will be listening to it and I may live tweet it.
I will definitely summarize the argument for you guys afterwards.
So you know: The reason the case name changed is that technically you don’t sue the POTUS for actions of the govt. You sue the agency official carrying out the govt policy or sometimes the agency or the U.S. itself, it depends on the claim. POTUS, as we know, is immune from suit.
I write this memo two years ago and sent it to lawyers who are on the list serve for the defense counsel on the J6 cases to circulate to anyone defending those cases. I also sent it to the public defender.
I wanted all the defense lawyers to have access to the argument.
As most of you know, the DOJ jacked up the cases on J6 defendants by charging them with obstruction of justice under 18 USC 1512. I think that is a misuse of the statute, & as you know the SCOTUS is set to hear argument on that point in April.