Some people aren’t getting what I said about FBI infiltrating groups (not the UCC part) because they’re making assumptions about my position, they reacted to earlier tweets first & I hadn’t expected so many people on the right to have a certain mindset. It’s about these. 👇🏻/1
Where we seem to be is that the Left thinks the govt should be routinely infiltrating these groups regardless of criminal conduct - see Greenwald’s article - & the Right thinks the FBI routinely IS doing so because FBI doesn’t follow the law anymore. THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM. /2
As Americans we should all agree that political or ideological groups can only be infiltrated or investigated by the govt if there is some evidence of criminal activity underway & even then not necessarily the whole group. This is what the law is. /3
If we on the right don’t think that’s what the practice is, & we think the FBI is routinely violating people’s constitutional rights, why haven’t we been doing something about that before now? Like members of Congress at least demanding information about it from FBI? /4
Throwing up our hands in the air & saying “they just break the law at will; nothing we can do” is defeatism. We are not powerless. We can demand investigations by Congress & investigate ourselves. That’s what the Left did to get the Church Commission when govt abused the NAACP./5
The Left wants to make it even easier to investigate domestically. Screw that. We have to fight that. But we should also demand accountability for current practices. Saying “no one ever gets held accountable” is defeatism. Guess what? They definitely don’t if you give up. /6
I had not realized how cynical people are on this & I think it’s because the media actually is so poor at its job & so left wing that people have a distorted view of reality. And people look at historical abuses & assume it’s rampant now. Past acts aren’t current proof. /7
I personally don’t think the FBI or other law enforcement is routinely infiltrating groups w/o legal cause. The reason for that is that I think we would have seen a lot more evidence of it & cases. Proud Boys have been arrested the last few years, but AFTER events. /8
There are few cases from other groups. Even the MI case (3%ers) doesn’t really carry a ton of weight on this issue- it seems clear there was info of potential criminal conduct that would’ve justified investigating at least initially - chatter on SM & local cops contacted FBI. /9
Maybe FBI is investigating/infiltrating groups w/o cause & it hasn’t come to light yet- but that would be illegal, unconstitutional, & contrary to our values. Which is why I said in my thread that if they were/are - they had better have their damn ducks in a row to justify it./10
I think it’s unlikely, but not impossible - as I originally said. A lot of people say they are 100% convinced it’s true.

Well, if we actually believe the government is illegally spying on domestic political & affinity groups:

WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

/11

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Leslie McAdoo Gordon

Leslie McAdoo Gordon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @McAdooGordon

18 Jun
@CSpenc32683 @factsMa22309408 @DonLew1s @youreyeondenver @shipwreckedcrew It says in longer form what I said about how FBI investigations into political groups are actually supposed to & do usually work -there are requirements, tho they’re sometimes evaded, & then people have to explain what the hell they were doing if it goes wrong. /1
@CSpenc32683 @factsMa22309408 @DonLew1s @youreyeondenver @shipwreckedcrew It also makes clear what I was saying about the backdrop- that since the COINTELPRO scandal & the Church Commissioner, the govt is reluctant to initiate investigations of groups that are clearly not criminal per se & are exercising First Amendment rights. /2
@CSpenc32683 @factsMa22309408 @DonLew1s @youreyeondenver @shipwreckedcrew They know there will be shit to pay if they do & they get it wrong. That’s basically what Wray told the Senate in March - the Bureau can’t just investigate groups whose ideology isn’t popular. No less than Andrew Weisman was COMPLAINING about exactly that today in WaPo.👇🏻/3
Read 4 tweets
16 Jun
NONE - I repeat - none of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Jan 6 cases will turn out to be undercover agents/informants. The law doesn’t consider them “conspirators” whether they’re indicted or not - they’re not legally agreeing to the offense. /1 revolver.news/2021/06/federa…
There may be undercover agents or informants in the cases -I’ll get to how likely that is in a minute- but they WILL NOT be identified in DOJ pleadings as unindicted co-conspirators. If DOJ knows they are cops/informants, they can’t put them in charging docs as co-conspirators./2
The ONLY way that happens is if DOJ doesn’t know the person is undercover/an informant, or if the AUSA has gone completely off the rails in violation of the law & Dept policy. Any AUSA who’s done that will be in SERIOUS trouble, as will any LEO who may have misled DOJ about it./3
Read 19 tweets
13 Jun
Today is my birthday. I am really happy to be alive, to be an American, to be married to my hubs, to be free, to be able to read & write. For lots of things. I am the happiest I’ve ever been at 53 because I know who I am, I love who I am, I accept myself, mistakes & all. /1
In the past, I struggled w/finding happiness but I haven’t for years. I know I am connected to the Creator of all; that a piece, if you want to think of it that way, of the Almighty lives in me. I know my husband loves me, faults & all, as I love him. We love being together. /2
But more recently I have also found a true joy in life. I find it beautiful, rich, rewarding, delightful, joyous; regardless of circumstances or trials or pain. Life itself amazes & captivates me. My heart bursts with happiness simply from being alive. /3
Read 6 tweets
3 Jun
Charles may be right that DJT has said or believes this, but neither he nor Maggie Haberman name ANY source for the claim. The Right is correct & rational to be skeptical of a story based only on anonymous sources, especially one about DJT. /1

nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie…
And Maggie’s tweet 👇🏻 hardly qualifies as “reporting.” She points to no source or evidence for her factual assertion & then offers her own legal opinion at the end. Given her track record with the Russian collusion hoax, people are wise to be wary of anything she says. /2
I agree w/Charles on the substance of the matter. You can see my thoughts in my tweets on Sunday commenting on Sidney Powell’s remark about “reinstatement.” There would be a myriad of constitutional & legal problems even if it were crystal clear to all that DJT had really won. /3
Read 5 tweets
3 Jun
Ok, since we’re on the subject. For all you young ones: this ad 👇🏻which ran in Hustler magazine, is the basis of a leading Supreme Court case dealing with satire.
And in this ad, the very upright leader of the Moral Majority, a Baptist preacher, discusses his first sexual encounter - his “first time” - which is supposedly with his mother in an outhouse while both are drunk. It’s very crude but also hilarious if you find irreverence funny.
And the Supreme Court said this was protected speech as satire because no one could seriously contend that anyone reading it would think it was true! (I simplify.) It’s obviously satire & therefore obviously not actually true & therefore not actually harming your reputation.
Read 4 tweets
22 May
Now that the pandemic is starting to abate, it's time for legislatures to completely overhaul state statutes authorizing the powers state governors & health authorities have to respond to a health emergency. These laws are seldom used & they need to be modernized & clarified. /1
The states have the power to deal with health emergencies - in ways that the federal govt DOES NOT. This is true about many things beyond health. It is part of the division of powers in our federalist system of govt. /2
But the state executive's powers are not unlimited. They are limited by at least three things: 1. people's constitutional rights (state & federal), 2. state statutes passed by the legislature, & 3. the factual context of the situation (the flu is not ebola for example.) /3
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(