reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @Weaponization

Weaponization
Posted - May 15, 2024 at 2:27 PM
Saved - May 15, 2024 at 2:36 PM

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

📺 Watch @Jim_Jordan’s opening statement from today’s hearing examining the weaponized lawfare of the justice system.

@Jim_Jordan - Rep. Jim Jordan

https://t.co/oaxwvDANXr

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump is facing multiple criminal trials, with allegations of interference in elections. Various officials are accused of targeting him politically, including mishandling classified information. The speaker raises concerns about government weaponization and double standards, warning of the potential implications for all Americans. The focus is on the misuse of law to target political opponents. The witnesses discuss the dangerous precedent set by these actions.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Does anyone believe if President Trump wasn't running for president, that he would be facing 4 criminal trials? Bonnie Willis announced her investigation in February of 2021 but didn't bring charges until two and a half years later after president Trump announced he was running for president. Attorney General Garland named Jack Smith's special counsel 3 days after president Trump announces that he's running for president. And Alvin Bragg said he could not see a world, quote, he could not see a world in which he would indict president Trump and call Michael Cohen as a prosecution witness. But that's exactly what he did after president Trump announces he's running for president. Alvin Bragg brings a case that the Department of Justice wouldn't, that the Federal Elections Commission wouldn't bring, that his predecessor, Cy Vance, wouldn't bring. And as Albin Bragg himself said, he wouldn't bring, but then he did after President Trump announced he was running for President. Some might call this all election interference. Think about it: Mr. Bragg is charging President Trump with conspiracy to impact the 2016 election. Miss Willis and Mr. Smith are charging President Trump with a conspiracy to interfere with the 2020 election. Seems to me the conspiracy is between Bragg, Smith, and Willis working to interfere with the 2024 race. Of course, none of this is new. 2016, government spied on president Trump's campaign. You don't have to take my word for it. You don't have to take this committee's word for it. John Durham said it. Clinton campaign made the law firm Perkins Coie, who hired Fusion GPS, who hired Christopher Steele, a foreigner, who talked to other foreigners, who put together the fake dossier, which became the basis for the FBI to spy on president Trump's campaign. The basis for a whole investigation where we saw text messages back and forth from folks on the investigation saying, we'll stop Trump. Then, of course, it was the Mueller investigation. 19 lawyers, 41 FBI agents, $30,000,000 to find nothing. No conspiracy. No coordination. None whatsoever. Then it was impeachment. Anonymous whistleblower, no firsthand knowledge. He was biased against president Trump who worked for Joe Biden. Talks about a phone call, and they impeach the president of the United States. Then they raided his home, broke every protocol, every normal procedure again. Don't take our word for it. Steven D'Antuano, FBI assistant director of the Washington field office told us this in his deposition. Then, of course, they tried the 14th amendment. We'll just keep him off the ballot. The easiest way to win is not to let your opponent play. That's what they tried to do. Thank goodness the Supreme Court said no to that. 9 to 0, they said no to that. And then, of course, after all that, after he's a candidate, as I said, we get all these cases. In Georgia, Bonnie Willis hires her boyfriend, travels to z to DC on the taxpayer dime, meets with White House officials, January 6th Committee, all in an effort to target president Trump. In New York, gag orders placed on president Trump by partisan judge whose daughter is a Democrat fundraiser, while Michael Cohen, convicted perjurer, is allowed to post anything he wants on social media, say whatever he wants. Not to mention the guy who's lead prosecutor for Alvin Bragg, Mr. Colangelo, who worked for Leticia James, then worked for the Justice Department, then went back to New York to work for Alvin Bragg. And in Florida in Florida, we learned that Jack Smith changed, altered the order of the classified documents he sees. The physical documents don't match up with the scanned documents. Jack Smith didn't properly handle the documents he said president Trump didn't properly handle. Jack Smith mishandled classified information all while charging President Trump with, quote, mishandling classified information. You can't make this up. Someone called that tampering with evidence. Today's hearing is about how the law is being used to target political opponents. It's truly about the weaponization of government, truly about what this committee has been focused on for this congress. And, obviously, president Trump is example number 1. It's about the double standard. One set of rules for the politically connected, the other set for the people they wanna target. But maybe most important, it's about where does all this go. Where does it all go? Because if they can do it to a president, they can do it to anybody. Any one of us, any of our constituents, any American they want to. And that's what that's what's frightening. That's what's truly frightening. So I wanna thank our witnesses for being here and talking about this most critical issue, how the government, how the agencies, how the law is being turned on people that they politically disagree with.
Weaponization
Posted - March 9, 2023 at 4:58 PM
Saved - May 7, 2024 at 12:44 PM

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

Democrats now want journalists to: 1. Expose their sources publicly 2. Expose their conditions for publication Have we ever seen such an attack on the First Amendment in a congressional hearing? https://t.co/bWdzHvJ4KJ

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 received access to emails from sources at Twitter. Mr. Musk did not contact them; they were brought in by a friend. They agreed to conditions for covering the story, including attributing sources to Twitter and breaking news on Twitter. Speaker 1 initially denied having conditions but later admitted to them.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Who gave you access to these emails? One of the Who was the individual that, gave you permission to access the emails? Speaker 1: Well, the attribution from my story is sources at Twitter, Twitter. And that's what I'm going to refer to. Speaker 0: Okay. Did Mr. Musk contact you, Mr. Tayubi? Speaker 1: Again, the attribution from my story is sources at Twitter. Speaker 0: Mister Schellenberger, did mister Musk contact you? Actually, no. I was brought in by my friend Barry Weiss. And so this story, there's been a lot of misinformation Mister Weiss, congratulation. Mister Taibim, miss Weiss, thank you. Speaker 2: In exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions. What were those conditions? She asked you that question and you said you had none, but you yourself posted that you had conditions. Speaker 1: No. The the conditions as I've explained multiple times Speaker 2: No, sir. You've not explained. You told her her in response to her question that you had no conditions. In fact, you you kinda used the word license that you were free to look at all of them, all 100,000 emails. Speaker 1: I I was the the question was posed was was I free to to write about Speaker 2: Sir, did you have any conditions? Speaker 1: The condition was that we published Sir, Speaker 2: did you have any conditions? Yes or no? A simple question. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 2: Alright. Could you tell us what conditions those were? Speaker 1: The conditions were an attribution, sources at Twitter, and that we we break any news on Twitter.
Weaponization
Posted - May 1, 2024 at 6:39 PM
Saved - May 7, 2024 at 12:39 PM

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

🚨 #BREAKING: Weaponization Committee Exposes the Biden White House Censorship Regime in New 800 Page Report This interim report details the months-long campaign by the Biden White House to censor Americans on Facebook, Amazon, and YouTube. Read it here: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Censorship-Industrial-Complex-WH-Report_Appendix.pdf https://t.co/cbf58RMhFa

Weaponization
Posted - June 26, 2023 at 10:31 PM
Saved - June 27, 2023 at 1:29 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
New info reveals CISA's censorship of Americans through third-party intermediaries like EIISAC. State and local officials used EIISAC to silence critics like SenTedCruz. CISA outsourced surveillance to circumvent the law. Unconstitutional.

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

New information obtained to date has revealed that the CISA has facilitated the censorship of Americans directly and through third-party intermediaries. How? Thread 🧵

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

Meet CISA’s external censorship arm: the EI-ISAC

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

State and local election officials used the EI-ISAC in an effort to silence critics and political opponents like @SenTedCruz.

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

CISA admitted to outsourcing its surveillance operation to third parties. All to unconstitutionally circumvent the law.

Weaponization
Posted - June 26, 2023 at 10:11 PM
Saved - June 27, 2023 at 1:07 AM

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

New Report Reveals CISA Tried to Cover Up Censorship Practices. Report outlines collusion between CISA, Big Tech, and government-funded third parties to conduct censorship by proxy and cover up CISA's unconstitutional activities. Read it here: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/cisa-staff-report6-26-23.pdf https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/cisa-staff-report6-26-23.pdf

Weaponization
Posted - June 26, 2023 at 10:47 PM
Saved - June 26, 2023 at 11:53 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
CISA tried to hide its unconstitutional activities and remove evidence of wrongdoing. MDM advisors feared being exposed and CISA purged its website of references to domestic MDM and First Amendment violations due to public pressure.

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

Arguably the worst part of CISA’s censorship efforts: The cover-up. CISA has attempted to conceal its unconstitutional activities from the American public and remove evidence of wrongdoing.

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

CISA’s MDM advisors fretted that it was “only a matter of time before someone realizes we exist and starts asking about our work.”

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

CISA purged its website of references to domestic MDM and its First Amendment violations in response to public pressure.

Weaponization
Posted - May 15, 2023 at 9:36 PM
Saved - May 16, 2023 at 8:37 PM

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

Weaponization
Posted - May 10, 2023 at 10:09 AM
Saved - May 10, 2023 at 11:30 AM

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

David Cariens recounted that: 1. A CIA employee informed him about the Hunter Biden “intel” statement 2. The CIA employee read him the text of the statement 3. The CIA employee asked Cariens if he’d sign the statement.

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

Even Mike Morell testified that such action by a CIA employee would be inappropriate.

Weaponization
Posted - March 30, 2023 at 5:09 PM
Saved - March 31, 2023 at 6:36 PM

@Weaponization - Weaponization Committee

Incredible. @RepThomasMassie exposes how the federal government signed up with social media companies as a social media partner.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asks about the communication between government agencies and social media platforms. They mention email traffic and censorship activities that were not public. The speaker also discusses how the CDC had a partnership with Twitter, allowing them privileged access to flag misinformation. They mention the Virality Project, which is a collaboration between private entities and the government to surveil and censor social media. The speaker shares their personal experience of having their tweets censored and expresses concern about the violation of the First Amendment. They mention a court case that supports the idea that liking, commenting, and sharing are protected by the First Amendment. The speaker finds it appalling that the executive branch violated the First Amendment.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I wanna ask you, mister Sauer. How did the CDC, the surgeon general, and and NIAID communicate with, social media platforms to influence them? Speaker 1: They did it in different ways, but you see a lot of email traffic that was not public at the time where there's censorship activities that were out of public view? Speaker 0: In, like, at CDC, what was the particular channel there? I heard that they had some portal partnership that they could access directly to Twitter? Who who were Speaker 1: the people involved? That's correct. You see both Twitter and Facebook offering federal officials privileged access SAS to be sort of privileged flaggers of misinformation using something that Twitter calls the partner support portal and something that the Facebook emails describe as Facebook's misinfo reporting channel, and they assure them, hey, if you go through this process, you'll get, you know, very prompt responses. We'll prioritize escalation of your concerns. Speaker 0: So the government literally signed up as a partner with the social media companies. I think that's a very fair comment on our evidence. So one other avenue that the, I want you to tell us about that the government may have had influence is this Virality Project. Can you tell us what that is us and what they do and if they receive taxpayer money. The Verality Project is Speaker 1: a kind of consortium of private entities working hand in glove with the federal government. Really just an extension under a different name of the Election Integrity Partnership. You're talking about entities like Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington Center For An Informed Public, Graphica and the Atlantic Council's DFR lab collaborating closely with state, federal and local government officials and collaborating closely with social media platforms all at once to engage in a a mass surveillance and mass censorship program for social media, the the breadth of which is staggering. Speaker 0: Imagine my surprise when I found out that the Virality Project was targeting my communications in social media with my constituents. In June, they said representative Massey uses Cleveland Clinic study to allege, counter to CDC guidance that previously infected people do not need the vaccine. They were concerned that my Fox News interview had gone viral with 393 1,000 Facebook views. And then finally, they said whether or not this is a case in which scientific consensus is changing. In other words, whether this is true or not, they said, that natural immunity key narrative and is is a source of uncertainty, not only among anti vaccine activists, but also among the questioning and hesitant. That uncertainty must be addressed by experts and openly and responsibly communicated to the public. And and this virality project, working with the government was advising the social media companies on what to censor. Is that correct? That's correct. And that That's correct. So here's what I find disturbing. Not necessarily that my tweets were censored, but if this this is one of the tweets, where natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity. There were multiple studies supporting that. It had subsequent tweet just like this that referenced those studies. ICOT blocked too. But what concerns me is this statement down here. This tweet can't be replied to, shared or liked. Okay. Shared. Are are we when we do this to constituents, are we squelching their 1st Amendment? Absolutely. The Knight versus First Amendment Center, a Speaker 1: case that Mr. Selleby was talking about in the 2nd Circuit held that liking, commenting, reposting, retweeting, there's case law indicating these are First Amendment protected activities. I think I Speaker 0: think it's appalling that the we've got evidence that the first amendment was violated by the executive branch, particularly people trying to redress their government.
View Full Interactive Feed