Sadly, Our Elected Authorities Have Turned on US. Supreme Court of the United States of America Is Now History. Globalists Use Them as Pawns in Their Battle for Power. Our Lawfully Chosen Puppet Masters, Also Known as Satan’s Soldiers, Are Not to Be Trusted

The Truth Will No Longer Be Able to Get Out Because of the United States Supreme Court and Social Media Has Full Control of Satan’s Soldiers’ Messages, Tribulation Moving Forward at Warp Speed


Satan Soldiers Over At The Supreme Court on Tuesday stopped the implementation of a contentious Texas social media law, after the tech sector and other opponents argued that it would enable nasty information to proliferate online.

The proposal would make it illegal for internet platforms like Facebook and Twitter to moderate or remove information based on one's political beliefs.
A lower court originally stopped the statute, but an appeals court allowed it to proceed while it considers the larger issue.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stopped the implementation of a contentious Texas social media law, after the tech sector and other opponents argued that it would enable nasty information to proliferate online.

The ruling does not rule on the merits of the bill, known as HB20, but instead reinstates an injunction that prevents it from taking effect while federal courts determine whether it can be implemented. In the future, the Supreme Court is likely to be requested to review the law's legality.

The measure was temporarily blocked by the court's five justices. Justice Samuel Alito joined two other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, in a formal dissent from the ruling. Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, also voted to keep the rule in place while a legal challenge is being pursued.

The legislation forbids internet platforms from censoring or eliminating information based on one's political beliefs. It derives from a popular right-wing accusation that big California-based social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are biased in their moderation practices and unfairly silence conservative viewpoints. The platforms have said that they enforce its community norms consistently, and right-leaning users are often among the most engaged.

In their emergency application to the court, two industry groups representing tech companies such as Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Twitter claimed that "HB20 would compel platforms to disseminate all sorts of objectionable viewpoints, such as Russia's propaganda claiming that its invasion of Ukraine is justified, ISIS propaganda claiming that extremism is warranted, neo-Nazi or KKK screeds denying or supporting the Holocaust, and encouraging children to engage in risky behavior."

Texas' Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, has said that this is not the case, writing in response to the emergency application that the law does not "prevent platforms from eliminating whole categories of information."

"For example," the statement continues, "the platforms may opt to remove pornography without violating HB 20... The platforms may also prohibit foreign government speech without breaching HB 20, thus they are not compelled to carry Russia's pro-Ukraine propaganda."

Alito's dissent began by recognizing the case's importance for social media businesses and governments that would regulate how these companies may manage the material on their sites.

"This application involves questions of high significance that clearly require this Court's consideration," Alito stated. "Social media platforms have changed how individuals engage with one another and get news." The topic is a groundbreaking Texas legislation that confronts the influence of powerful social media businesses to impact public debate on today's most pressing problems."

Alito said that he would have let the statute to stay in place while the matter is being heard in federal court. He stressed that he has "not reached a definite opinion on the unique legal concerns that emerge from Texas' choice to address the 'changing social and economic' situations that it sees."

"But it is exactly because of this that I am hesitant to intervene at this juncture in the proceedings," he wrote. "While I understand the Court's apparent desire to postpone enforcement of HB20 while the appeal is pending, the preliminary injunction issued by the District Court was a significant intrusion on state sovereignty, and Texas should not be required to seek preclearance from the federal courts before its laws take effect."

The law was enacted in September, but it was halted by a lower court, which issued a preliminary injunction preventing it from taking effect. That changed in mid-May, when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered to stay the injunction awaiting a final ruling on the issue, allowing the statute to be implemented while the court debated on the wider case.

Two tech sector organizations, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), responded by filing an emergency petition with Alito, who is assigned to cases in that district.

NetChoice and CCIA petitioned the court to prevent the legislation from taking effect, claiming that social media firms make editorial judgments about what information to distribute and show, and that the appeals court's ruling would take away that discretion and limit expression. It said that the stay should be lifted while the appeals court considers the critical First Amendment concerns at the heart of the case.

"Texas' HB 20 is a constitutional trainwreck — or, as the district court called it, an example of 'burning the house to roast the pig,'" said Chris Marchese, Counsel at NetChoice, in reaction to the verdict on Tuesday. "We are happy that the First Amendment, the open internet, and the people who depend on it will continue to be protected from Texas' illegal overreach."

"No government official should order an internet platform, website, or newspaper to broadcast certain speech," CCIA President Matt Schruer stated. "For more than 200 years, this has been a core element of our democracy, and the Supreme Court has affirmed it."

The Supreme Court's ruling has ramifications for other states considering laws similar to Texas'. A similar social media legislation was previously approved by the Florida legislature, but it has been halted by the courts.

Soon after the tech organizations' emergency appeal in Texas, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed an injunction against a similar statute in Florida, stating unanimously that content moderation is protected by the Constitution.

Florida's attorney general submitted an amicus brief on behalf of her state and many others, asking the court to uphold the Texas legislation, stating that the industry misread the statute and that states have the authority to regulate enterprises in this manner.

Congress's dumping ground

State laws serve as an early test bed for how the United States Congress is contemplating changing the legal liability shield on which digital platforms have relied for years to control their services. This rule, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, protects internet platforms from liability for material users upload to their services while simultaneously allowing them to monitor or delete submissions in good faith.

Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized the measure, albeit for different reasons. Democrats want to change the law to give digital platforms greater responsibility for moderating potentially harmful material, such as disinformation. While Republicans believe that some sorts of content, such as terrorist recruiting or child sexual exploitation, should be deleted, many want to make it more difficult for platforms to participate in other types of moderation, which they perceive as ideological suppression.

Former Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., one of the Section 230 writers, submitted an amicus brief in favor of the business organizations' request that the Supreme Court overturn the stay. Cox contends in the brief that HB20 "is in irreconcilable contradiction" with Section 230, which should take precedence over state law.

Nonetheless, at least one Supreme Court Justice has shown an interest in reconsidering Section 230 itself.

Conservative Thomas argued in 2020, "in a relevant situation, we should assess whether the content of this increasingly significant regulation accords with the existing status of immunity enjoyed by Internet platforms."

In a concurrence last year, he indicated that internet platforms may be "sufficiently analogous to common carriers or places of lodging to be controlled in this way."

Update: If We Can’t Rely on the Department of Justice, the FBI, Our Elected Officials, the President of the United States, the Supreme Court, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, We Can’t Rely on Their Ministry of Truth Either, Tribulation In Play

By StevieRay Hansen | November 29, 2022 |

HNewsWire: At the Capitol on Jan. 6, Lora DeWolfe and her husband Darrel Kennemer attended a demonstration but didn’t do anything unlawful, they said in an interview with The Epoch Times. They think the FBI mistook Kennemer for another person. There were no injuries or property damage reported by any of them, since they said…

The U.S. Supreme Court Will Follows Through in June and Overturn Roe v. Wade, It’s Coming, Riots—Threats Have Been by Satan Soldiers to “Burn Down or Storm” the Supreme Court Building, God Help This Nation Going Forward

By StevieRay Hansen | June 2, 2022 |

HNewsWire: “Burn down or storm” threats have been made against the Supreme Court building, a May 13 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document said. Threatening letters have been sent to the houses of conservative judges who have been moved with their families for their safety. According to a document from the Department of Homeland Security…

The United States Supreme Court Has Collapsed – There Is No Free Speech, No Fair Trial, No System of Justice, No Reasonable Expectation of Human Rights Anywhere, No Fair Elections

By StevieRay Hansen | May 25, 2022 |

Soldiers of Satan Supreme Court Justices Reject Attempt by New York School Employees to Block Vaccine Mandate – The Supreme Court of the United States Has NOW Played a pivotal role – There is no such thing as free speech, no such thing as a fair trial, no such thing as a system of justice,…

Update: 3/29/22 at 1:59 PM Supreme Court To Weigh Biden Vaccine Mandate — The Court Has Already Turned on The People — The United States Supreme Court Has Collapsed There Is No Free

By StevieRay Hansen | March 30, 2022 |

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate on large private businesses through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on Thursday, but upheld a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate. The court allowed a separate rule to take effect requiring shots for workers in nursing homes, hospitals and other facilities…

Supreme Court Hashes Out NY Legislature Revoking Religious Exemptions for School Vaccinations.

By Bryce Abbott | January 28, 2022 |

New York state parents have made their voices heard as F.F. v. State of New York, Supreme Court file 21-1003, is set to take place. Challenging the state’s repeal of a legislation in 2019 that exempted people with genuine religious objections from having to accept the vaccines their children are required to undergo in order to…

US Supreme Court is Seeing the Beginning of a Tsunami Pushback Against Tyrannical Vaccine Mandates.

By Bryce Abbott | December 23, 2021 |

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments about the COVID-19 vaccine mandates imposed by the Biden administration. The nation’s highest federal court announced on Wednesday (pdf) that it will hear two separate lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s mandate for businesses with more than 100 employees and for some 17 million health-care workers…


SRH: The lasted Supreme Court ruling allows for Tech Companies to determine what hate speech is. Of course Scripture has always fallen under that ban hammer… especially in the area of homosexuality.

After the Sussman 'FBI-Russia-Hoax-Lie' Acquittal, Trump Said, "Our Legal System is Corrupt."He's RIGHT!


Following Sussman's acquittal, former President Donald Trump reacted quickly, claiming that the justice system is broken...

"Our Legal System is CORRUPT," Trump said on Truth Social, adding that "our Judges (and Justices!) are very politicized, compromised, or just plain terrified," before bemoaning Michael Sussmann's acquittal.

Former Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller also responded to the judgment, writing on Gettr that Sussmann acknowledged to delivering opposition information to the FBI while not alerting the agency that the study was done for Clinton.

"How did Sussmann escape?" THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED!!!" Miller penned a piece.

Sussmann was found not guilty by a unanimous jury.

One jury told reporters, "I don't believe it should have been prosecuted."

"There are larger issues affecting the country than a suspected lie to the FBI."

We're not clear what it has to do with the legal factors at work in determining Sussman's guilt.

In response to this juror's statements, constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley stated:

"The sole premise for the prosecution was telling a falsehood to the FBI." It was the jury's responsibility to decide the truth and significance of such a deception.

...Of course, this comment might simply be interpreted as a critique of the underlying claim without admitting prejudice in analyzing the factors. However, if expressed during jury selection, it would have prompted a challenge in court."

But, on the other hand...

* * * Formalized paraphrase

As previously reported, Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, was found not guilty of a single count of lying to the FBI when he claimed he was not working on behalf of any client when he alleged a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia's Alfa Bank.

Sussmann was charged with lying to the FBI at a meeting with then-FBI general counsel James Baker when he presented what he believed was proof of probable clandestine connections between the Trump business and Alfa, a Russian bank, under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Sussmann reportedly withheld the fact that he was representing the Clinton campaign, for which he was paid.

The verdict follows a two-week trial that included more than a day of discussion... by this jury:

Baker, who now works for Twitter, said that if he had known Michael Sussmann was operating on behalf of the Clinton campaign, he would not have met with him.

"I don't believe I would have," Baker stated in federal court in Washington, according to the Epoch Times.

Knowing Trump's opponent was behind the charges "would have raised very severe issues about the reliability of the source" and the "veracity of the material," according to Baker. It would have also increased "a significant anxiety in my mind about whether we were going to be played."

The testimony strengthens a key piece of special counsel John Durham's case against Sussmann: knowing the sources that drove Sussmann to meet with Baker would have changed how the FBI analyzed the information, which the bureau ultimately determined did not substantiate the claims of a secret back channel between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank.

"Without Sussmann's false statement, the FBI may have taken further or more gradual measures before starting and/or completing an investigation," prosecutors said in Sussmann's indictment, which accused him of lying to the FBI.

As Techno Fog points out:

The verdict comes as no surprise. After all, this is a DC jury. We recorded how a jury misled to get on the panel in the Roger Stone case, for example. (That judge didn't seem to mind.) Worse, the Sussmann judge incorrectly permitted a lady to stay on the jury despite the fact that her daughter and Sussmann's are on the same high school crew team. One can't help but conclude that the jury made her judgment with her own daughter's interests — the cohesiveness of the crew team – in mind.

On the facts, there was more than enough evidence to convict Sussmann. Sussmann lied to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in order to have a meeting with the FBI to transfer the Alfa Bank fake documents. Sussmann lied again at the meeting, claiming he was not there on behalf of a client, in order to persuade the FBI to launch an inquiry into the Trump Organization's alleged links with Alfa Bank. Sussmann then confessed to Congress that he met with Baker on behalf of a client. Billing records revealed that he was working on the Alfa Bank project for the Clinton campaign.

I won't suggest the outcome is unimportant. Of course it does. It would have shown that a DC jury can condemn one of its own. It would have meant facing consequences for lying to the FBI. It is hardly the most serious of crimes, but it is still a crime.

The FBI's probe into the Alfa Bank charges hampered Sussmann's prosecution in major part. That pertains to materiality. How are the falsehoods relevant if the FBI's investigation was so shoddy? (Answer: they were material since the falsehoods aided in the inception of the inquiry.)

Consider the evidence of FBI Special Agent Curtis Heide, whose repeated efforts to interview the source of the Alfa Bank intelligence were turned down by headquarters. Despite their call for an inquiry, FBI Headquarters did not want this stuff fully examined. During the trial, we stated:

Agent Heide requested an interview with the source of the Alfa Bank white papers very early in the inquiry, on September 26, 2016. Heide already knew the white paper was a sham. Pientka did not respond to him. On October 3, 2016, he renewed his plea. His contact at FBI headquarters turned down Agent Heide's requests:

That is not to imply that the trial has not benefited the public. The trial material was critical to understanding the larger Clinton/Fusion GPS/Perkins Coie attempt to poison the public, the press, and the FBI with their Trump/Russia falsehoods.

The remainder of Techno Fog may be found here.

Meanwhile, here's why many people felt Sussmann would be found guilty:

Sussman's guilt as accused.

"Who cares what Sussman told Baker?" says a common Marxist myth. He was working for the Clinton campaign, and everyone knew it." It's problematic because it asks the incorrect question.

The correct question is, "Would Baker have given Sussman's data to investigators if Sussman hadn't told him he was there on behalf of the Clinton campaign?" No, it does not. In reality, Baker said that he would not have attended the conference at all.

"Baker maintained he had a clear recall of Sussmann claiming during the 2016 meeting that he was not taking the charges to the FBI on behalf of any client."
"I'm 100 percent certain he mentioned it throughout the meeting," he claimed.

Most people ignore an important point: Sussman did not lie to protect himself. He lied so that BAKER would have cover to turn over the material to Cyber Division. Actually, the falsehood was essential because "everyone knew" Sussman worked for the Clinton campaign. Sussman is among them.

Formalized paraphrase

Sussmann was found not guilty on all charges. The evidence, according to many of us, was overwhelming. Nonetheless, the jury either felt he did not lie or that the falsehood was insignificant.
May 31, 2022 — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley)

Source: ZeroHedge



Leave a Comment