Trump's Truth Social Now Allowed in Google's Play Store (bloomberg.com) 136
Google has approved Donald Trump's Truth Social app for release in its Play Store, opening up a key distribution channel for the social network ahead of US midterm elections. Bloomberg reports: Google had previously declined to distribute the app, saying it needed to address the fact that it hosted violent threats and other content that goes against Google's standards. Google, which is owned by Alphabet Inc., confirmed on Wednesday that Truth Social was now available. Truth Social has agreed to take down content that violates Google's policies, Google said.
Devin Nunes, chief executive officer of Trump Media & Technology Group, said in a statement that the development represented "a significant milestone in our mission to restore free speech online." "It's been a pleasure to work with Google, and we're glad they helped us to finally bring Truth Social to all Americans, regardless of what device they use," Nunes said.
Devin Nunes, chief executive officer of Trump Media & Technology Group, said in a statement that the development represented "a significant milestone in our mission to restore free speech online." "It's been a pleasure to work with Google, and we're glad they helped us to finally bring Truth Social to all Americans, regardless of what device they use," Nunes said.
This is both hilarious and sad. (Score:4, Funny)
Go ahead, let them talk amongst themselves about how big government and big tech and the democratic sociaist agenda is destroying the country they claim to love so much, all while using the tools those entities are providing to them.
I am lol.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The same way some billionaire who routinely shafts his business partners is suddenly the redneck champion. C'mon, reality has left the building together with sanity ages ago, why do you ask for them now?
Re: (Score:2)
Billionaire? All we have is his say so. I suppose he wouldn't lie about that like he does everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe most of these multibillion dollar companies are also multinational. I work at such a company, IPO'd about 25 years ago, S&P 500 about 9 years ago, 11,000 employees worldwide.
Our executives (C&D) are a world-wide range of cultures, races and religion. Hence, our view is center/ humanitarian.
I think the USA's steady move to The Right (since Regan / Gingrich) has had the illusion of those that do not follow, moving to the left.
Re: This is both hilarious and sad. (Score:2)
You're saying they're branding themselves as socialist?
Re: (Score:2)
Some corporations are practically religions already. See: Apple, Tesla, Disney.
ToS violation (Score:1, Flamebait)
From the play store ToS:
"We don't allow apps that contain false or misleading information or claims, including in the description, title, icon, and screenshots"
Given that "truth" is the one thing one definitely won't find anywhere in the app, this is clearly false advertising and should be taken down.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet, they have no trouble allowing the Android apps for Twitter, Facebook, or TicToc. All of those are frequently filled with lies, half-truths, and dangerous stunts that get kids killed.
Re: (Score:2)
I had no idea that "Twitter", "facebook", and "TicToc" [sic] were synonymous with "truth".
Oh wait, they aren't, and you just responded with utter nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of like Elon Musk's "Not a Flamethrower." https://www.boringcompany.com/... [boringcompany.com] Just give it a label that complies with the law (or ToS) and you're good, right?
Re: ToS violation (Score:2)
So... Not Truth Social. Untruth Social?
Re: (Score:2)
I think there are grounds to dispute the relevance of both words, "truth" and "social."
Fake news (Score:2)
I just had to say it.
Devin Nunes said... (Score:1, Funny)
Yes, if you want to ensure people know that THE WORDS FOLLOWING ARE ALL LIES, you can either say "The following words are untrue:" or "Devin Nunes said".
Devin, Lie Social, etc. just /smdh
E
Extremist Users (Score:5, Funny)
Google was reportedly concerned that Truth Social's moderation polices weren't sufficient to deal with violent and extremist content posted by its users.
However, upon further review, Google realized its concerns were ungrounded as Truth Social doesn't have any users to post content.
Re: (Score:2)
It was probably Trump specifically that they were worried about. Having been banned from both Facebook and Twitter for inciting an insurrection, the fact that Truth Social allowed him to post suggested that their moderation policies were somewhat lacking.
Will be interesting to see if they get booted off again around the time of the next election.
Re:Extremist Users (Score:5, Funny)
I did not bother reading the actual article, just the actual summary was weird enough.
and
In other words, Truth Social made it to the App store by permitting their "free speech" to be censored by Google and Devon Nunes hailed this as a victory.
Does not compute. Illogical, Captain.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just precious that you think that "Truth" Social has anything to do with free speech. They routinely censor opposite views, including shadow banning [businessinsider.com] and that's long before Google wedged themselves into the mix.
Back-to-back headlines (Score:1)
First the one about Android leaking data even when you have the VPN on, and then right after it, the one about TRUTH Social coming to Android. Definitely the app and OS people should be using to share their most outrageous personal views online. Good times.
Re: (Score:2)
First the one about Android leaking data even when you have the VPN on, and....
https://hothardware.com/news/v... [hothardware.com]
Sorry Apple shill but this attemp of a joke, just not works :P
honestly (Score:3, Insightful)
The more Trump is allowed to speak, the better the dems chances in 2024.
Re: (Score:2)
History shows us otherwise.
In 2015, CNN and C-SPAN became the Donald Trump 24/7 channel. That propelled him from being a laughing-stock to being the victor. He riled up a long-admonished segment of the Republican party and turned them into a voting force that has now replaced the base of it.
What you say would be true only if people listened to what he said and processed it logically.
Re: (Score:3)
Did they wan to get sued?
Why? There is no requirement for any business to carry/do business with something they don't want. You think stores carry every product pitched to them?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The New York Times wouldn't publish my article on their front page. My freedomz have been murdered!!111
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
So what you really want is the government to force google?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oddly enough forcing social media companies to do things seems to be the conservative playbook right now.
Which is really really weird.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really. Both conservatives and liberals, at least the politicians, are all in favor of forcing people to do stuff. They just have different ideas about what's acceptable to be forced.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the primary reason I am a registered independent. Both parties are entirely too authoritarian for my tastes, it is just different flavors of authoritarian.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, about a decade back my mother asked me about my "independent" candidate because she thought he seemed interesting. That was surprising and made no sense. I'm independent, we don't all think alike or have a candidate, it's what "independent" means... But she was interested in the extremely wing-nut absurdly far right American Independent Party candidate. I had to shake my head and laugh a bit, but amazed that it was the the sort of person she wanted back in the bland Dole-Clinton days.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just curious: In what way(s) do you see the left as being "authoritarian"?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Off the top of my head, and keeping in mind that the U.S. doesn't actually have a "Left" worth mentioning (our political parties are far right and moderate right, though we do have a few moderate leftists like Bernie Sanders in Congress)...
For starters, mass surveillance and making it legal to "disappear" citizens so long as you make baseless accusations of terrorism that need never become public. Pretty much all the scary "anti-terrorist" shit past post 9-11 was done with broad bipartisan support, and nob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does "assault rifle" mean? It means... whatever the author thinks it means. [...] Until they define what "assault weapon" means
We know what assault rifle means, it means the same thing as it meant when the Germans invented the StG. And the GP used the phrase "assault rifle" but then you went on a frothing rant about "assault weapon" which they didn't say.
Cut the froth if you want to be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Assault rifles are already banned federally. AR-15s do not qualify as an assault rifle, that was the point being made. A basic requirement of assault rifles is that they have an automatic or burst mode, which AR-15s do not have.
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
The OP that mentioned the assault rifles was actually misusing the term, and seems to have meant assault weapon, which is what the person you responded to assumed it looks like. Assault weapons are a made up category of firearm which essentially bo
Re: (Score:2)
Assault rifles are already banned federally.
The import of new ones is, anyway.
As well, the focus on them is entirely political, as they are used in a miniscule amount of crime, so banning them will have, and did have no impact on crime.
Tacticool almost-assault-rifles are used in a majority of high-profile, high-volume gun violence incidents. As such, restrictions on their sale and ownership probably will have some kind of noticeable effect. It might even reduce the number of deaths in those incidents, if not the number of incidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Tacticool almost-assault-rifles are used in a majority of high-profile, high-volume gun violence incidents.
I challenge you to prove that. I went through a list of every mass shooting, and came out with a number more like 40%, not 51+%. As well, since AR-15s and other commercially available "assault weapons" are not assault rifles, your statement at the start is false. There is no such thing as a tacticool assault rifle, since one of the required features of assault rifles is automatic or burst fire, and no firearm manufactures since 1986 can have that feature and be sold on the commercial market.
Considering h
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's mostly because American mass murderers overwhelmingly choose the right tool for mass murder - weapons designed with the express purpose of doing as much damage to a human as possible, in the shortest amount of time.
I don't know why anybody is shocked by that. It would be like someone getting all worked up over their mechanic choosing to use a 6-point socket to break loose a high-torque bolt instead of a 12-point socket that might slip and round off the bolt head - you use the right tool for the
Re: (Score:2)
Will banning the AR-15 prevent mass murder? It will not, because mass murder existed before the AR-15
Of course it won't. Anyway your .22LR isn't an assault rifle because it's not chambered in an intermediate caliber.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway your .22LR isn't an assault rifle because it's not chambered in an intermediate caliber.
The 1993 Assault Weapons Ban made no such stipulation. My father's Marlin .22LR became an "assault weapon" because it had a vertically oriented magazine that hung below the receiver, thus was restricted to less than 10 round magazines. However, my Ruger 10/22 could use a rotary box magazine that inserted vertically into the receiver, but sat flush with the receiver bottom, so a 10 round magazine was perfectly fine even though they are functionally the same rifle with minor cosmetic differences.
The particu
Re: (Score:2)
What does "assault rifle" mean? It means... whatever the author thinks it means.
It means a class of hand-held weapons like the original assault rifles, the German Sturmgewehrs (a term that Hitler may have personally come up with that is translated to English liberally as 'assault rifle') like the MP-43 and MP-44. Basically they're selective fire, automatic rifles occupying a space between a submachine gun and a carbine intended for relatively close in combat. You can stick to the ridiculous claim that there's no such thing, but the assault rifle basically redefined infantry combat, so
Re: (Score:2)
It's less bad in other countries, but tending in that direction. Here, just recently, a bunch of lefty protesters blocked major roads, interfering with the lives of thousands, maybe tens of thousands of other people. One truck driver had enough: at a snail's pace, he just drove through. The outrage on the left was palpable - how *dare* he not support their protest and their opinions.
I'm not about to say that there aren't authoritarian undercurrents in the political left of the US, but if this is what you think demonstrates it, you very badly need to educate yourself on what 'authoritarian' means.
The hallmark of authoritarianism is the centralization of power in a single person or a small group - it's terribly difficult to enforce adherence to 'authority' without a clear idea of what that 'authority' is. People taking to the streets because they are mad about some ill-defined, amor
Re: (Score:2)
There's a significant difference though - the authoritarian right largely wants to limit rights and tell what people aren't allowed to do and force people into their worldview. This mainly involves things like limiting LGBT lifestyles, ban books, force Christianity/limit non-Christian stuff like swearing in on Bibles, etc. It's all heavily embedded into their mainstream. Their politicians push for it, advocate for it, and are constantly promising to "bring God back into school", push conspiracy theories, an
Re: (Score:2)
One truck driver had enough: at a snail's pace, he just drove through. The outrage on the left was palpable - how *dare* he not support their protest and their opinions.
To be clear, he just drove through... what? People? Was this an intentional blockage of the road, or just such a volume of people that they spilled out into the street? Because, on the one hand, it's usually not a good thing to block the streets themselves during a protest without proper traffic control but, on the other hand, crowds do it all the time. For example at any large sports stadium in a city the roads can become impassable near the stadium for an hour or so when games get out (and that's just the
Re: (Score:2)
A point-in-time protest including civil disobedience is now "authoritarian"? Or are you getting all bent out of shape because a guy driving a 50,000 pound truck through a bunch of people caused others to get bent out of shape about how that was probably an unsafe thing to do?
Re: (Score:2)
Since someone thinks it is flamebait to point out the hypocrisy, how about instead Eric Holder ignoring subpoenas, and claiming to be Obama's "wing man"?
https://www.usnews.com/debate-... [usnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Good grief. Wasn't that a cynical exercise? The whole Benghazi affair was very obviously a gun-running operation the details of which were very obviously classified. So Clinton could not publicly disclose the details and had to use an official cover story. Congressional Republican leadership would have known the actual details already, but they also knew that Clinton could not publicly disclose those details. So they abused their position and knowledge to run hearings where they already knew that Clinton wo
Re: (Score:2)
Literally an overrun embassy, and a US embassador hung from a bridge along with the servicemen to died fighting to protect him, does not matter to you. We were all supposed to believe the lies that it was all over a youtube video, and drop it.
I didn't say their lives didn't matter to me. What I was saying is that that the embassy staff were spies (no surprise there, most of the staff of most embassies are spies) conducting a secret mission of the "government will disavow all knowledge of your mission" type. Given that, it should be a surprise to no-one actually briefed on the mission would be in any position to divulge anything other than the cover story. Doing otherwise would be a felony and, under traditional doctrine for top secret informatio
Re: (Score:2)
Comments related to the addiction of the emotion of Rage are needed.
but
False equivalence indicates ignorance or lack of reasoning (not necessarily low IQ, could be lack of motivation.)
Just how bad does it have to get for people to comprehend the difference?!
Do they have to dress up in the same outfits and symbols? Even then...
History rhymes. Helps if you read history out of today's context since it's free from the propaganda of this time. I suggest OLD books on such topics. Impossible to claim it's just li
Re: (Score:2)
Would have been an even better example if the AC had added, "You need re-education; even better, you need to be stood against a wall and shot."
Re: (Score:1)
Republicans, not conservatives. The overlap between those two groups is the lowest it's been since .. I don't know .. the 1930s?
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point. Not that using Republicans wouldn't still have marked that post as Flamebait.
Although why, I'm unsure. lol
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What it is is ironic, considering they fought to give corporations all the same rights as people, including freedom of speech, for a century.
Could you elaborate a bit more about this? (I am aware of the Citizens United decision, but not much else.)
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious example: Hobby Lobby. According to this SC decision, corporations can have "deeply held religious beliefs". Recall that a corporation is a legal construct designed to limit liability. How any legal construct can have any beliefs at all is beyond me. Noted Republicans have been spouting the idea that "corporations are people, my friend" for quite some time. Corporations aren't people. People own corporations, just like I own my car. But my car is not "people". A corporation can no more have a deeply
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Of course they did. (Score:3)
A bunch of whiney little snowflakes. I give the app 2 months before it's pulled. OK I hope it's pulled in 2 months or less. It'll probably make it 6 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Any artificial person, a corporation or an LLC, etc has been created in the publc interest and so is a government agent. As such they should be barred from limiting free speech. If you want free speech or don't want to bake a gay cake, do business as your self without liability shield.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's because "conservatives" in the US aren't actually conservative any more. They are populists that are snared in some weird personality cult devoted to the worship of the world's most complete example of what a narcissistic asshole looks like.
Re:Of course they did. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? It's been done before, and it's freeze peaches as long as it's going with the narrative. Legalizing marijuana, gun control, abortion rights, etc., they routinely ban people for even thinking about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Legalizing marijuana, gun control, abortion rights, etc., they routinely ban people for even thinking about it.
A majority of Republicans support legalization of recreational marijuana [fivethirtyeight.com]. Some polls show 62% support. This is an area where legislatures are out of touch with voters.
The religious right opposes abortion, but those on the libertarian right tend to be pro-choice at the same level as Democrats.
But you're right about gun control, especially when you start ranting about AR-14s and AK-47s.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopolies generally need to be heavily spanked by government when it comes to getting them to do the right thing. There is not only precedent, it's considered the correct course of action.
Re: Of course they did. (Score:5, Interesting)
free political speech
Political? What about Donny Thump is political? Demagogues are never political. They have no policies, so they can't be.
They prognosticate, they react, they make announcements. But that's not politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Lovely! It is so comforting to forget about all of the shades of grey in between 0 and 1!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Politics is a dirty business and we should fucking stop pretending it isn't.
Politics is as dirty, or as clean, as you make it. Have you ever been to the third world? I have, so personally I'm anxious to prevent us from falling into the pit of infighting and corruption that leaves MOST nations' politics a lurching morass.
You're slamming down the accelerator on that process, merely for some short term gains.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember Michelle Obama and her stupid they go low we go high comment. That incredibly stupid idea from a woman who should have known better is why we currently have a packed Supreme Court gradually dismantling right to vote..
I'm not quite sure how you're connecting those dots. First lady is just a courtesy title. She doesn't actually have any real power to shape government policy, appoint judges, etc.
Re:Of course they did. (Score:5, Funny)
Google is a bakery and Truth Social is a gay wedding cake.
Re: (Score:2)
Sticking with your analogy, the government is giving that bakery a bunch of privileges. Are you OK with that?
Re: Of course they did. (Score:2)
Like what privileges?
Re: Of course they did. (Score:4)
What you're calling for is the end of user generated content. I don't think the Internet would be better that way.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not the end of user generated content.
It absolutely is. Any site that cannot pre-screen 100% of user posts will be overrun with spam and porn. And no site with user generated content bigger than a tiny, single-topic forum will be able to operate while pre-screening 100% of user posts.
And that's before we get into the issue of international sites having to deal with different jurisdictions and different, potentially incompatible sets of laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they screen everything it's quite a risk to accept that liability. Defending an "open and shut" lawsuit can be expensive enough to end a small company. They're the only ones who could possibly screen all their content, and yet the least able to afford the risk to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
He said "As long as this is the case they should have to accept any and all material from third parties as long as it's not explicitly illegal"
This is not the end of user generated content.
Two million pages of ASCII swastikas is not illegal. Do you really think that anyone should be forced to host that "content"? I use that as an example because, if you've been on Slashdot long enough, and you browse at -1, then I'm sure you've seen the huge runs of ASCII swastikas that get posted. They get modded down, but that does not get rid of them. However, the lameness filter is supposed to prevent them in the first place (but isn't very good). Obviously though, a lot of that stuff is being quietly rem
Re: (Score:2)
The irony of Slashdot. Your post which so far is the only reasonable take on this gets modded down for not being part of the two minutes of hate.
Lets just be honest - the "moderate" left in the US, in 2022, does not in any way believe in freedom of speech, or fairness. They're openly OK with themselves doing every single thing they accuse the other side of doing - censorship, propaganda, closed mindedness, authoritarianism, disinformation, manipulating elections, stalking and harassment, racism and sexism, hate speech, insurrection, hating and undermining our government institutions... you name it, they live that life.
The final step in destroying democracy has been taken - convincing half the country that power by any means necessary is a just alternative.
That right there is a textbook example of projection. Well done!
Re: (Score:2)
Pick any of those things, and I am sure examples can be provided. Your denial of the behavior does nothing to make it not be true. That is what is so insidious, they have brainwashed so many into believing that the GOP are the bad guys because they are all these -isms, while the DNC does the exact same behaviors they accuse the other side of.
For example, racism; just watch how they treat black Republicans for a real world example. Did you miss how Tim Scott was treated after the state of the union rebutt
Re: (Score:2)
Lets just be honest - the "moderate" left in the US, in 2022, does not in any way believe in freedom of speech, or fairness.
Could you give me some examples of laws passed by the Democratic Congress or Democratic State Houses that infringe the First Amendment? Not a long list, just some examples of bills passed that led to the prosecution of people for what they said?
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
Do they have to pass?
How about this law, still in place in Colorado:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
Or this New York law?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
Freedom of religion is a big part of the First Amendment, which the DNC seems to hate:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
A really good religious freedom issue is what is happening to military members who attempt to use religious exemptions to the COVID vaccine, not a single one of them were approved, some of them were held u
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Frankly, allowing any social media means you are hosting software filled with "threats", and pretty much everything unpleasant...
Just try it [twitter.com].
Violent threats
We prohibit content that makes violent threats against an identifiable target. Violent threats are declarative statements of intent to inflict injuries that would result in serious and lasting bodily harm, where an individual could die or be significantly injured, e.g., “I will kill you.”
Note: We have a zero tolerance policy against violent threats. Those deemed to be sharing violent threats will face immediate and permanent suspension of their account.
Do you even read Twitter? (Score:4, Informative)
Just try it.
In practice Twitter allows many death threats. [hindustantimes.com]
Just because they are people you also want dead doesn't mean they should be allowed.
There are countless examples on Twitter of death threats Twitter does nothing at all about.
Re: Do you even read Twitter? (Score:2)
Yes because moderation at scale is impossible. Web search that phrase for more explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
some boxes were to be delivered to Florida while others were to go to the tower in New York.
Sounds like there will be a second raid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't go so far as to accuse them of being a stooge but any Trump appointed judge should have recused themselves to avoid the appearance of impropriety, regardless if there was any. The fact that they did not see a need to do so is disconcerting.
Re: (Score:2)
First, over 26% of sitting Federal judges were appointed by Trump. Given how geographically widespread lawsuits and actions against him are likely to be, setting the precedent in the public mind that a Trump-appointed judge has a conflict is going to inevitable produce logistical nightmares for dockets across the country.
Second, you cannot single out Trump for this treatment - that's simply not how the concept of 'justice' works. The expectation would need to apply in cases involving future preside
Re: (Score:2)
Given how geographically widespread lawsuits and actions against him are likely to be, setting the precedent in the public mind that a Trump-appointed judge has a conflict is going to inevitable produce logistical nightmares for dockets across the country.
Not really, there aren't that many cases.
The expectation would need to apply in cases involving future presidents, governors in those states where applicable, and all those responsible for confirming their appointments.
I agree.
The only reason it's a concern at all is the constant drumbeat of legal commentators and talking heads whipping up fears that these judges are going to beholden to Trump,
So you claim.
Anyway, I used the wrong term, it's appearance of partiality. Appearance of impropriety is used for military positions/matters.
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't go so far as to accuse them of being a stooge but any Trump appointed judge should have recused themselves to avoid the appearance of impropriety, regardless if there was any. The fact that they did not see a need to do so is disconcerting.
I'm not sure we could find a judge which would appease the masses. Republicans would call all Democrat-appointed judges biassed against Trump, while Democrats would call all Republican-appointed judges biassed in favor of Trump. The truth doesn't matter; it's all about appearances...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure we could find a judge which would appease the masses.
You can never please everyone but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any attempt to have an impartial judge.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds quite natural. How do you go through the boxes of records looking to respond to the subpoena without moving them from storage into the house? Since the FBI found boxes stored in the storage area of his private residence where he had already told them they were stored, what exactly is so big a deal about the boxed being moved after the subpoena was submitted...you know after they asked for the records?
Re: (Score:2)
Well it becomes a problem when you have a lawyer submit a signed attestation that you've returned all the documents, when you know you haven't because you still have classified top secret material in your fucking desk. And before you start talking about any of the other fucking nonsense excuses - classified documents are by definition property of the United States Government, so he has no property claim.
They were stolen documents, which he has openly admitting to possessing multiple times, and actually has
Re: (Score:2)
Your reply has nothing to do with mine. Did you read mine and the one before it?
When you receive a subpoena, wouldn't you expect to acquire the records out of storage to look through to satisfy the subpoena? This has nothing at all to do with your comment, they are separate issues.
I said nothing about what you bring up, but feel free to rail against Trump, even though you didn't actually say a single thing that referred to the conversation you replied to.
Re: (Score:1)
I thought Melania was Slovenian, not Russian?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the new "Pravda".
Re: (Score:2)
It's like the old joke: "Why is there two state newspapers, Pravda (meaning truth) and Izvestia (meaning news)?"
You need them, because there is no news in Pravda and no truth in Izvestina.
It would work better if Truth and Social were also two different media, though. In this case, there's just no truth and nothing social, all rolled into one.
Re: (Score:2)
I should think the former alleged president's Truth Social should be a natural for MetaFace. It's all virtual and nothing is real.