LimeWire Re-Emerges In Online Rush To Share Pulled '60 Minutes' Segment (arstechnica.com) 128
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: CBS cannot contain the online spread of a "60 Minutes" segment that its editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, tried to block from airing. The episode, "Inside CECOT," featured testimonies from US deportees who were tortured or suffered physical or sexual abuse at a notorious Salvadoran prison, the Center for the Confinement of Terrorism. "Welcome to hell," one former inmate was told upon arriving, the segment reported, while also highlighting a clip of Donald Trump praising CECOT and its leadership for "great facilities, very strong facilities, and they don't play games."
Weiss controversially pulled the segment on Monday, claiming it could not air in the US because it lacked critical voices, as no Trump officials were interviewed. She claimed that the segment "did not advance the ball" and merely echoed others' reporting, NBC News reported. Her plan was to air the segment when it was "ready," insisting that holding stories "for whatever reason" happens "every day in every newsroom." But Weiss apparently did not realize that the "Inside CECOT" would still stream in Canada, giving the public a chance to view the segment as reporters had intended.
Critics accusing CBS of censoring the story quickly shared the segment online Monday after discovering that it was available on the Global TV app. Using a VPN to connect to the app with a Canadian IP address was all it took to override Weiss' block in the US, as 404 Media reported the segment was uploaded to "to a variety of file sharing sites and services, including iCloud, Mega, and as a torrent," including on the recently revived file-sharing service LimeWire. It's currently also available to stream on the Internet Archive, where one reviewer largely summed up the public's response so far, writing, "cannot believe this was pulled, not a dang thing wrong with this segment except it shows truth." "Yo what," joked Reddit user Howzitgoin, highlighting only the word "LimeWire." Another user responded, "man, who knew my nostalgia prof pic would become relevant again, WTF."
"Bringing back LimeWire to illegally rip copies of reporting suppressed by the government is definitely some cyberpunk shit," a Bluesky user wrote.
"We need a champion against the darkness," a Reddit commenter echoed. "I side with LimeWire."
Weiss controversially pulled the segment on Monday, claiming it could not air in the US because it lacked critical voices, as no Trump officials were interviewed. She claimed that the segment "did not advance the ball" and merely echoed others' reporting, NBC News reported. Her plan was to air the segment when it was "ready," insisting that holding stories "for whatever reason" happens "every day in every newsroom." But Weiss apparently did not realize that the "Inside CECOT" would still stream in Canada, giving the public a chance to view the segment as reporters had intended.
Critics accusing CBS of censoring the story quickly shared the segment online Monday after discovering that it was available on the Global TV app. Using a VPN to connect to the app with a Canadian IP address was all it took to override Weiss' block in the US, as 404 Media reported the segment was uploaded to "to a variety of file sharing sites and services, including iCloud, Mega, and as a torrent," including on the recently revived file-sharing service LimeWire. It's currently also available to stream on the Internet Archive, where one reviewer largely summed up the public's response so far, writing, "cannot believe this was pulled, not a dang thing wrong with this segment except it shows truth." "Yo what," joked Reddit user Howzitgoin, highlighting only the word "LimeWire." Another user responded, "man, who knew my nostalgia prof pic would become relevant again, WTF."
"Bringing back LimeWire to illegally rip copies of reporting suppressed by the government is definitely some cyberpunk shit," a Bluesky user wrote.
"We need a champion against the darkness," a Reddit commenter echoed. "I side with LimeWire."
The people who need to see it won't (Score:2, Insightful)
90% of America media is owned by billionaires. If you find yourself agreeing with what you see in the news consistently then you need to start thinking about what that means. If you think billionaires are your friend you need to take a step back and reevaluate things
Re:The people who need to see it won't (Score:4, Interesting)
According to Bari, she pulled it because it merely duplicates stories ran by two other networks, months ago. She told her people that if they wanted to run it, it needed something new, something different. I've never been in charge of a news department, but that seems like an entirely reasonable stance to take. Re-running your competitors' story months later isn't exactly "new"s.
I can assure you that Fox News Grandpas are fully aware of CECOT. They overwhelmingly approve and wonder what it would take to get some of that here. Jeanette Marken [komonews.com] probably wishes we had some CECOT here.
Meanwhile, El Salvador's decision to aggressively remove criminals from polite society is responsible for a 95% reduction in their per-capita murder rate. [linkedin.com]
Re:The people who need to see it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
Even in the best defense of Weiss then she is so far proving to be bad at the EiC job as it was reported this segment was already "screened 5 times" and had already passed review by standard and practice and CBS legal department. They also reported that Weiss ignored any requests for discussing the matter. Not good management!
What Weiss is talking about is the type of thing you bring up do well in advance of a story getting to that point. Even if it's redundant you already fully produced it, the tape is ready to go. Did they replace it with something more compelling?
It can seem reasonable to you but to me and I think many others that's a paper thin cover story from someone who has shown herself to be I think well over head.
Re:The people who need to see it won't (Score:4, Insightful)
I think she's not in over her head. Her job, from now on, will be to knife those stories before they get started. And she's shown she has the motivation to do that. The ability is already there in her position as head of CBS News. Ellison's sprog will expect no less and she will deliver no less. Ellison's sprog needs to keep a lid on embarrassing news stories because his minder in the White House will not approve them raping WB and eventually CNN unless he kisses the ring.
Re: (Score:2)
I would the job would be to knife stories quietly and not make national news when it happens. She's got the motivation but I would say like most in this admin she doesn't have the discipline or the skill. As a Republican would say shes a "DEI hire". If they knew what irony was anymore they might see that.
Re:The people who need to see it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
According to Bari, she pulled it because it merely duplicates stories ran by two other networks, months ago. She told her people that if they wanted to run it, it needed something new, something different. I've never been in charge of a news department, but that seems like an entirely reasonable stance to take. Re-running your competitors' story months later isn't exactly "new"s.
Putting out your own view and take of a news story even if every other news outlet has already done their own story is exactly what every single news source does, all the time. It's not believeable.
The other excuse was that the episode didn't contain the opposing view from the Trump side. Of course, the Trump administration was asked for their view, and they refused to give one. This excuse is also lame because it gives unilateral veto power to anyone being accused of anything.
The really funny thing is that Republicans and conservatives canceled the Fairness Doctrine that required presentation of opposing views, and now they're using that idea that they canceled as a shield for embarrassing conduct. The other funny thing is that the party that flung accusations of canceling at so many opponents are now using their power to cancel as many opponents as possible in as many ways as possible.
Re:The people who need to see it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
Weiss is full of ****. Her original post on X said it was because the White House hadn't been given the opportunity to comment, like she's running RT or some Dickwad Dicktator's personal Pravda
Re: The people who need to see it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
They had plenty of time. It's not like they only called up the White House on this 15 minutes before airtime.
If they wanted to respond, they would have. This White House Press Secretary is no stranger to blowing hot air and lies.
By spiking the story until the White House comments, she has given the White House a "pocket veto" on any future story if that is to be the standard. That instantly makes CBS News - respected worldwide - completely untrustworthy.
She's either incompetent or in the bag for the administration. I'm leaning towards incompetent because now that the piece leaked anyway, the story was still told and CBS News gets both the wrath of the administration as well as the self-own on the hit to the reputation. That's damn fine leadership, I must say; I mean who would ever think that a newsroom full of reporters might leak something in order to report the news...
Re: The people who need to see it won't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you will forget 60 Minutes exists again in just a few days.
It's not like you're going to start watching it again because they didn't show a story, now is it?
Re:The people who need to see it won't (Score:4, Insightful)
According to Bari, she pulled it because it merely duplicates stories ran by two other networks, months ago. She told her people that if they wanted to run it, it needed something new, something different. I've never been in charge of a news department, but that seems like an entirely reasonable stance to take. Re-running your competitors' story months later isn't exactly "new"s.
This story is about people who the US illegally renditioned to CECOT gulag telling their stories of the torture they experienced there. With the exception of Albrego Garcia interviews I'm not aware of anyone else reporting this out are you? Can you cite or link to any such stories?
Re:The people who need to see it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting how they all seem to well understand "what it would mean" if the government started confiscating everyone's firearms but anything prior to or after the second amendment is beyond their comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Bari, she pulled it because it merely duplicates stories ran by two other networks, months ago.
That would have been an extremely odd thing to say since it did not duplicate stories run by other networks. However, what she actually said was:
-- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/n... [pbs.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the full text of Weiss's statement on it (Score:3)
Hi all,
I’m writing with specific guidance on what I’d like for us to do to advance the CECOT story. I know you’d all like to see this run as soon as possible; I feel the same way. But if we run the piece as is, we’d be doing our viewers a disservice.
Last month many outlets, most notably The New York Times, exposed the horrific conditions at CECOT. Our story presents more of these powerful testimonies—and putting those accounts into the public record is valuable in and of itself
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people that needed to see this are the Fox News Grandpas still watch 60 minutes on TV.
At this point, do you truly believe if they watched this they’d believe it? Remember, some of the Fox News grandpas and grandmas switched to NewsMax because Fox is “too woke.” These are the same people who believe Trump being in the Epstein files is a deep state hoax.
Re: (Score:2)
Word salad alert: people who watch 60 Minutes do not watch Faux Noise.
Re:The people who need to see it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
Like Ivanka ?
Re: (Score:2)
Great, let's start at the top. Deport Melania, who came in illegally, and Barron Trump.
And "came in illegally"? I'm going to assume you have zero Native American blood in you, so that would be *you*. There's the door...
Re: The people who need to see it won't (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:The people who need to see it won't (Score:5, Informative)
if I illegally immigrate to Germany, my ass is getting deported. If I illegally immigrate to the UK, my ass is getting deported. The same goes for pretty much every other country in the world.
If you illegally immigrate to France: Look for a complacent boss to hire you (construction worker does the trick); after a few years of productive presence you are eligible to obtain legal immigrant status.
Official criteria: either of:
* 3 years of uninterrupted presence in France (in the case of trades where personnel is lacking; 7 years otherwise); in which a minimum of 12 month of employment in the past 24 month; language proficiency; positive referral in the community (not being documented as troublemaker).
* Creation of a successful business; 12 months of activity; 24 000 € income in the fiscal year; well-kept accounting books.
Source: this lawyer company https://www.justifit.fr/b/guid... [justifit.fr]
You will find a lawyer to do the paperwork for you for free; undocumented immigrants are eligible for expense coverage by the government when related to their immigration procedures (and a few other situations). (Keyword: "aide juridictionnelle".)
A proof of full time employment gives added benefit such as the ability to legally bring your children. One immigrant lady my relatives know works for a home cleaning company, hoping to sum enough employment hours to apply for her 16 y.o. daughter to join. This is a motivating factor for them to maximise their working hours.
It's usually not easy, there are yearly quotas; but it works typically for 15,000-30,000 per year (depending on who is minister). On the other hand, about 22,000 were sent away in 2024 (I speculate, caught by police before the could find employment, or maybe not interested in actual work, or troublemakers). Source: https://www.ouest-france.fr/so... [ouest-france.fr] . (Keyword: "régularisation des sans-papiers".)
After getting legal immigrant status, if your abilities allow you can work your way to Minister, such as Rama Yade: in her youth an undocumented immigrant from Senegal, who at a point was under police order to leave France (source: Christian newspaper La Croix https://www.la-croix.com/Actua... [la-croix.com] ), later Secretary of State for foreign affairs (2007-2009), Secretary of Stats for Sports (2009-2010), ambassador of France at Unesco (2010-2011), and Paris regional councillor (2010-2015). The whole time, as a member of the conservative party ("Républicains").
France (as other EU countries) will also provide free healthcare in public hospitals and free education for your children. Healthcare is getting funded for undocumented immigrants as well (keywork: "Aide Médicale d'État"; since 1893 -- over a century ago; currently at a cost of about 1 billion euros yearly for about 450,000 recipients). Education is a universal right of children, nothing ever opposes children being registered in a local school. Healthcare and education staff are not entitled to create issues related to the legality of your immigration status. Meanwhile, you can focus on work, and serve the country you chose to join.
It's not heaven, it's a mess and full of problems. Yet I am proud of paying taxes that fund healthcare and education of productive (yet undocumented) immigrants, who only dream of being productive and one day becoming full citizens. (And conversely I am ok with funding one-way tickets back to their countries to those who aren't here with that mindset.)
Re: (Score:2)
The same goes for pretty much every other country in the world.
Pretty much doesn't mean every. My point stands. And I see your 15-30000 and raise you the roughly 900,000 people we legally let enter into the US every year. And trust me, I'm personally involved in the clusterthing that our country is with my own personal health and I've experienced first-hand socialized medicine in Spain and Portugal. Meanwhile, you're so anxious to defend illegal immigrants that you fail to look out for the interests of the Americans and legally present immigrants who used to have great
Re:The people who need to see it won't (Score:5, Insightful)
None of the countries you mention will deport you to a torture prison. In fact, doing that is quite illegal. But you seem to not understand what morals or human rights actually mean and you seem to be fine with torture as long as it happens to somebody else. Well, guess what, that makes you deeply malicious and a fundamentally bad person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You had a movie that recommended fucking yourself in every hole and named it Team America? Americans aren't usually that insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The people who need to see it won't (Score:2)
"I have no problem if enemies of..." is a key phrase of fascism.
Whatever ot was that your elder generation fought and died against 80 years ago... you're right in the center of that spectrum, and at the opposite end ot your forefathers' conviction. You're literally their enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have no problems putting enemies of the USA like yourself there too. Hopefully, it's coming to you soon.
Bitch please, you can't even post online with a pseudonym. You're all tough talk there little girl.
Re: The people who need to see it won't (Score:2)
Ah hey the biggest enemy of the USA is probably its president right now. Ruining century-old trust with Europe (and its markets), losing influence all over the world (and its markets), starting conflicts that will eventually result in death of US citizens, increasing costs with tariffs, by the way how are eggs doing in the best country in the world? The biggest enemy of the USA is probably its president. What are you going to do to him?
Re: The people who need to see it won't (Score:2)
Just curious, where do we decide who is 'indigenous' for a given patch of land? For example, I'm pretty sure the so-called indigenous Native Americans fought amongst themselves for control of certain territories, sure, they were all on the continent, but how do we decide who 'owns' a particular patch of land?
The whole "indigenous people" argument is really nothing more than a virtue signal that changes nothing - has anyone ever given back the land they insist was 'stolen' to the people it was 'stolen' from
It's in several places (Score:5, Informative)
As of 2025-12-23 at 22:14 UTC, it's up at The Internet Archive [archive.org] and on YouTube [youtube.com].
Do the world a favor and sit a Republican down to watch it. And download a copy for data retention purposes.
Re:It's in several places (Score:4, Informative)
Also available at https://transfer.it/t/WRv9jJ91wTKK [transfer.it]
Re: (Score:2)
It's also posted to Twitter, which means it's going to be re-posted until the end of time. They can go ahead and try to C&D it, but it's just going to Streisand Effect the longer they fight.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't think that Elon could make all those copies posted on X disappear if he really wanted them to? I think that all it would take was one phone call from Trump to make that happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Can he make them disappear from people's download folders?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you believe that Republicans aren't already familiar with the story? Do you believe they would disapprove if they only knew?
You sweet, summer child.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. They would simply say "they are finally hurting the right people".
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Republicans these days are deeply malicious and fundamentally bad people. All Republicans that had intact morals, personal integrity and honor have left. Only the scum is still there.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the world a favor and sit a Republican down to watch it.
Why? They love watching foreigners get tortured for the good of America. Why provide them free entertainment. This IS what they voted for and they know it.
Re: (Score:3)
there also is:
Surviving CECOT (full doc) | Deported to a Maximum-Security Prison | FRONTLINE + @ProPublica
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] [13:18]
and this from 60 minutes 8 months ago:
What records show about the migrants sent to Salvadoran mega-prison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] [11:23]
Re: (Score:3)
"If you want to know more about CECOT, this story — featuring some excellent reporting from "60 Minutes" in the Before Times — can fill you in."
Trump & Deportations: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] [25:55]
Bari Weiss, meet ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Barbra Streisand.
I am quite sure far more people have viewed the piece than if it had not been pulled.
The only people who are going to bother seeking it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
is there some bright side to a gulag were not considering?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's decreased the violent murders in El Salvador by 95%. It keeps the violent murderous people inside and the civilised people on the outside. Seems to be serving its purpose well.
Re: (Score:2)
got a source for those numbers?
Re: (Score:2)
It's been fairly widely reported for a good while now.
https://thenationaldesk.com/ne... [thenationaldesk.com] is one reference, but you can find plenty of additional reporting online.
Re: (Score:2)
thenationaldesk? whats that? do better.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's decreased the violent murders in El Salvador by 95%. It keeps the violent murderous people inside and the civilised people on the outside. Seems to be serving its purpose well.
Murder rates were already declining rapidly since 2015 from 106 per 100k . Over the next three years in 2018 before Bukele even took office in 2019 rates would halve to 53 per 100.
CECOT opened in 2023. By 2022 murder rate declined further to 8 per 100k. Trend lines for incarceration vs murder rates are inconsistent with small upticks in incarcerations coinciding with dramatic declines in murders. By the time incarcerations went to plaid under Bukele there was little left in absolute terms to show for it
Re: (Score:3)
They just don't care. Maybe even think it's a good thing that the US engages in torture are rape of its alleged enemies, and no need for due process because it won't affect people with their skin tone.
The normal inhibitions against so directly harming other people have been broken down. This is how it happens. You find it hard to believe that some countries became so evil willingly, that people voted for it. This is how they got to that point, you are living through it.
Re:The only people who are going to bother seeking (Score:4, Informative)
out and watching it have already made up their mind and will simply use it for confirmation bias, which it will provide amply.
Understanding the sky is blue and looking up at a blue sky is not an example of "confirmation bias". Confirmation bias involves the drawing of unfounded inferences based on expectations.
Here there is nothing surprising given well established background of CECOTs status as a torture prison.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/... [hrw.org]
The story is just people who were imprisoned in a torture prison speaking about the torture they received there. In other news water is wet.
The "balance myth" (Score:5, Informative)
This really is the endpoint of the whole "balance" bullshit myth. Good journalism is never about "balance". its about truth. The truth is inherently biased, towards truth. When I did journalism school (Before I moved into sciences I did a journalism degree first), this was drilled into us. Don't look for approval, dont look for telling "all sides of the story", look for the truth, even if the truth makes the powerful angry.
It doesn't *matter* what your political bias is , and to be clear EVERYONE has a political bias. What matters is, are the facts. Theres of course times when you need to hold your tounge. You dont snitch on sources. You never death knock (try to beat the cops to tell a family whos loved one just died the news to capture the reaction, its an evil practice, and usually banned by news agencies), and you never defame (less banned, alas). You refrain from naming underage or vunerable victims. But above all, tell the fucking truth.
Balance is ass. Putting on a climate change denier to "balance" as a science doesnt increase the balance, it just reduces the truth. And getting a trump official to make excuses for human rights violations doesnt reduce the human rights violations, it just spreads bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The "balance myth" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, there was a Fairness Doctrine in law that expired in the early 90s that said news outlets had to give equal airtime to vaguely-defined opposing sides.
The media has definitely gotten worse since then, but I don't think it's because of the law. Fairness Doctrine going away is just a byproduct of a lawsuit Fox News brought to secure their right to freeze peach. So it's a symptom of the problem, really.
Re: (Score:2)
The fairness doctrine was a lot more narrow than that. It was specifically around electoral politics and making sure that when there was an election on that the media doesnt blockade non prefered parties from getting their platform out. The FCC never interpreted it to mean shit like "Every time nasa is on TV, you must also have a moon landing denier" or whatver.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true in principle, but that doesn't stop a lot of journalists from picking a narrative then seeking out sources that continue to that narrative. It's not lying but it's certainly not honest.
Would you say there are prevailing forces that prevent journalists with punchier but less honest stories from having better careers? If not, that gives credence to the idea that this behavior is prevalent at the top. And I did hear that my friend's friend (at the NYT) calls people until someone gives her the
Re: (Score:2)
I really get tired of this... you can have two perfectly "true" reports that also mislead viewers depending on their pre-existing beliefs and values. And not everyone has the same values.
For example, if you think children are generally exclusively born of one mother and one father, you would probably wonder what's going on when you read on Wikipedia that the star of Juno is a man, or the the Wachowski Brothers are two women.
Different people use different language differently, and it's actually quite easy to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll say the same thing i was saying 20 years ago (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shareaza has always been a substandard Gnutella (G1) client. I have used both it and dedicated G1 clients like Limewire and yes, if you need to access some rare content on the G1 network, the latter are preferable.
Where Shareaza shines is in their Gnutella 2 (G2) network, once forked from G1 but incompatible, and in their wide non-Gnutella protocol support.
So, if depends if the file is on the G1 or the G2 network. In the first case, use Limewire or something equivalent. In the second case, nothing beats Sha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even in a "pure" p2p setting a rogue or buggy peer can affect negatively the whole network (or at least it's peers and their peers). Gnutella G1 isn't pure p2p, though. It elects "ultrapeer" nodes, leaf nodes etc. it's said that Shareaza is a buggy G1 ultrapeer, wasting other nodes' bandwidth and CPU cycles. Also, in general Shareaza's G1 support is based on a very old Gnutella version, containing obsolete features and bugs that have been long ago fixed in other G1 clients. As a result, some G1 users and c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is not much choice, I'm afraid. Both Wireshare (best for G1) and Shareaza (best for G2) are free and open source, but have been under slow development the last several years.
Now that gtk-gnutella supports G2 (and it always supported G1) and it seems to be actively developed, it might be a good choice. I've not tested it yet, though.
Among the non-Gnutella P2P programs the EDonkey2000/Kad clients like eMule and amule deserve attention.
The people who need to see it. (Score:3)
1: Won't see it.
2: Couldn't care less about immigrants anyway. They don't care they are tortured.They don't care they are innocent. MAGA people will feel no shame about this. Cruelty is the point of sadopopulism. They think it makes make them tough. They do not confess about it, they brag about it.
That said, the people leaking this are the beginning of the resistance. Like the people who probably on purpose used an inefficient method to censor the Epstein files. The "little hands" must be disgusted and do what they can discreetly. I salute their risk-taking. They have my respect. I will seed this little video even if its content was already known.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing that people forget: the political spectrum is a spectrum, not a di-pole.
Yes, the MAGA dbags won't watch it, and if they do they'll be cheering for the human rights abuses being described. Those people are not convince-able, because they've been indoctrinated into a cult.
Similarly, the rabid left will all watch it, and then repost it, and then call all their friends and annoy them with it for the exact same reasons - they're similarly indoctrinated.
Unfortunately for both of those polar posi
Re: (Score:2)
This story and others like it are just the administration doing exactly what he promised to do in his campaign. I would really like to hear from someone who heard this shit back in July '24 and now disapproves.
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely agree that there are many Americans who should see it but will not, and that even if they did, would not change their viewpoint.
That said, sometimes the point of speaking truth to power is not for the sake of changing the minds of those who will not listen, but for our own moral conscience. It is for the ability to see that we are not alone in standing up for the truth, because it takes tremendous courage to do so in the face of such power.
I don't know about you, but the fear, intimidation, di
Re: (Score:2)
Cruelty is the point of sadopopulism.
Indeed. That is why they elected a rapist and practicing pedophile to be their president. They just want to cause pain and suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should be thrown into a 3rd world torture hellhole without any form of due process to figure out who you are, what you did or didn't do, and if you should even be there.
Then maybe you'll understand, because you are obviously a short-sighted dipshit who wants to blame anyone and everyone else for your misfortunes rather than accepting clearly observed reality for what it is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
About things that should exape censorship. (Score:2)
Among many things:
https://x.com/OpDeathEaters/st... [x.com]
Epstein record EFTA00025010 is an FBI intake report dated 08/03/2020, an unidentified woman / victim reports Epstein trafficked her at age 13 and that she was raped by Trump, who later witnessed her newborn daughter be murdered and be disposed of from a yacht
Re: (Score:2)
https://x.com/OpDeathEaters/st [x.com]...
Epstein record EFTA00025010 is an FBI intake report dated 08/03/2020, an unidentified woman / victim reports Epstein trafficked her at age 13 and that she was raped by Trump, who later witnessed her newborn daughter be murdered and be disposed of from a yacht
There are all kinds of crazy shit in the dumps. EFTA00020517 is another.
https://www.justice.gov/epstei... [justice.gov]
Re:I Watched It (Score:5, Insightful)
I’ll try and simplify this in terms you can understand.
Imagine if Obama did this same thing to white people.
Re: (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)ll try and simplify this in terms you can understand.
Imagine if Obama did this same thing to white people.
Imagine if Obama used drones to kill unarmed American born citizens outside of a war zone with no due process? Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
> Imagine if Obama did this same thing to white people.
The screaming and shouting from MAGA would be deafening. Oh Trump did it to white people? Sheeeet. That's a nothing-burger!
Re: (Score:2)
Many Indigenous Americans think all white people are in the USA illegally, and they have a pretty good point.
Re: (Score:2)
So all the illegal immigrants need to do is figure out how to remain in the country for a certain period of time between 0 and 200 years, and then at some point the Trump regime's goons and brownshirts will have to stop abusing them?
Re: (Score:2)
They also had trade relationships, alliances, intermarriage, negations, dispute mechanisms... gee. Like everybody else.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I know a more important guy with 34 felonies. Let’s start with him.
Re: (Score:3)
Deportation is not a legal penalty for Trump and his convictions. He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced according to the law.
Sentenced is doing some heavy lifting in that statement. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/10... [npr.org]
During the brief hearing, New York state Judge Juan Merchan said the only lawful sentence that does not encroach on the office of the president is that of an unconditional discharge on all counts.
Re: (Score:2)
the only lawful sentence
And if you can understand just these four simple words, you'll properly understand the whole thing.
He was given the only lawful sentence and the trials are done. That you don't like or agree with the outcome is irrelevant and does not alter the reality.
Re:I Watched It (Score:5, Insightful)
Are those white people in the United States illegally? Did they commit a federal crime by crossing the U.S. border illegally and thereby became the legal definition of a criminal? Then I'd have no problem with it.
Sending ANYONE to CECOT violates the 8th amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments as well as international convention against torture ratified by the US. It is ILLEGAL for the US to have sent ANYONE there regardless of their criminal record.
Simply being in the US illegally is a CIVIL offense NOT a criminal offense. People were rounded up and sent to CECOT who were legally allowed in the US. More than half the people sent have no criminal records whatsoever and only 3% have records of violent offenses.
It is one thing to deport it is quite another to rendition people to foreign gulags at all under ANY circumstance much less do so without ANY relevant due process. Anyone who supports this type of lawlessness are either manifestly ignorant or unamerican shit birds who don't give fuck about our laws or constitution.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Simply being in the US illegally is a CIVIL offense NOT a criminal offense.
See 8 U.S.C. 1325 [cornell.edu]
It is a criminal offense.
Also please take special note of the section:
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
Re:I Watched It (Score:4, Informative)
See 8 U.S.C. 1325
It is a criminal offense.
Learn how to read, you are conflating issues.
What I said was "Simply being in the US illegally is a CIVIL offense NOT a criminal offense." section 1325 is about ENTRY to the US not being in the US.
Yes one can rack up criminal charges by entering illegally, lying to officials..etc... absolutely. It is also possible to be unlawfully present in the country without having illegally entered. This typically happens by overstaying visas or when the conditions of stay no longer apply.
How do you justify the following?
"50+ Venezuelans Imprisoned in El Salvador Came to US Legally, Never Violated Immigration Law"
https://www.cato.org/blog/50-v... [cato.org]
Or do you just not give a flying fuck about our laws?
Re: I Watched It (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
either manifestly ignorant or unamerican shit birds who don't give fuck about our laws or constitution.
violates the 8th amendment[...]
I think you'll find these shitbirds can't count beyond two.
Re: (Score:2)
They're also pretty fuzzy about 1, given that their toady Weiss spiked the segment.
Re: (Score:2)
Are those white people in the United States illegally?
Why does it matter? Legality of stay or indeed even courts and ongoing legal processes, or due process at all hasn't mattered in any of these cases either. By your own side's metric legality has nothing to do with it. Sorry but you don't get to play that card, even if you don't understand that card, and even if you would be insanely stupid for trying to do so.
Try again.
Did they commit a federal crime by crossing the U.S. border illegally and thereby became the legal definition of a criminal?
That's not how any of that works. Try actually read up the laws of entry.
Re: I Watched It (Score:2)
Then I'd have no problem with it.
This right here is why fascism sometimes reaches executive power. Because some people think "you did something against the rules, you will now suffer the consequences, and who cares about proportionality, we'll deport you and deprive you of human rights because you didn't have the right stamp on your passport". And once fascism is in, then the rules become a lot more arbitrary than what they were before.
Re: Priceless (Score:2)
No. Because absolutely no one is claiming that.
Just like no one was claiming you are a Russian bot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did it never occur to any of you troglodytes that maybe, just maybe, the reason she pulled the story was that it was completely non-factual?
What basis do you have to believe this should have occurred to anyone? If it were the case why wouldn't she just say it? She has after all now offered two separate justifications and neither have questioned the factual basis of the reporting.
Do YOU have any objective evidence this reporting was "completely non-factual"? If not and there are no receipts why would you expect anyone to give a flying fuck about what you have to say?
Get you heads out of your asses...
Trump pardoned drug dealers who helped traffic 500 tons of cocaine thru Hondu
Re: (Score:2)
I have grave doubts you have *ever* watched it. IF you watch the news - and that's questionable - you don't watch anything to the left of Faux Noise.
I challenge you to watch the report, and get back to us on what's non-factual.