Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
On November 12, 2019 12:49:07 PM PST, jim bell wrote: >On Monday, November 11, 2019, 02:32:00 PM PST, Razer >wrote: > > >>Spoken like the nasty capitalist you are. Wtf are you doing on an >Anarchist list child? > > >As far as I can see, "capitalism" and "anarchy" should go quite well >together. You know, "anarcho-capitalist". There is no such thing as an "Anarcho-Capitalist" stupid. It's some bullshit Libertards like you made up. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
On Monday, November 11, 2019, 02:32:00 PM PST, Razer wrote: >Spoken like the nasty capitalist you are. Wtf are you doing on an Anarchist >list child? As far as I can see, "capitalism" and "anarchy" should go quite well together. You know, "anarcho-capitalist". "Capitalist" should merely mean "crowdsourced capital", although I think it has become (wrongly) used in a way suggesting it is a synonyn for "free market". (It is not necessarily that.) I think "free market" requires the possibility of "capitalism". "Capitalism" generally gets a bad name from "crony-capitalism" which is actually a thing. But you can't have the 'crony' part unless you find the improperly-used power from somewhere, and that is from the government. Make the government very small, or even non-existent, and there will be very little power that can be misused to support businesses unfairly. Those fools who say, 'Government will protect us from those evil corporations!' need to think again. Who do they think is ALLOWING those corporations to do what they do? And can making that government bigger be expected to help, or hurt? Jim Bell
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
Spoken like the nasty capitalist you are. Wtf are you doing on an Anarchist list child? Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 04:21:02AM +, jim bell wrote: > On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 08:06:38 PM PST, Razer > wrote: > > On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell wrote: > > >I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already > >been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could > >constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation". But your > >imagination may differ. > > Jim Bell > > > > > You can do whatever you like until they tell you to stop. > > Sounds like you are abandoning your foolish idea that after thousands of > other people have named Eric Ciaramella, it is somehow wrong to do so, > > Then you can't, > So far, nobody has told me, or thousands of other people, to stop mentioning > Eric Ciaramella's name. Nor are they likely to do thatThe law which > "protects" "whistleblowers" likely doesn't even cover this guy, who didn't > actually see anything; he was simply TOLD it, and the accuracy of that > telling is highly suspect. And, to boot, he isn't a lawyer, and is highly > unlikely to have been able to interpret what he was told as being "legal" or > "illegal", > >and I'm sure there's some legal facility for making sure leaked information > gets reeled in as much as possible to avoid bungling up the investigation. > I don't think it's even "leaked". It was PUBLICIZED by some in the news > media, after having been GIVEN the name by government employees. It is > called NEWS. These things happen. I seem to recall seeing that Shifty > Schiff actually accidently spoke the name. The cat, then, was out of the bag. LOL - why the fuck do you re-use Trump's idiotic nick names for his political rivals? Wouldn't the POTUS be at the top of your AP list? > >There's a bunch of federal codes I'm not up on, but the above is the bottom > >line and that line only rises higher towards you neck, and a garrotting, if > >it involves national security. > I guess that's the closest we can get you to admit that you are full of shit. > This case had little to do with "national security". > > > >Disclaimer: I am not a Lawyer. DO NOT call me in the middle of the night for > >bail money. > After 10,000+ hours in a Federal prison law library, learning all sorts of > Federal law, I'm as close to being a lawyer as you will likely see, absent a > bar-card. > Jim Bell > > > > > > > > > > > >On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 12:47:26 PM PST, Razer > >wrote: > > > >This is your answer and China will stomp you if you INTERFERE WITH A > >CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION too. So will any court system on earth. > > > >Get psychiatric help. > > > >"Facebook says it is removing mentions of the alleged whistleblower’s > >name and will revisit this decision if the name is widely published in > >the media or used by public figures in debate." > > > >On November 9, 2019 10:44:33 AM PST, jim bell > >wrote: > >Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower > > > >I wonder what they mean by "deleting the name"? Do they mean deleting > >any posting or comment containing the name 'Eric Ciaramella'? Or just > >that name? Or any posting that says that "Eric Ciaramella is the > >whistleblower"? > >This sure sounds like Facebook is adopting the policies of Red China, > >"The Great Firewall of China". > >I've got a solution to that problem: The people who work for Facebook > >are identifiable, and mortal. > > > >Notice that the news source this story came from is "apnews". How > >appropriate. > > Jim Bell > > > > > > > > > Rr > Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail > > | > | > | > | | | > > | > > | > | > | | > Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower > > Facebook says it is deleting the name of the person who has been identified > in conservative circles as the whist... > | > > | > > | > > > > -- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
On November 10, 2019 8:48:12 PM PST, jim bell wrote: >On Sunday, November 10, 2019, 06:40:15 PM PST, Razer >wrote: > >On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell >wrote: >>I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already >>been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could >>constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation". But your >>imagination may differ. >> Jim Bell > > >>DUDE! We're talking about a federally taxed and regulated (FCC FTC et >al) CORPORATION, NOT an individual! If they get a GAG ORDER or whatever >it might be called legally, they WILL EXECUTE IT, including any >searches and destroys they're capable of if demanded. >You are merely speculating about a 'gag order'. Why invent that >imaginary factor? Nobody has received a gag order, or at least >they're not talking!!! (Ha ha ha ha ha) You just made my point thanks. >And don't forget Steven Schear's "Warrant >Canary": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary Regularly >publish a "non-warrant" announcement, which you stop publishing if a >warrant arrives. Yeah well no one uses them. Most government now consider them a form of leak and the put you away WITH EVIDENCE YOU PROVIDED PUBLICLY when you stroked the bird, quick, like a bunny. > >>There was also a bunch of idiots who thought that online proxy service >that acted on a court order a few years ago should have 'done a riseup' >and taken a fireaxe to their server, but as I said at the top, they're >a bunch of idiots. >Bad events do happen, sometimes. Idiocy is a bad bad thing. Right. > >>Also note that someday soon the espionage act will be modded to make >it a crime to pass on information that you weren't even aware was >classified, which is EXACTLY the reason why Julian Asssange claims to >have had the inspiration for Wikileaks. >Which is one good reason that my Assassination Politics idea needs to >be implemented. > Jim Bell > Sick minds think alike. Too bad sick minds, also known as government officials, have always practiced assassination politics but what's REALLY SICK is capitalizing on the tradition, wanting to be like them and lick their shitstained boots for money, b/c mythical valueless 'currency', bitcoins, that, by the time they're common, will only be used by the rich to hide their wealth from the un-rich, because no one else will be able to afford to use the VERY EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE intertubz as the petro goes byebye. Go on. Tell me the Petro is going to last copiously forever so I can write you off as a danger to the people of the planet and give me a reason to bid on your snuffing. > > Ps. I'm not speculating and I'm also not PANDERING TO YOUR MENTAL ILLNESS, Get Psych help. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/dtyxs9/eric_ciaramella_facebook_and_twitter_are/ https://old.reddit.com/user/SerialBrain2/comments/dsgbdq/the_maestros_beautiful_chess_combination_for_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/dql7ql/trumpukraine_whistleblower_eric_ciaramella/ https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/dq5le2/the_whitehouse_whistleblower_is_33yearold_eric/ https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/dqo9sv/this_is_truly_bigger_than_watergate_the/ https://i.imgur.com/gJN7xzB.png https://i.redd.it/navxwod4y8x31.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EI7_Vp1XYAA3XKe.png Top5 search results of one platform above, plus some pics of the agent. Govt politics is a scam, a show to keep you entranced, confused, defocused, dependant. It's obviously working. No more govt... no more govt corruption, whistleblowers, or boss of you.
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
On Sunday, November 10, 2019, 06:40:15 PM PST, Razer wrote: On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell wrote: >I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already >been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could >constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation". But your >imagination may differ. > Jim Bell >DUDE! We're talking about a federally taxed and regulated (FCC FTC et al) >CORPORATION, NOT an individual! If they get a GAG ORDER or whatever it might >be called legally, they WILL EXECUTE IT, including any searches and destroys >they're capable of if demanded. You are merely speculating about a 'gag order'. Why invent that imaginary factor? Nobody has received a gag order, or at least they're not talking!!! (Ha ha ha ha ha) And don't forget Steven Schear's "Warrant Canary": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary Regularly publish a "non-warrant" announcement, which you stop publishing if a warrant arrives. >There was also a bunch of idiots who thought that online proxy service that >acted on a court order a few years ago should have 'done a riseup' and taken a >fireaxe to their server, but as I said at the top, they're a bunch of idiots. Bad events do happen, sometimes. >Also note that someday soon the espionage act will be modded to make it a >crime to pass on information that you weren't even aware was classified, which >is EXACTLY the reason why Julian Asssange claims to have had the inspiration >for Wikileaks. Which is one good reason that my Assassination Politics idea needs to be implemented. Jim Bell
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell wrote: >I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already >been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could >constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation". But your >imagination may differ. > Jim Bell DUDE! We're talking about a federally taxed and regulated (FCC FTC et al) CORPORATION, NOT an individual! If they get a GAG ORDER or whatever it might be called legally, they WILL EXECUTE IT, including any searches and destroys they're capable of if demanded. There was also a bunch of idiots who thought that online proxy service that acted on a court order a few years ago should have 'done a riseup' and taken a fireaxe to their server, but as I said at the top, they're a bunch of idiots. Also note that someday soon the espionage act will be modded to make it a crime to pass on information that you weren't even aware was classified, which is EXACTLY the reason why Julian Asssange claims to have had the inspiration for Wikileaks. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell wrote: >I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already >been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could >constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation". But your >imagination may differ. > Jim Bell DUDE! We're talking about a federally taxed and regulated (FCC FTC et al) CORPORATION, NOT an individual! If they get a GAG ORDER or whatever it might be called legally, they WILL EXECUTE IT, including any searches and destroys they're capable of if demanded. There was also a bunch of idiots who thought that online proxy service that acted on a court order a few years ago should have 'done a riseup' and taken a fireaxe to their server, but as I said at the top, they're a bunch of idiots. Also note that someday soon the espionage act will be modded to make it a crime to pass on information that you weren't even aware was classified, which is EXACTLY the reason why Julian Asssange claims to have had the inspiration for Wikileaks. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
ts > > > > Controversy over whether or not to reveal the name of the man widely believed > to be the whistleblower whose complaint prompted the Democrats’ impeachment > inquiry ratcheted up even further on Wednesday after Donald Trump Jr. tweeted > out an article and quote including the whistleblower’s alleged name. While > Democrats and the left-leaning media expressed outrage about Trump’s social > media post, an impeachment inquiry transcript released by the office of > Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff includes the very name Trump tweeted out. > > As reported by RedState, Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence > Committee who is heading up the Democrats’ impeachment efforts, appears to > have accidentally allowed the name widely identified as the whistleblower to > appear in the transcript of the committee’s interview with top U.S. > ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor. [end of quote] > > > > > > On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 08:21:02 PM PST, jim bell > wrote: > > On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 08:06:38 PM PST, Razer >wrote: > > On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell wrote: > > >I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already > >been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could > >constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation". But your > >imagination may differ. > > Jim Bell > > > > > You can do whatever you like until they tell you to stop. > > Sounds like you are abandoning your foolish idea that after thousands of > other people have named Eric Ciaramella, it is somehow wrong to do so, > > Then you can't, > So far, nobody has told me, or thousands of other people, to stop mentioning > Eric Ciaramella's name. Nor are they likely to do thatThe law which > "protects" "whistleblowers" likely doesn't even cover this guy, who didn't > actually see anything; he was simply TOLD it, and the accuracy of that > telling is highly suspect. And, to boot, he isn't a lawyer, and is highly > unlikely to have been able to interpret what he was told as being "legal" or > "illegal", > >and I'm sure there's some legal facility for making sure leaked information > gets reeled in as much as possible to avoid bungling up the investigation. > I don't think it's even "leaked". It was PUBLICIZED by some in the news > media, after having been GIVEN the name by government employees. It is > called NEWS. These things happen. I seem to recall seeing that Shifty > Schiff actually accidently spoke the name. The cat, then, was out of the bag. > >There's a bunch of federal codes I'm not up on, but the above is the bottom > >line and that line only rises higher towards you neck, and a garrotting, if > >it involves national security. > I guess that's the closest we can get you to admit that you are full of shit. > This case had little to do with "national security". > > > >Disclaimer: I am not a Lawyer. DO NOT call me in the middle of the night for > >bail money. > After 10,000+ hours in a Federal prison law library, learning all sorts of > Federal law, I'm as close to being a lawyer as you will likely see, absent a > bar-card. > Jim Bell > > > > > > > > > > > >On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 12:47:26 PM PST, Razer > >wrote: > > > >This is your answer and China will stomp you if you INTERFERE WITH A > >CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION too. So will any court system on earth. > > > >Get psychiatric help. > > > >"Facebook says it is removing mentions of the alleged whistleblower’s > >name and will revisit this decision if the name is widely published in > >the media or used by public figures in debate." > > > >On November 9, 2019 10:44:33 AM PST, jim bell > >wrote: > >Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower > > > >I wonder what they mean by "deleting the name"? Do they mean deleting > >any posting or comment containing the name 'Eric Ciaramella'? Or just > >that name? Or any posting that says that "Eric Ciaramella is the > >whistleblower"? > >This sure sounds like Facebook is adopting the policies of Red China, > >"The Great Firewall of China". > >I've got a solution to that problem: The people who work for Facebook > >are identifiable, and mortal. > > > >Notice that the news source this story came from is "apnews". How > >appropriate. > > Jim Bell > > > > > > > > > Rr > Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail > > | > | > | > | | | > > | > > | > | > | | > Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower > > Facebook says it is deleting the name of the person who has been identified > in conservative circles as the whist... > | > > | > > | > > > >
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
t; "whistleblowers" likely doesn't even cover this guy, who didn't > actually see anything; he was simply TOLD it, and the accuracy of that > telling is highly suspect. And, to boot, he isn't a lawyer, and is highly > unlikely to have been able to interpret what he was told as being "legal" or > "illegal", > >and I'm sure there's some legal facility for making sure leaked information > gets reeled in as much as possible to avoid bungling up the investigation. > I don't think it's even "leaked". It was PUBLICIZED by some in the news > media, after having been GIVEN the name by government employees. It is > called NEWS. These things happen. I seem to recall seeing that Shifty > Schiff actually accidently spoke the name. The cat, then, was out of the bag. > >There's a bunch of federal codes I'm not up on, but the above is the bottom > >line and that line only rises higher towards you neck, and a garrotting, if > >it involves national security. > I guess that's the closest we can get you to admit that you are full of shit. > This case had little to do with "national security". > > > >Disclaimer: I am not a Lawyer. DO NOT call me in the middle of the night for > >bail money. > After 10,000+ hours in a Federal prison law library, learning all sorts of > Federal law, I'm as close to being a lawyer as you will likely see, absent a > bar-card. > Jim Bell > > > > > > > > > > > >On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 12:47:26 PM PST, Razer > >wrote: > > > >This is your answer and China will stomp you if you INTERFERE WITH A > >CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION too. So will any court system on earth. > > > >Get psychiatric help. > > > >"Facebook says it is removing mentions of the alleged whistleblower’s > >name and will revisit this decision if the name is widely published in > >the media or used by public figures in debate." > > > >On November 9, 2019 10:44:33 AM PST, jim bell > >wrote: > >Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower > > > >I wonder what they mean by "deleting the name"? Do they mean deleting > >any posting or comment containing the name 'Eric Ciaramella'? Or just > >that name? Or any posting that says that "Eric Ciaramella is the > >whistleblower"? > >This sure sounds like Facebook is adopting the policies of Red China, > >"The Great Firewall of China". > >I've got a solution to that problem: The people who work for Facebook > >are identifiable, and mortal. > > > >Notice that the news source this story came from is "apnews". How > >appropriate. > > Jim Bell > > > > > > > > > Rr > Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail > > | > | > | > | | | > > | > > | > | > | | > Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower > > Facebook says it is deleting the name of the person who has been identified > in conservative circles as the whist... > | > > | > > | > > > >
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
Just found this:https://www.dailywire.com/news/alleged-whistleblowers-name-appears-in-transcript-released-by-schiff Alleged Whistleblower’s Name Appears In Transcript Released By Democrats Controversy over whether or not to reveal the name of the man widely believed to be the whistleblower whose complaint prompted the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry ratcheted up even further on Wednesday after Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out an article and quote including the whistleblower’s alleged name. While Democrats and the left-leaning media expressed outrage about Trump’s social media post, an impeachment inquiry transcript released by the office of Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff includes the very name Trump tweeted out. As reported by RedState, Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee who is heading up the Democrats’ impeachment efforts, appears to have accidentally allowed the name widely identified as the whistleblower to appear in the transcript of the committee’s interview with top U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor. [end of quote] On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 08:21:02 PM PST, jim bell wrote: On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 08:06:38 PM PST, Razer wrote: On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell wrote: >I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already >been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could >constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation". But your >imagination may differ. > Jim Bell > You can do whatever you like until they tell you to stop. Sounds like you are abandoning your foolish idea that after thousands of other people have named Eric Ciaramella, it is somehow wrong to do so, > Then you can't, So far, nobody has told me, or thousands of other people, to stop mentioning Eric Ciaramella's name. Nor are they likely to do thatThe law which "protects" "whistleblowers" likely doesn't even cover this guy, who didn't actually see anything; he was simply TOLD it, and the accuracy of that telling is highly suspect. And, to boot, he isn't a lawyer, and is highly unlikely to have been able to interpret what he was told as being "legal" or "illegal", >and I'm sure there's some legal facility for making sure leaked information gets reeled in as much as possible to avoid bungling up the investigation. I don't think it's even "leaked". It was PUBLICIZED by some in the news media, after having been GIVEN the name by government employees. It is called NEWS. These things happen. I seem to recall seeing that Shifty Schiff actually accidently spoke the name. The cat, then, was out of the bag. >There's a bunch of federal codes I'm not up on, but the above is the bottom >line and that line only rises higher towards you neck, and a garrotting, if it >involves national security. I guess that's the closest we can get you to admit that you are full of shit. This case had little to do with "national security". >Disclaimer: I am not a Lawyer. DO NOT call me in the middle of the night for >bail money. After 10,000+ hours in a Federal prison law library, learning all sorts of Federal law, I'm as close to being a lawyer as you will likely see, absent a bar-card. Jim Bell >On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 12:47:26 PM PST, Razer >wrote: > >This is your answer and China will stomp you if you INTERFERE WITH A >CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION too. So will any court system on earth. > >Get psychiatric help. > >"Facebook says it is removing mentions of the alleged whistleblower’s >name and will revisit this decision if the name is widely published in >the media or used by public figures in debate." > >On November 9, 2019 10:44:33 AM PST, jim bell >wrote: >Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower > >I wonder what they mean by "deleting the name"? Do they mean deleting >any posting or comment containing the name 'Eric Ciaramella'? Or just >that name? Or any posting that says that "Eric Ciaramella is the >whistleblower"? >This sure sounds like Facebook is adopting the policies of Red China, >"The Great Firewall of China". >I've got a solution to that problem: The people who work for Facebook >are identifiable, and mortal. > >Notice that the news source this story came from is "apnews". How >appropriate. > Jim Bell > > > Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail | | | | | | | | | | | Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower Facebook says it is deleting the name of the person who has been identified in conservative circles as the whist... | | |
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 08:06:38 PM PST, Razer wrote: On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell wrote: >I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already >been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could >constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation". But your >imagination may differ. > Jim Bell > You can do whatever you like until they tell you to stop. Sounds like you are abandoning your foolish idea that after thousands of other people have named Eric Ciaramella, it is somehow wrong to do so, > Then you can't, So far, nobody has told me, or thousands of other people, to stop mentioning Eric Ciaramella's name. Nor are they likely to do thatThe law which "protects" "whistleblowers" likely doesn't even cover this guy, who didn't actually see anything; he was simply TOLD it, and the accuracy of that telling is highly suspect. And, to boot, he isn't a lawyer, and is highly unlikely to have been able to interpret what he was told as being "legal" or "illegal", >and I'm sure there's some legal facility for making sure leaked information gets reeled in as much as possible to avoid bungling up the investigation. I don't think it's even "leaked". It was PUBLICIZED by some in the news media, after having been GIVEN the name by government employees. It is called NEWS. These things happen. I seem to recall seeing that Shifty Schiff actually accidently spoke the name. The cat, then, was out of the bag. >There's a bunch of federal codes I'm not up on, but the above is the bottom >line and that line only rises higher towards you neck, and a garrotting, if it >involves national security. I guess that's the closest we can get you to admit that you are full of shit. This case had little to do with "national security". >Disclaimer: I am not a Lawyer. DO NOT call me in the middle of the night for >bail money. After 10,000+ hours in a Federal prison law library, learning all sorts of Federal law, I'm as close to being a lawyer as you will likely see, absent a bar-card. Jim Bell >On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 12:47:26 PM PST, Razer >wrote: > >This is your answer and China will stomp you if you INTERFERE WITH A >CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION too. So will any court system on earth. > >Get psychiatric help. > >"Facebook says it is removing mentions of the alleged whistleblower’s >name and will revisit this decision if the name is widely published in >the media or used by public figures in debate." > >On November 9, 2019 10:44:33 AM PST, jim bell >wrote: >Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower > >I wonder what they mean by "deleting the name"? Do they mean deleting >any posting or comment containing the name 'Eric Ciaramella'? Or just >that name? Or any posting that says that "Eric Ciaramella is the >whistleblower"? >This sure sounds like Facebook is adopting the policies of Red China, >"The Great Firewall of China". >I've got a solution to that problem: The people who work for Facebook >are identifiable, and mortal. > >Notice that the news source this story came from is "apnews". How >appropriate. > Jim Bell > > > Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail | | | | | | | | | | | Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower Facebook says it is deleting the name of the person who has been identified in conservative circles as the whist... | | |
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell wrote: >I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already >been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could >constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation". But your >imagination may differ. > Jim Bell > You can do whatever you like until they tell you to stop. Then you can't, and I'm sure there's some legal facility for making sure leaked information gets reeled in as much as possible to avoid bungling up the investigation. There's a bunch of federal codes I'm not up on, but the above is the bottom line and that line only rises higher towards you neck, and a garrotting, if it involves national security. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail Disclaimer: I am not a Lawyer. DO NOT call me in the middle of the night for bail money. >On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 12:47:26 PM PST, Razer >wrote: > >This is your answer and China will stomp you if you INTERFERE WITH A >CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION too. So will any court system on earth. > >Get psychiatric help. > >"Facebook says it is removing mentions of the alleged whistleblower’s >name and will revisit this decision if the name is widely published in >the media or used by public figures in debate." > >On November 9, 2019 10:44:33 AM PST, jim bell >wrote: >https://apnews.com/ad8f2a9b6e424138afcc97fcf2eb29bf > >I wonder what they mean by "deleting the name"? Do they mean deleting >any posting or comment containing the name 'Eric Ciaramella'? Or just >that name? Or any posting that says that "Eric Ciaramella is the >whistleblower"? >This sure sounds like Facebook is adopting the policies of Red China, >"The Great Firewall of China". >I've got a solution to that problem: The people who work for Facebook >are identifiable, and mortal. > >Notice that the news source this story came from is "apnews". How >appropriate. > Jim Bell > > > Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation". But your imagination may differ. Jim Bell On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 12:47:26 PM PST, Razer wrote: This is your answer and China will stomp you if you INTERFERE WITH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION too. So will any court system on earth. Get psychiatric help. "Facebook says it is removing mentions of the alleged whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision if the name is widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate." On November 9, 2019 10:44:33 AM PST, jim bell wrote: https://apnews.com/ad8f2a9b6e424138afcc97fcf2eb29bf I wonder what they mean by "deleting the name"? Do they mean deleting any posting or comment containing the name 'Eric Ciaramella'? Or just that name? Or any posting that says that "Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower"? This sure sounds like Facebook is adopting the policies of Red China, "The Great Firewall of China". I've got a solution to that problem: The people who work for Facebook are identifiable, and mortal. Notice that the news source this story came from is "apnews". How appropriate. Jim Bell Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice
Re: Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
This is your answer and China will stomp you if you INTERFERE WITH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION too. So will any court system on earth. Get psychiatric help. "Facebook says it is removing mentions of the alleged whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision if the name is widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate." On November 9, 2019 10:44:33 AM PST, jim bell wrote: >https://apnews.com/ad8f2a9b6e424138afcc97fcf2eb29bf > >I wonder what they mean by "deleting the name"? Do they mean deleting >any posting or comment containing the name 'Eric Ciaramella'? Or just >that name? Or any posting that says that "Eric Ciaramella is the >whistleblower"? >This sure sounds like Facebook is adopting the policies of Red China, >"The Great Firewall of China". >I've got a solution to that problem: The people who work for Facebook >are identifiable, and mortal. > >Notice that the news source this story came from is "apnews". How >appropriate. > Jim Bell Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice
Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
https://apnews.com/ad8f2a9b6e424138afcc97fcf2eb29bf I wonder what they mean by "deleting the name"? Do they mean deleting any posting or comment containing the name 'Eric Ciaramella'? Or just that name? Or any posting that says that "Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower"? This sure sounds like Facebook is adopting the policies of Red China, "The Great Firewall of China". I've got a solution to that problem: The people who work for Facebook are identifiable, and mortal. Notice that the news source this story came from is "apnews". How appropriate. Jim Bell
