gatomontes99

Charged isn't prosecuted.

You don't remember the ridiculous sweet heart plea deal?

Yeah. But what happened with those charges before that?

Lmao. Hunter was prosecuted? That has to be a joke, right?

If Joe Biden's handlers had negotiated a deal or sat down with Putin, the left would be calling us war mongers and chicken hawks if we didn't like the deal. Just like the deal Trump made with Putin to get a school teacher back. Trump gave up a money launderer. Biden gave up an international arms dealer known as the merchant of death for a mediocre women's basketball player and the left thought Joe's handlers did something awesome and Trump gave up to much. All that to say, fùck their opinion. They are losers that only know how to follow.

Worse? How is less government worse than more goveenment?

I thought Adams was Trump's quid pro quo guy? This kind of destroys that narrative.

Give me a link that shows shielding has to be physical.

No. Censorship is censorship. Not sponsoring a study is not censorship. You are big time Rule 5ing.

No it isn't. Censorship Notice it says nothing about lack of sponsorship. The government isn't the only way to get published. It isn't censorship for the government to say they won't be publishing papers on these topics. It's discretion.

You've added the word physically of your own accord. The law is defined above. You don't have to own or even know where the illegal aliens is hiding. Providing them the knowledge to avoid detection is a form of shielding.

Just because it's been out there: That's Joe Biden's own GAO saying that we lose up to $521B annually to fraud.

Its literally shielding from detection.

Only if you use rule #5. The government does not have to use an unlimited amount of funds and resources just because someone wants to publish a paper on trans infants. If the people that did that study can find a private institution to publish it, then they are free to do it. Censorship would be preventing the paper from being published any where and threatening government action if it was. That has not happened and will not happen. As of now, the government isn't paying for those topics. End of story.

Of course it isn't. No one said it was. Giving legal advice that is proper doesn't mean that everything they said was legal. Telling illegal aliens that ICE picks people up in public places during the mornings or at scheduled immigration meetings is telling them how to avoid ICE.

Waste AND fraud. They've found lots of waste. If they've found fraud, they won't say until the case is built.

More accurately "...they can't use those words if they want to get funded or published by the government." It isn't censorship.

They are literally telling them how to hide.

Would you rather our government process paperwork by riding an elevator into a limestone vault ala 1952?

When have fascists ever advocated for smaller government? Another great example of rule #5. He hates that Musk is rooting out waste and fraud so he uses the emotionally charged word of "fascism" rather than what he really means, authoritarian.

They aren't telling people they can't use those words. They are saying they won't fund or publish studies on those topics. Rule #5

Fine. I had to dig around for it, but here you go: By telling illegal aliens how to avoid ICE raids, they are in violation of 8 USC 1324(a)(iii) as is bolded above for you to review. This is providing material support to illegal aliens. As I said, as Tom Homan said and as the law says, what her office did was illegal. If she directed, assisted or provided the means to violate the law, she is also guilty.

Oh for fùcks sake, let it go.

Read closer. The definition is applied from the source. "Material Support" is universally defined. It doesn't matter if it is terrorist or not.

Ahem...