or not people trusted the election process. whether or not people believe the hunter biden laptop story was true pretty whether people were hesitant to take the vaccine were hesitant to wear masks. that is to speech biden censored that is what is protected by the first amendment for this is nothing she was criminal behavior and everything to do with protecting core political speech. david: were to cisco right now? you expect us to be up to the supreme court? it has to be for bedsheet we will be in the highest court in the land this is the most egregious most serious violation of first amendment and the nation s history. it is so broad, so expansive in the government has evidence and willingness to continue to violate enforcement rights. at some point we re going to have to go to the united states supreme court. i will tell you, just as mentioned earlier in a decision in may arizona where he said it seemed likely federal officials had colluded with big tech social media to silence ame
that phrase of course is a euphemistic insult to president biden. the mother of the students filed suit last week after sons were forced to remove the sweatshirts several times to the course of last year. the students say the school violated the first amendment rights. the lawyer say this. criticism of the president s core political speech protected by the first amendment. schools can t pick and choose which political beliefs students can express. a publix school district cannot censor speech because it might cause someone to think about a smear word. harris, this is a thought crime. the school district says it s a vulgarity. there s not an actual one in the phrase so it s a thought crime that it alludes to that. how do you know what people are necessarily thinking based on what their shirt size? i have teenagers every now and again the put on something and i literally have to say, i can see the tag. i don t know the children necessarily think about these things the way that we do. w
sources as part of the investigation? that s correct. what do you think? well first of all there is another investigation going on. i m content to wait until it is the durham investigation. he does have a larger scope. but i am mystified that people are there is the real true fact that the trump administration that this hit the bar for launching an investigation. now he takes pains to note that bar is not particularly high. and we might think about whether there should be other procedures as you note. they lowered it after 9/11. when it comes to dealing with federal campaigns and people engaged in core political speech. but the idea that anybody is reading this as an exoneration is mystifying to me. i mean 17 occasions of lying, omission, leaving out exculpatory evidence and misleading the fisa court and this is a secret court with tremendous powers over american citizens and i m with the aclu and deeply concerned this is what what was going on, whether
tampering, interference that a lot of states don t want recording devices or even talking on the phone once you are inside the polling place. if you are home watching you can ask if you are in most of the country you probably can t use your phone to record anything. you can ask as you walk in and find out so you don t break rules. having said that, i will tell you the states are on the wrong side of the first amendment here. unconstitutional people are saying. the tennessee law does say flatly you can t do what justin did. they are not going to investigate. it says you cannot use your phone as a recording device or a photographic device in the polling place. more interestingly, there is a federal appeals court, the first circuit that struck down the exact same kind of law in new hampshire. they found there is a first amendment right so selfie. they said there is a strong first amendment right to communicate and laws against voter selfies unfairly restrict voters core political spe