he is a liar, a liar about shell corporations and money from communist china and about money from ukraine. a liar about money from romania. he is a liar about documents, a and his own history, we have a man in oval office who is a liar biden signed off on fbi review of trump records. national ca archive letters reveal from august. what are they talking about? biden white house at request of department of justice signed off to have fbi and intelligence community to examine hundreds of pages of classified information of former president trump there you have merrick going to department of justice. saying you can t come directly to us, you have to go to white house, they circle back to white house. white house counsel s office and joe biden, they agree to send this matter to department of justice, knowing damn well what would happen, that is what triggered this. general warrants, that was issued by a federal magistrate judge, the framers of your constitution hated general war
years ago. yesterday the court considered claims that google allowed isis to post hundreds of videos online aimed at inciting violence and algorithms helped isis recruit efforts along the way. the audio of some of those deliberations inside the high court. the thumb nails is based upon what the all going if if the videos don t appear out of thin air. they must be targeted to something. dana: more on all this we re live in washington. david spunt. it s getting underway right now. yesterday justice kagan asked the question to laughter in the courtroom should these nine justices be wading into the waters saying they may not be the best people to understand the internet. today s case focused on liability. can twitter be held liable by the families of terror victims. the second big case involving big tech before the court this week. family of a man killed in an isis attack in turkey in 2017 sued twitter, google and facebook arguing the platforms posted terrorist videos o
welcome to totalitarianism. democrat-party style. unleashed against the teaparty, unleash bureaucrats at the cdc, fauci and others and destroyed our economy, who destroyed our school system, who destroyed jobs and businesses, who shut down churches and synagogues and kept casinos and warehouse stores open. remember all of that? and now continuing abuse of power by the fbi and d.o.j., helps democrats in elections, they are monitoring us, deciding who can and can t speech on social media, censoring us, targeting us, accidentally of course, and now trying toic take
sell fentanyl for cheap and mix it with other drugs making a product even more potent. you think about the drug dealer. they want to get the product better than the one sold by the other person. over 106,000 people died of a drug overdose in the u.s. in 2021. dana: alarming statistics. thank you. bill: to these fascinating stories before the u.s. supreme court this week. they are hearing a case whether or not tech companies like google and twitter can be held liable for hosting content posted by isis among others. the case has broad implications for protected speech on social media. it appears, however, to be confusing to some of the justices who in their own words are not experts on the internet. read up quickly. jonathan turley, nice to see you, professor. good day to you. case number one argued yesterday
gusty winds, frequent lightning and very heavy rainfall so flash flooding is going to be a likelihood all the way southbound into florida. t.j. and kayna, back to you. thank you so much. a legal victory we turn to now for religious expression in the workplace. the supreme court sided with a muslim woman who did not get hired by abercrombie and fitch after wearing a headscarf to the job interview. the retailer said samantha s headscarf clashed with its dress code but the justices said employers generally have to accommodate people with religious needs. the case will now go back to the appeals court. another major decision from the supreme court, for the first time addressing standards for speech on social media. they ruled in favor of a pennsylvania man convicted of posting violent messages on facebook topics ranging from killing his estranged wife to shooting up a school. they declined to lay out broad constitutional protections for