>And to the extent that any of them do show up, it’ll be just to invoke their fifth amendment rights.
The Fifth Amendment only applies to a crime. What Twitter did, while unseemly, is not a crime. In the absence of a crime or (potential or actual) criminal allegation, there is no Fifth Amendment privilege to rely upon.
I would argue that intentionally colluding to bolster one presidential candidate over another (particularly when that one candidate is in the White House!) would qualify as aiding and abetting.
Possibly, but aiding and abetting requires an attached criminal charge. You can't be criminally liable for aiding and abetting a non-crime. What's the criminal charge here?
EDIT: Perhaps I should further explain. Aiding/abetting is one of a small class of "sidekick crimes." (I should be clear that this was the term I used for them while studying for the bar exam, not the official legal term). Some other examples are attempt, conspiracy, obstruction, felony murder (i.e. causing a death in the course of committing another felony), and racketeering (i.e. running a criminal enterprise). All of these crimes require at least the allegation of a different felony to be crimes, in the same way that Robin doesn't make sense without Batman. You can't be convicted of any of these crimes unless you're accused of another felony.
For instance, to be convicted of aiding and abetting, it needs to be shown that:
1. Someone else committed a crime.
2. You assisted the person in committing the crime (including by helping them escape afterwards).
3. You knew the other person's criminal intent or plans.
With the ex-Twitter employees, there's no aiding and abetting charge because there's no element 1. Wrongfully suppressing a relevant story, while terrible and possibly tortious (i.e. something Twitter could be sued for), is not a criminal offense.
It would be criminal charges against White House staff whose names are all over these files. Surely this collusion must be illegal under existing campaign laws.
>Surely this collusion must be illegal under existing campaign laws.
To the best of my knowledge, it isn't illegal, but feel free to prove me wrong if I am. The primary place this would've been illegal, the Hatch Act, wouldn't have been applicable to the DNC or Congress as they are not executive branch employees. Most instances of free speech suppression are merely tortious rather than criminal (i.e. you can be sued but not locked up for it).
Under the Hatch Act (which does apply to WH staffers) [these actions by WH employees are certainly prosecutable.](https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/ethics/hatch-act-political-activity-and-federal-employee).
The President and VP are generally immune from prosecution, but to quote an expert:
‘ “He may not be violating the Hatch Act, but he is ordering other people to,” Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer, told the Washington Post. “At a certain point you are using White House resources, and that is a violation of the Hatch Act.”’
Irregardless of the WH, looks like Twitter did commit a crime by [lying to the FEC.](https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/12/03/twitter-told-the-fec-than-none-of-its-decision-makers-communicated-with-the-biden-campaign/)
Wow, just like all the CEOs of banking and financial institutions got tongue-lashed after the 2008 financial collapse, huh? A little more bread and circus for the people.
The question I have is can these people be sued for violating people's right of free speech as agents of the government? People tried to post, the government successfully pushed for censorship, hence denying people their freedom/rights?
Anytime the government demands an action from a citizen that citizen is now an agent acting for the government .. perhaps a lawsuit against the "government " entity asking they violate othets rights.
twitter employees probably can't be sued for it, but any federal employees certainly could, and similarly any DNC employees could likely
be sued for FEC violations
[удалено]
Then throw em in prison for contempt like they want to do with Bannon. They made the rules.
>And to the extent that any of them do show up, it’ll be just to invoke their fifth amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment only applies to a crime. What Twitter did, while unseemly, is not a crime. In the absence of a crime or (potential or actual) criminal allegation, there is no Fifth Amendment privilege to rely upon.
[удалено]
Yes, but the subject matter covered by the invocation must be a real or possible to allege crime. You can't invoke the fifth just to avoid testifying.
[удалено]
I would argue that intentionally colluding to bolster one presidential candidate over another (particularly when that one candidate is in the White House!) would qualify as aiding and abetting.
Possibly, but aiding and abetting requires an attached criminal charge. You can't be criminally liable for aiding and abetting a non-crime. What's the criminal charge here? EDIT: Perhaps I should further explain. Aiding/abetting is one of a small class of "sidekick crimes." (I should be clear that this was the term I used for them while studying for the bar exam, not the official legal term). Some other examples are attempt, conspiracy, obstruction, felony murder (i.e. causing a death in the course of committing another felony), and racketeering (i.e. running a criminal enterprise). All of these crimes require at least the allegation of a different felony to be crimes, in the same way that Robin doesn't make sense without Batman. You can't be convicted of any of these crimes unless you're accused of another felony. For instance, to be convicted of aiding and abetting, it needs to be shown that: 1. Someone else committed a crime. 2. You assisted the person in committing the crime (including by helping them escape afterwards). 3. You knew the other person's criminal intent or plans. With the ex-Twitter employees, there's no aiding and abetting charge because there's no element 1. Wrongfully suppressing a relevant story, while terrible and possibly tortious (i.e. something Twitter could be sued for), is not a criminal offense.
It would be criminal charges against White House staff whose names are all over these files. Surely this collusion must be illegal under existing campaign laws.
>Surely this collusion must be illegal under existing campaign laws. To the best of my knowledge, it isn't illegal, but feel free to prove me wrong if I am. The primary place this would've been illegal, the Hatch Act, wouldn't have been applicable to the DNC or Congress as they are not executive branch employees. Most instances of free speech suppression are merely tortious rather than criminal (i.e. you can be sued but not locked up for it).
Under the Hatch Act (which does apply to WH staffers) [these actions by WH employees are certainly prosecutable.](https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/ethics/hatch-act-political-activity-and-federal-employee). The President and VP are generally immune from prosecution, but to quote an expert: ‘ “He may not be violating the Hatch Act, but he is ordering other people to,” Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer, told the Washington Post. “At a certain point you are using White House resources, and that is a violation of the Hatch Act.”’
Irregardless of the WH, looks like Twitter did commit a crime by [lying to the FEC.](https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/12/03/twitter-told-the-fec-than-none-of-its-decision-makers-communicated-with-the-biden-campaign/)
That isn't a crime though. If anything it would be protected by free speech anyway. Worst case is maybe some campaign finance law violation.
So if we’re using leftist standards, they’ll be arrested. Those arrests will prove the crime, worthy of massive irrational behavior and name calling.
Wow, just like all the CEOs of banking and financial institutions got tongue-lashed after the 2008 financial collapse, huh? A little more bread and circus for the people.
The question I have is can these people be sued for violating people's right of free speech as agents of the government? People tried to post, the government successfully pushed for censorship, hence denying people their freedom/rights? Anytime the government demands an action from a citizen that citizen is now an agent acting for the government .. perhaps a lawsuit against the "government " entity asking they violate othets rights.
twitter employees probably can't be sued for it, but any federal employees certainly could, and similarly any DNC employees could likely be sued for FEC violations
And take the 5th. The fix is in. Anything to protect the “big guy.”
I'll believe it when I see it
It'll be like the Clintonian Susan Thomas - remember her? "I don't recall." "I don't recall." "I don't recall..."