Posted on Apr 22, 2023
Criminalizing Dissent - DOJ Indicts Anti-Biden Black Nationalists Claiming They're Russian Agents...
426
20
9
2
2
0
Law Enforcement
Constitution
Justice
Responses: 3
2
2
0
Here is a less biased version of the story. Allegations include funding from Russia in order to promote disinformation. With all the anti-Socialist/Communist semantics on RP, it’s important to note Yeshitela’s group is called the African People’s Socialist Party.
https://news.yahoo.com/us-accuses-4-black-nationalists-215411324.html
https://news.yahoo.com/us-accuses-4-black-nationalists-215411324.html
US accuses 4 Black nationalists of acting for Russian intelligence
The US Justice Department on Tuesday charged the founder and three members of a half-century-old Black nationalist group with working with Russian intelligence to influence elections in the United States.The Justice Department said the Americans all knew Ionov worked for the Russian government.
(2)
(0)
CSM Vern Pratt
SGT (Join to see) if you want to be "SGT Anonymous" refrain from commenting otherwise you are drawing attention. Closet commentators are nothing more than barracks lawyers or chowhall braggarts.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Where are the rest of the right-wing conspiracy theorists? I would have thought this nut-job would have at least attacked 10 or 12...
(2)
(0)
SSG John Gillespie
It's not a conspiracy theory when your government is arresting political dissidents for such heinous crimes as "talking to a guy." You and I both have that right and our oaths of service were to defend that right for all other U.S. Citizens.
Well, at least mine was. My oath was first to uphold the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution which is a limiting document from which all Federal authority is derived; second to follow the lawful orders of the Officers appointed over me. Key word there is LAWFUL. If an order conflicts with the bounds of Federal authority as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, it is unlawful. Clear as day.
Arresting a U.S. Citizen because you don't like that they expressed an opinion, which is their God given and Constitutionally guaranteed right to do so, is patently UNLAWFUL. It does not matter who they were speaking with or why. The law is clear.
If they were going to be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime, that's a whole different matter, as you well know. But that's not what this story shows.
At the very least, you should be asking questions instead of immediately engaging in partisan dismissal when it appears that our government is, as it has been doing with increasing frequency as has been revealed in recent court proceedings, acting in an illegal and lawless manner.
This is a cause for grave concern for the state of our Union, not a vacillating "conspiracy theory."
Well, at least mine was. My oath was first to uphold the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution which is a limiting document from which all Federal authority is derived; second to follow the lawful orders of the Officers appointed over me. Key word there is LAWFUL. If an order conflicts with the bounds of Federal authority as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, it is unlawful. Clear as day.
Arresting a U.S. Citizen because you don't like that they expressed an opinion, which is their God given and Constitutionally guaranteed right to do so, is patently UNLAWFUL. It does not matter who they were speaking with or why. The law is clear.
If they were going to be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime, that's a whole different matter, as you well know. But that's not what this story shows.
At the very least, you should be asking questions instead of immediately engaging in partisan dismissal when it appears that our government is, as it has been doing with increasing frequency as has been revealed in recent court proceedings, acting in an illegal and lawless manner.
This is a cause for grave concern for the state of our Union, not a vacillating "conspiracy theory."
(2)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SSG John Gillespie - They weren't arrested for "express[ing] an opinion", they were arrested for free speech or even for opposing Joe Biden's plans. Hell, I oppose stuff that Biden wants to do all the time and no one's coming to arrest me.
Here, you've got Rusian spies, or at least FSB agents, working with American citizens to effect American elections. THAT'S ILLEGAL, and it's not weaponizing anything. You may want to actually read the 37 page superseding indictment.
Here, you've got Rusian spies, or at least FSB agents, working with American citizens to effect American elections. THAT'S ILLEGAL, and it's not weaponizing anything. You may want to actually read the 37 page superseding indictment.
(3)
(0)
SSG John Gillespie
Fair enough, I have not yet read the indictment personally and sought to share the story based on its content and the general reputation of the host for giving additional contextual reporting on the topics which she covers.
That said, this is the same DoJ which recently sent a full tactical assault team to a protester's home to execute a night-time raid for a what should be a misdemeanor charge. You'll understand my cause for concern and desire to at least raise awareness and have a conversation.
That said, this is the same DoJ which recently sent a full tactical assault team to a protester's home to execute a night-time raid for a what should be a misdemeanor charge. You'll understand my cause for concern and desire to at least raise awareness and have a conversation.
(2)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SSG John Gillespie - The so-called "oppressed" are members of the African People’s Socialist Party who traveled to Moscow before the 2016 election and made contact with the Russian members of the FSB who were indicted with them. Most of the 37 pages talks about the facts of the conspiracy, from the texts and emails of the conspirators. Following the guidance of the Russians, they worked to support Russian interests as unregistered foreign agents in the 2016, 2018, and 2020 elections.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Why I'm so old I can remember when a person said, "We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration." Hmm...who was it that said that? Oh, that's right. A democrat did. It was Hillaey Clinton.
Another guy said, "...We’ll have our difference of opinion. And that’s how it’s supposed to be...". Who's that guy? No one in particular, just the President of the United States. I guess he never really believed that, now did he?
Another guy said, "...We’ll have our difference of opinion. And that’s how it’s supposed to be...". Who's that guy? No one in particular, just the President of the United States. I guess he never really believed that, now did he?
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google