Trump administration helped GOP donors get Syria oil deal

Trump administration helped GOP donors get Syria oil deal

“By continuing to maintain control of the oil fields in Syria, we will deny [Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad] and Iran a monetary windfall,” Graham said in an October 2019 statement. “We can also use some of the revenues from future oil sales to pay for our military commitment in Syria.”

Koch-Funded ALEC Planned Since February To Claim The Election Was Stolen From Trump

Koch-Funded ALEC Planned Since February To Claim The Election Was Stolen From Trump
Lisa Nelson told a room full of conservative activists that ALEC had been working with three GOP attorneys on “action items that legislators can take to question the validity of an election.”

More details:

NEWLY SURFACED RECORDING REVEALS ALEC AND GOP ELECTION ATTORNEYS WORKING WITH STATE LEGISLATORS TO QUESTION VALIDITY OF ELECTION

Videotape Reveals Corporate-Funded Plan To Try To Overturn A Trump Loss

Will Parler Users Treat Its ‘Glitch’ That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch? and Roger Stone’s Write In Trump for GA Campaign

Will Parler Users Treat Its ‘Glitch’ That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch?

I find it hilarious that the same crew who insists that Twitter/Facebook are “censoring” them, immediately spins around and insists that it’s totally obvious that Parler must remove “trolls, hate speech and harassment” without recognizing their own hypocrisy.

Related:

Roger Stone-Tied Group Claims Dems Are Framing Them as Republican Party Turncoats

Yes, Parler has the right to censor/moderate, but I find it ironic!

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

The majority suggests that, even though it expressly dismissed its facial challenge, Citizens United nevertheless preserved it—not as a freestanding “claim,” but as a potential argument in support of “a claim that the FEC has violated its First Amendment right to free speech.” Ante , at 13; see also ante , at 4 ( Roberts, C. J ., concurring) (describing Citizens United’s claim as: “[T]he Act violates the First Amendment ”). By this novel logic, virtually any submission could be reconceptualized as “a claim that the Government has violated my rights,” and it would then be available to the Court to entertain any conceivable issue that might be relevant to that claim’s disposition. Not only the as-applied/facial distinction, but the basic relationship between litigants and courts, would be upended if the latter had free rein to construe the former’s claims at such high levels of generality. There would be no need for plaintiffs to argue their case; they could just cite the constitutional provisions they think relevant, and leave the rest to us. 9
— Read on www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html