413 private links
I ran into a friend, actor, and politician, Siaka Massaquoi, who looked fresh as a daisy. “Jeez,” I said to him. “This is brutal.”
“Yeah,” he replied with a smile. “I’ve been here since 3:30 am.”
What in the world? That was two hours before we arrived.
Turns out Siaka is on a “list.” He entered the Capitol on January 6, 2021, but has not been charged with anything. His apartment was raided by over 20 armed FBI agents on June 10, 2021, and he’s been under investigation ever since for “associating with members of a social media group.” //
As I keep repeating, he has not been charged or convicted of anything – isn’t this exactly what the Fifth Amendment was designed to prevent? Namely that you can’t be punished without due process? Where’s the due process here?
Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
@julie_kelly2
·
Follow
Americans charged—not convicted, charged—with petty offenses related to Jan 6 are on terrorist watch list at TSA and must undergo invasive, extensive searches numerous times. Any Republican who thinks this regime won’t do the same under “red flag” laws is an idiot. Or John Cornyn
2:25 PM · Jun 12, 2022
In an exclusive breaking story, several Federal Air Marshal whistleblowers have come forward with information showing that former U.S. Representative and Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard is currently enrolled in the Quiet Skies program. Quiet Skies is a TSA surveillance program with its own compartmentalized suspected terrorist watchlist. It is the same program being weaponized against J6 defendants and their families. Quiet Skies is allegedly used to protect traveling Americans from suspected domestic terrorists. //
Air Marshals were first assigned to Gabbard on Jul. 23, a day after she criticized Kamala Harris, Biden, and the National Security State in an interview with Laura Ingraham. FAMs were mobilized on Jul. 24 and assigned to their first flight with her on Jul. 25.
Ruling: Thumbprint scan is like a "blood draw or fingerprint taken at booking." //
The US Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not prohibit police officers from forcing a suspect to unlock a phone with a thumbprint scan, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The ruling does not apply to all cases in which biometrics are used to unlock an electronic device but is a significant decision in an unsettled area of the law.
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had to grapple with the question of "whether the compelled use of Payne's thumb to unlock his phone was testimonial," the ruling in United States v. Jeremy Travis Payne said. "To date, neither the Supreme Court nor any of our sister circuits have addressed whether the compelled use of a biometric to unlock an electronic device is testimonial."