header

header

Friday, August 31, 2018

BREAKING: JUDICIAL WATCH BOMBSHELL=> FISA Court Held NO HEARINGS on Carter Page Warrants

 

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch dropped a bombshell on Spygate Friday.

The Justice Department admitted in a court filing this week that the FISA court never held hearings on the FISA applications for former Trump advisor Carter Page.
One FISA warrant and three subsequent FISA renewals on Carter Page were obtained by Obama’s corrupt FBI in order to spy on Trump’s campaign.
‘[N]o such hearings were held with respect to the acknowledged FISA applications. Accordingly, no responsive hearing transcripts exist.’
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the Justice Department (DOJ) admitted in a court filing last night that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) spy warrant applications targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign part-time advisor who was the subject of four controversial FISA warrants.
In the filing the Justice Department finally revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Page FISA spy warrants, first issued in 2016 and subsequently renewed three times:
[National Security Division] FOIA consulted [Office of Intelligence] … to identify and locate records responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request…. [Office of Intelligence] determined … that there were no records, electronic or paper, responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request with regard to Carter Page. [Office of Intelligence] further confirmed that the [Foreign Surveillance Court] considered the Page warrant applications based upon written submissions and did not hold any hearings.
President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton had this to say about the new developments:
“It is disturbing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance courts rubber-stamped the Carter Page spy warrants and held not one hearing on these extraordinary requests to spy on the Trump team. Perhaps the court can now hold hearings on how justice was corrupted by material omissions that Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC, a conflicted Bruce Ohr, a compromised Christopher Steele, and anti-Trumper Peter Strzok were all behind the ‘intelligence’ used to persuade the courts to approve the FISA warrants that targeted the Trump team.”
In July, Judicial Watch obtained over 400 pages of heavily redacted Carter Page FISA documents.

Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe and Sally Yates all signed the FISA applications even though Hillary’s fraudulent Russia dossier was used as a pretext to obtain the warrants.
Obama’s Deep State DOJ and FBI withheld information about Hillary Clinton and the DNC being behind the information used to obtain the FISA warrant.
President Trump is reportedly moving to declassify the June 2017 FISA renewal which was signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Trump’s ace card is a declassification order on all Carter Page FISA docs and other documents related to the Russia witch hunt.
Mr. President, it is time to declassify all the Russia docs.
Watch Tom Fitton discuss the new developments in detail:
As usual, Judicial Watch is doing the heavy lifting. You can support Tom Fitton and his team by clicking here.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/two-of-
muellers-prosecutors-quit-office-of-special-counsel/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/trump-threatens-doj-fbi-they-need-to-shape-up-or-i-will-get-involved/


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-31/steele-ohr-secret-2016-meeting-russia-has-trump-over-barrel-explosive-information

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/huge-development-should-kill-mueller-investigation-bruce-ohr-testimony-reveals-massive-doj-corruption-video/


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/analyst-now-obvious-mueller-is-trying-to-hold-out-until-democrats-take-control-of-congress/

FOX News Legal Expert: Supreme Court Chief Justice Needs to Step in and Haul DOJ and FBI Hacks In Front of FISA Court (VIDEO)



FOX News legal expert and author Gregg Jarrett told Lou Dobbs Tonight that the Supreme Court needs to get involved to prevent abuse of the FISA Court.
This comes after Judicial Watch reported on Friday that the Justice Department admitted in a court filing this week that the FISA court never held hearings on the FISA applications for former Trump advisor Carter Page.
Gregg Jarrett: He (Supreme Court Justice) appointed all 11 FISA judges and he is in charge of them. He should direct Rosemary Collyer, the presiding judge to hold a hearing, a show-cause hearing, why people shouldn’t be held in contempt, haul the Department of Justice, the FBI in front of them and have them explain themselves. And if they don’t to the satisfaction of the court, if the court believes there was a fraud on the court and surely there was here, then they should make a criminal referral to the Department of Justice against the DOJ officials and the FBI.
  Via Lou Dobbs Tonight:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/fox-news-legal-expert-supreme-court-chief-justice-needs-to-step-in-and-haul-doj-and-fbi-hacks-in-front-of-fisa-court-video/



https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/never-forget-dirty-cop-mueller-gave-tony-podesta-immunity-to-testify-against-manafort-after-committing-same-exact-crime/

Radicalized Democrats: Destroying the Country and Their Own Party

From the wee hours of the morning on November 9, 2016, as they grappled with the sting of President-Elect Donald Trump triumphing over the anointed Queen of the Swamp, Democrats have been radicalizing by the minute.
Objective Americans have witnessed the transformation of JFK-style classical liberals into Marxist protégés even the namesake himself would be proud to call his pupils, not to mention the hostile takeover of the Democratic Party by the "three home-owning multi-millionaire," Bernie Sanders, and "I'm not an expert on American-Israeli policy, but let me comment on it anyway" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The Democratic Party is soon to be more aptly referenced as the Democratic Socialist Party.
And it's not as if the Democrats don't have the resolve to combat such a monumental shift to the left.  They've certainly been known to fight when something has truly mattered to them – like the times when they fought tooth and nail to unanimously oppose the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, giving citizenship to freed slaves and an equal right to vote for all, respectively.  Or the time when they overwhelmingly opposed abolishing slavery by fighting to kill the 13th Amendment.
If Democrats really opposed the radicalization of their own party, they would fight it, but the quiet truth is that they welcome it.

Whether by choice or necessity, radicalized Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and the rest of the bunch welcome the violence of groups like the Alt-Left Antifa thugs, the anti-Americanism being normalized for millions of impressionable young sports fans when athletes kneel during the National Anthem, and the anti-police mentality being homogenized within our inner-city and minority communities by political propagandists like Black Lives Matter. 
Radicalized Democrats welcome the intentional confusion and sexualization of our children through concepts like gender fluidity, pre-teen sexual experimentation, gender-neutral bathrooms and locker rooms, mandatory pornographic sex education, abortions on demand, and more.  These extremist concepts may fly in pockets of San Francisco – the city that hands out tens of thousands of needles each year to homeless drug addicts and has recently been described as dirtier than many third-world countries – but they are resoundingly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of taxpaying, hardworking, freedom-loving Americans throughout the rest of the country.
Radicalized Democrats welcome the complete and utter degradation of law and order as documented abuses of power and rampant corruption go unpunished because the FBI agents are "with her."  Just last week, Nancy Pelosi had the temerity to suggest that Democrats – the Party that failed to demand answers for even a single Hillary Clinton corruption scandal – are the party responsible for rooting out corruption.  Nancy has been known to say some idiotic things, but this truly exceeds all expectations of her lunacy.
Not only does the Democrats' double standard damage their credibility as a party, but it threatens one of the foundational tenants of our society: rule of law.
Radicalized Democrats welcome the erosion of trust in the media and fan the flames of fake news-promulgators like CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.  Consider that even at a time when the distrust of the establishment elite is at an all-time high, a CNN producer was caught on video calling the Trump-Russia story "b-------" while the network continued to run with it as the top story for months.  The radical left, both inside and out of the mainstream media machine, has resorted to lying in an effort to achieve its political goals without regard for the negative consequences it has had and will continue to have on our nation.
Instead of engaging in vigorous and civil debate, radicalized Democrats welcome the totalitarian censorship of ideas they disagree with – whether on college campuses, in the public square, or online through social media.  The left, which claims to stand for freedom of choice, has yet to be held accountable for this censorship blunder.  Instead, leftists have created justification for even more aggressive censorship under the false pretext of fostering "conversational health" and "tolerance," which is really just leftist code for "agree with me or you will be silenced."
While political shape-shifters like Obama, Schumer, Pelosi and Clinton opined about the need for strong border policy as recently as 2009, radicalized Democrats now welcome the voluntary abrogation of our national sovereignty and security through unabashed open borders and amnesty-centric immigration policy that, according to data from the Government Accountability Office, equates to 438 "homicide arrests of criminal [illegal] aliens" each and every year since 1955 – more than 25,000 in total.
As opposed to retooling their party platform and political agenda to better appeal to a black community no longer inclined to vote by rote for Democrat, radicalized Democrats have instead continued to encourage the genocide of the black community through the ritualistic annual disbursement of more than 500 million taxpayer dollars to the nation's largest abortion mill, Planned Parenthood. 
Despite the left's laughable narrative on Russia, the only obvious subversion of our republic stems from radicalized Democrats' own network of shadowy multi-billionaire donors like George Soros and Tom Steyer, among others, who seek to undermine and exploit our nation's electoral process for their own gain.
Radicalized Democrats mandate that pre-teens and teens need parental permission in order to receive a Tylenol from a school nurse or participate in a school-sanctioned field trip to the zoo, while simultaneously demanding that those same girls have the incontrovertible right to a surgical abortion without their parents even being notified.
Radicalized Democrats believe that the same government that is demonstrably incapable of delivering quality health care to America's approximately 20 million veterans should be responsible for providing health care for nearly 330 million Americans through a "Medicare for All" program – a decision that would lead to care rationing and British-style death panels, to be sure.
As if there weren't a bridge too far for the left, radicalized Democrats now demand the abolition of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), an agency that, according to President Trump and Senator Lankford, in collaboration with Border Patrol, is responsible for apprehending on average ten terrorists per day trying to enter the United States illegally.
It doesn't take a sociopolitical expert to follow the signs to the ultimately destructive end that the Democrats' extremist positions and policies will have on our nation in both the short and long terms.  The real question is why.
Why would Democrats radicalize to the point that they run the risk of destroying the very nation that gives them refuge and prosperity?  The answer is simple: desperation.  The American people have largely woken up to the long con of the left, forcing radicalized Democrats to the realization that on the battlefield of ideas, they lose, and they lose big.
Democrats recognize that if they lose on the battlefield of ideas, they can win only through the smoky cloud of chaos and division, wherein Americans are pitted against each other like  gladiators in the Colosseum.  To this end, the left has been strategically dismantling the bedrock institutions that have made America the freest, most prosperous nation the world has ever known.
While all the eyes should have been focused on the Republicans and how we would embrace Trump's brand of conservatism, the Democrats fumbled – in truly epic fashion – whatever opportunity they thought they might have had to regain their death grip on the levers of power.
As is common with addicts, the Democrats' uncontrollable and intensifying desire to regain control and oppose everything coming out of the White House has caused them to reveal the sinister intentions of their party. 
Like drugs and pornography, their addiction to radicalization has become a self-perpetuating devolution, a race to the bottom of sorts, where greater and greater extremes are needed to continue satisfying their appetite for rage and division.  Sadly, society knows the ultimate outcome of addiction: an unyielding downward spiral into total self-destruction – a fate that Democrats may face sooner rather than later, given their current trajectory.
The pending implosion of the Democratic Party is not something that should make conservatives rest easy, as such chaos within a major political Party may ultimately spread to the rest of the country like a cancer.
The radicalization of the Democrats should only serve as further evidence that we are winning and must continue to fight harder on the battlefield of ideas, for freedom's sake.


 
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/radicalized_democrats_destroying_the_country_and_their_own_party.html

Dem rep threatens immigration agents: 'You will not be safe'

It's Garbage Like this guy that needs to go. This is the new left. Open borders, No Border or immigration security. Anyone can come and go and don't forget, Vote

Image result for Ruben Gallego


Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona tweeted out a threat to immigration agents, warning them that if Democrats take over the House, "you will not be safe because you were just following orders." 



Charming fellow.
Gallego's comments go beyond those of other Democrats, even those who've called for confronting Trump administration officials in public over immigration policies. 
Chris Crane, the president of the National ICE Council, which represents thousands of ICE employees, accused Gallego of inciting violence against them as they "enforce the nation's laws and keep our communities safe."
"It should be frightening to every American that a sitting member of Congress would threaten the safety of any person and their family, and incite the public to take acts of violence against them, let alone the lives of those whose job it is to protect us and keep us safe," Crane said in a statement.
Gallego, in a statement to Fox News, attempted to clarify his remarks.
"Government officials who violate the law or the constitution will not be immune to legal consequences," Gallego said Thursday.  "They will eventually be held accountable for their actions, even if the Trump administration is refusing to do so."
A spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not return a request for comment.  There have been growing calls from Democrats in recent months to abolish the agency.
The first thing Gallego has to do is find "illegal acts" committed by the Trump administration.  He will be looking for a long time.  The Supreme Court upheld Trump's "travel ban," and while other executive orders have been overturned by judicial fiat at the expense of the executive, that doesn't make them "illegal."
In fact, ICE agents are simply enforcing the laws already on the books – laws that other presidents have refused to enforce or enforced in a different manner.  Suffice it to say that Gallego has no clue what he's talking about except to parrot incoherent talking points that have nothing to do with reality.
Gallego didn't quite go full Nazi on ICE agents, but he came close


 
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/dem_rep_threatens_immigration_agents_you_will_not_be_safe.html


https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/31/dem-rep-ruben-gallego-to-immigration-officials-when-worm-turns-you-will-not-be-safe/

Who Really Started the Trump-McCain Feud?

With Senator John McCain's recent passing, the Trump-McCain feud has heated up.  It's really a manufactured kerfuffle, as one party is saying little, and the other party has departed from the living, no longer able to participate in the feud, except posthumously via the media.
Leave it to the media to resurrect the controversy between the late senator and the U.S. president as a means of bashing President Trump, whom the media detest.  It is also a distraction from the stock market breaking records left and right, a new and better trade deal with Mexico, a country that the media constantly tell us hates Trump and won't do business with him, Bruce Ohr's congressional testimony, and other news the media would prefer to ignore.

Image credit: Donkey Hotey.
Trump has been criticized over the past four days for his response to Senator McCain's passing.  He wasn't personal enough, they say, even though the president appropriately tweeted, "My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain.  Our hearts and prayers are with you!"

Then the media fussed and pouted over how long the flag over the White House should be flown at half-mast.  The flag flew that way appropriately after McCain's death, but the time period wasn't enough.  CNN probably wants it at half-mast permanently until Trump is out of office, although another six and a half more years at half-mast might be a bit excessive.
The reality is that the flag was handled as it should have been, based on a 1954 proclamation by then President Eisenhower.
As McCain was a U.S. senator, the proclamation instructs that flags be lowered on the day of his death and the day after.  McCain passed away on Saturday, and the White House reportedly raised the flags back right around midnight overnight as Sunday ended, which would be the minimum amount of time as outlined by Eisenhower's proclamation.
The media think they knows better, as this tweet exemplifies.
Next is the funeral. Trump is being criticized for not attending, despite McCain's request that he not attend.  Somehow, to MSNBC, honoring the request of the recently departed is crass.  How would they react if Trump showed up anyway, making the funeral about himself, rather than the senator, as Barack Obama might have done?
Resurrected is the feud from a few years ago.  Watch cable news, and the feud is all Trump's fault.  McCain remains blameless in life and even after death.  Let's take a look at how the feud started.
Reported in The New Yorker on July 16, 2015, a few days after a Trump campaign rally held in Phoenix, in McCain's home state, McCain offered his displeasure over the rally.  "It's very bad," he said.  Going farther, "[t]his performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me," McCain said.  "Because what he did was he fired up the crazies."
This rally was held on Saturday, July 11, 2015, as reported by Politico.  The dates are important.
Trump-supporters are "crazies," according to Senator McCain, those people willing to stand in line for hours to see and hear their favored candidate for president.  I wonder if McCain ever had such crowds at his campaign rallies in 2000 or 2008, at least before he brought Sarah Palin onto his ticket.
Insulting Trump-supporters is the same as insulting Trump, at least in Trump's view.  As he is hardwired to do, when insulted, he hits back.
In Iowa, a week later, on July 18, 2015, Trump was interviewed and delivered his response to McCain's calling Trump-supporters, and, by default, Trump himself, "crazy."  Trump said, "He's not a war hero.  He's a war hero because he was captured.  I like people who weren't captured."
The feud was off and running, but who started it?  From the dates, McCain drew first blood, and Trump responded as he always does: with a right cross.
Yet to the media, this feud is totally one-sided.  McCain is the innocent party, just minding his own business, when that bully Donald Trump comes up out of nowhere and punches him in the nose.  In reality, it was Trump minding his own business, trying to run a winning campaign, something McCain found challenging, when McCain called him and his supporters "crazy."
This was much like Hillary Clinton's descriptor "deplorables" to characterize those who chose the current president over her.
Even Rush Limbaugh, who describes himself as right 99-plus percent of the time, got this wrong.  On his show this week, he remarked about the feud:
We're all human, right?  Some might disagree with that, but we're all human, in the general sense.  So you're Senator McCain and you're out there minding your own business, you're in advanced years and all of a sudden this orange headed guy walks down an escalator in New York and runs for president, says what he says, and you're McCain, and you've got this reputation here for probity and seriousness and respect and all that kind of stuff.  And then shortly after the orange headed guy walks down the escalator, somebody asks him about McCain, and the orange headed guy says, "I don't have any respect for people in the military that get captured. I don't think they're heroes," what do you expect McCain's reaction to that to be?
Even El Rushbo missed the fact that McCain hit first by calling Trump-supporters "crazies" and that Trump responded in Trumpian fashion with a quick punch.
Let the media huff and puff.  This is their bright, shiny object of the week to chase around the room.  They quickly lost interest in Omarosa, Cohen, and Manafort, all shiny objects for a few days earlier this month within the media echo chamber.  Now it's McCain as the shiny object, the same guy they called a racist when he ran for president in 2008, now revered as Mother Teresa in death.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if the media did an honest assessment of John McCain's life, his dealings with some bad players in the Middle East, his charitable foundation and its Clinton Foundation-like donors, and his role in the Russian collusion hoax?  Although inconvenient, we might discover the many inconvenient similarities between McCain and the Clintons.
Instead, the media will bray about the half-mast flag and funeral guest list, since their minds run only in a single gear: destroy Trump.


 
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/who_really_started_the_trumpmccain_feud.html

Senator Chris Murphy: "The Survival Of Our Democracy" Depends On More Censorship

So this AssWipe needs to tell us what  he wants to censor?   Fox news?  Rush?  Sounds kinda like this Idiot wants to control what the American people should hear? Kinda like State Run media

Welcome to the United States of Censorship.
Your tour guide today is Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, tweeted some pro-censorship nonsense the other day. In doing so, Murphy proved that (a) he doesn’t understand the First Amendment, (b) he wants the internet to be an echo chamber, and (c) he must have slept through high school civics class.
Murphy tweeted that “the survival of our democracy” was dependent upon even MORE censorship.
Psst: NOT a democracy. I Googled it for you, Chris. How the heck did you get elected when you don’t even know this? I guess there isn’t a quiz you’ve gotta pass to be a Senator.)
Anyone north of a Hillary-Clinton-loving liberal knows that there’s war on our opinions, while the folks who control the media can say practically anything they want. (Like when CNN anchor Chris Cuomo defended Antifa and freaking compared them to WWII soldiers storming the beach at Normandy, even though he says he didn’t.)

Some background information on the wave of censorship

At the center of this brouhaha is Alex Jones’s InfoWars, an ultraconservative, conspiratorial media outlet who was recently deplatformed by anyone who matters in the media world.
While I’m personally not a fan of Jones or his website, I’m even less of a fan of censorship. Apple, Facebook, Spotify, and YouTube all removed Jones’s accounts within hours of one another, which is blatantly a colluded effort to silence his opinions. And whether you like Jones or not, this should scare the crap out of you if you don’t wish to live in an America that only allows one philosophy.
But it didn’t start with Infowars. The purge has been going on for quite some time.
Since mid-2016 the big 4 tech companies – Google, Facebook, Twitter and, the biggest social media platform in the known universe, YouTube, have engaged in secretive/open policies of censorship. It began with Amazon-owned, Washington Post running an article announcing Prop-Or-Not in which some unknown shadowy people had decided there were 200 different websites that were engaged in spreading Russian propaganda. Nothing could have been further from the truth and this experiment actually unleashed unintended consequences that took more than a year for these tech giants to reign in. Each of the 200 websites traffic exploded to the upside, in some cases doubling there traffic from the previous month.
The next step was unleashed by YouTube in what was dubbed “AdPocalypse” due to the way YouTube began systematically stripping ad revenue from content creators. Not all content creators and not all videos published by these select content creators were affected, but it was devastating to some of us…
…There was no rhyme or reason behind this on-going attack to our revenue base. AdPocalypse continues to this day with the added bonus of shadow banning. More about shadow banning in a moment.
When Natural News was first threatened and then had 140,000 pages de-indexed, Mike Adams took action, hired an attorney and had everything put back into place in short order. This was the warning shot to all other websites, including The Daily Coin, that something major was coming down the pike.
This is now the third phase of what seems to be a coordinated effort among these companies. Google began de-indexing pages from established websites like InfoWars and Natural News. This practice is alive and well today. (source)
And remember when Milo Yiannopolis got deplatformed? He was on top of the world for his alt-right commentary, he had a book deal, he was filthy rich, and he was everywhere. Until suddenly he wasn’t. He was all but erased by the Gods of the Internet. Media outlets like Mashable are filled with glee. “Deplatforming works,” they crowed, overjoyed about the fates of Yiannopolous and Jones.
For a few years there, Yiannopoulos was a reigning troll of the alt-right. He championed the ability to demean anyone anywhere, and called it free speech… Yiannopoulos’ rise and influence crystallizes how social media can amplify a fringe voice by coalescing followers and normalizing once-abhorred opinions and groups, which leads to real world violence.
Eventually, however, Yiannopoulos took it too far for social media, his speaking sponsors, and even his bosses to handle…
“My events almost never happen,” Yiannopoulos wrote.. “And when I get dumped from conferences, BARELY ANYONE makes a sound about it — not my fellow conservative media figures and not even, in many cases, you guys.”
Milo’s events don’t happen because his words, and the real world action they’ve inspired, triggered “de-platforming.” De-platforming is the idea that the best way to combat hate and vitriol in the real world is to take away amplification, usually online. It most recently regained prominence amidst the wide scale ban of Alex Jones and InfoWars from every major platform he had, except Twitter.
…The fact that Yiannopoulos has found his reach and influence so depleted that he can’t get new gigs and takes to comments on Facebook to complain shows the real world effect that de-platforming a toxic public figure can actually have. Indeed, the pro-InfoWars fervor surrounding Alex Jones’ ban from social media lasted about 24 hours; much more enduring is his silence. (source)

 Again, whether you love or hate these websites and people that have been attacked doesn’t matter. I’m not a fan of Jones or Yiannopolous, but I am a fan of their freedom to say what they want, even if it’s abhorrent. The folks who run the information world are starting with the sites that are the most blatantly controversial because that’s how they get people on board with this purge.
They will not stop there, with the most abhorrent. The rest of us are next.

A quick segue into the protections of the First Amendment

One quick point I’d like to insert here so that it’s perfectly clear. There is a difference between censorship and violating the First Amendment.
Yes, Google, Facebook, Apple, YouTube, and the like are all private entities. They’re allowed to have whatever they want on their platforms. Their censorship is NOT covered under the First Amendment. 
BUT…when they collude to silence a point of view that they don’t like, we’re at the top of a greasy slide straight into a pit of complete and utter censorship.  While it isn’t covered by 1A, it is no less dangerous.
Ben Shapiro explains:
…it is a problem. It’s a problem because these policies are extraordinarily vague. These policies aren’t merely designed to crack down on speech openly advocating or threatening violence, or containing obscenity. These policies are deliberately unclear as well as political.
What, for example, constitutes “hate speech”? Much of what Jones and his employees say is absolutely rotten pig excrement, but there’s no definition of hate speech that has a limiting principle. Is it “using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender” to state that transgender people suffer from a mental disorder? Or that they are not in fact members of the gender to which they claim membership? What constitutes “hate speech” when discussing the relationship between radical Islam and terrorism? None of this has been made clear.
Furthermore, it won’t be made clear, because the political Left has no clear standards. … How exactly are we supposed to trust in free and open debate when those setting the limits are openly setting them up with embedded double-standards?
The answer is, we don’t. Trust in social media is declining nearly as fast as trust in media overall. There’s a reason for that. And it’s not because social media tolerates voices like Jones. It’s because they don’t tolerate voices like Jones while tolerating voices who are just as bad on the political Left – and they show no signs of limiting their censorship to Alex Jones. (source)
So when you’re arguing about this, just remember, it isn’t the First Amendment being breached here, but it is still insidious. Just because it isn’t unconstitutional doesn’t mean that it isn’t censorship.
Censorship is defined as the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that it’s considered by the government or a private institution to be objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient.
So yes, call it what you want, but it is classically, totally, absolutely censorship.

Back to Senator Murphy’s Twitter rant

So, anywho, let’s go back to Senator Murphy, who really is only saying what a whole bunch of other people believe. It’s just scarier because he has the political oomph to make his Orwellian dreams a reality.
It all started when he tweeted this:
Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.”
Trust me when I tell you it won’t stop at Alex Jones. Senator Murphy doesn’t want it to stop at Alex Jones. He wants the sweep to continue and scoop up anyone with whom he disagrees. And not just on social media. Did you notice he was saying that he wanted entire websites to disappear? This is a totally different ballgame, friends. This is the beginning of the end.
John Nolte wrote for Breitbart (please swallow your disdain for Breitbart, commenters. I quoted CNN too):
InfoWars being silenced tightens the free speech circle, brings the line closer to you and I, especially in a terrifying and chilling climate where the left-wing establishment are deciding what “lies and hate” are.
Killing the InfoWars canary, however, will also embolden the censors at CNN and those like Murphy in the political world. They see that dead canary as a success, and as a blueprint to come after the rest of us. And make no mistake, we are all next.
Finally, and this is important, what Murphy is calling for is even more extreme than what happened to InfoWars.
Murphy is calling for “websites” to be taken down — entire websites.
In deleting their accounts, what Facebook and YouTube did to Infowars is bad enough, but Jones still has his own site, his own outlet; and now we have a sitting United States Senator is calling for that to be removed. (source)
But, even CNN is nonplussed about the disappearing of Jones from the internet. CNN. Columnist LZ Granderson wrote:
But that doesn’t mean I view systematically scrubbing him from the internet, as Apple, Facebook, and YouTube have tried to do, as a victory. Why? Because I enjoy hip-hop, Elvis Presley, and “The Catcher in the Rye” — and at some point in our country’s history, all three were in the sights of people who didn’t approve of its content (or in Elvis’ case, hips).
Restricting offensive or harmful language for the greater good is all fine and dandy until you become beholden to a definition of “greater good” you don’t agree with. Or when you oppose a politician’s view of “offensive.”
Today the mob is for you, but tomorrow you could be Larry Flynt, who endured decades of court cases and was shot because people thought the content in Hustler Magazine was not worthy of First Amendment protection. Times are obviously different today — paging Kim Kardashian — but the tendency to cherry pick the Constitution remains.
Again, I don’t like what Alex Jones has to say. But I do like the fact I can call him an idiot. That’s America, baby. (source)
When even CNN, that bastion of anti-Trump groupthink, agrees that this is a dangerous, horrifying slippery slope, I think we can all agree we’ve gone way beyond dangerous.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-31/senator-chris-murphy-survival-our-democracy-depends-more-censorship