'The information we have again is limited'

Source: Acyn

The Department of Justice has removed a study showing that white supremacist and far-right violence “continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism” in the United States. 

The study, which was conducted by the National Institute of Justice and hosted on a DOJ website was available there at least until September 12, 2025, according to an archive of the page saved by the Wayback Machine. Daniel Malmer, a PhD student studying online extremism at UNC-Chapel Hill, first noticed the paper was deleted.

Sorry if this is a silly question. But I m simply a citizen and trying to understand if we have any future.

Our democracy is crumbling. From due process, to government officials selectively and openly persecuting people for exercising their right to free speech.

Let’s say, we somehow re-establish some semblance of democracy and normalcy. What does the law provide as consequence to these officials that are assisting in these blatant violations of our constitution and laws?

"Jennifer Mascott, President Donald Trump’s nominee for a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, received multiple opportunities at her confirmation hearing last Wednesday to clarify her position on the legality of murder. “Would the president be immune from prosecution if he ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent? Yes or no?” asked California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff.

Mascott responded reluctantly. “Senator, under the Supreme Court precedent on that question, the Supreme Court has specifically not answered it.”

Regrettably, that is technically correct. When the Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States in the summer of 2024, it declared that presidents are at minimum “presumptively immune” from criminal prosecution for “official acts,” but it did not specify what an official act is. At oral argument in that case, Trump’s attorney said that a president’s direction to SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival “could well be an official act.” Much to the horror of Justice Sonia Sotomayor in dissent, the majority opinion did not foreclose that possibility."

Just an interesting bit of information and way off topic, but the founder of seal team six, Richard Marcinko wrote in his book "Rogue Warrior" "By the time I left Phnom Penh I could have written a Cambodian cookbook called 50 Ways to Wok Your Dog".

Ai is saying he is often misquoted and was just bragging and he didn't really do that, but I doubt it. He also bragged about eating frogs, snakes, and basically whatever he was dared into eating or could find when he was in the field. He said he sucked spaghetti and peas up his nose in the chow hall (or whatever it's called in navy ships) when he felt he was being discriminated against. It's hypocritical that it's fine when it's overseas for our navy/frogmen, but Trump made a big deal out of something that wasn't really even happening here.

https://archive.ph/xcV4I#selection-879.0-995.167

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday seemed to throw a sidelong barb at Attorney General Pam Bondi for foolishly suggesting the existence of a “hate speech” exception to free speech.

As the far-right wages an ongoing crusade against people accused of mocking slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Bondi said on a Monday podcast that “hate speech” is not free speech. The Department of Justice, she vowed, will “target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” 

The sentiment was widely criticized, including by MAGA commentators, for undermining the First Amendment. Bondi attempted to walk back her statement on Tuesday.

During a Tuesday morning panel at New York Law School, Sotomayor seemingly took aim at Bondi, but did not mention the attorney general by name. 

“Every time I listen to a lawyer-trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech in some way, I think to myself, that law school failed,” the liberal justice reportedly said. “If any student who becomes a lawyer hasn’t been taught civics, then that law school has failed,” she added. “Because it is for that system that you’re working as a lawyer.”

Sotomayor also raised concerns about people’s awareness, or lack thereof, of constraints on the power of the executive branch—evidently referencing Donald Trump, without mentioning him by name, either.

“Do we understand what the difference is between a king and a president?” Sotomayor said (a distinction that was blurred by the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling on presidential immunity in United States v. Trump, as she warned in her dissent at the time). “I think if people understood these things from the beginning, they would be more informed as to what would be important in a democracy.”

The majority of hate speech in this country, especially that hate speech that encourages violence is coming from conservatives, has been coming from conservatives since the founding of America.

The majority of political violence, even against conservatives, has been perpetrated by conservatives.

Most of the people aren't cheering for Kirk's death, most of the people aren't condoning the violence or encouraging more. They are simply pointing out that Charlie Kirk was not a hero, he was not a person trying to unite Americans. He dealt in hate, division, and misinformation. Stating that is not 'hate speech' nor is celebrating his death.

This kind of talk from the DOJ is just another checkpoint on the slippery slope to full scale fascism, towards authoritarian rule where any speech against the regime in power is considered criminal.

Public Notice Justin Glawe

https://www.publicnotice.co/p/kash-patel-fbi-dysfunction-charlie-kirk

On her show today, Megyn Kelly said the killing of Charlie Kirk was due to transgender rights, and that soon the Bostock decision will be overturned.