Ginja Ninja

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY My case was proven yet again today when the First Lady is forced to address this propaganda head on because of the lies propagated by the release of the Epstein files. This is exactly why DJT called it a hoax. Can you see it yet???

@flooder44 @MassieforKY You can call it whatever you want, but the end result is the same: you spent this whole thread arguing why it's fine that implicated names stay hidden. Whether you mean to or not, that protects pedophiles.

Another public poll is out! It shows us with a 5 point lead. Too close for comfort.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY you’re retarded. Absolutely nothing I said protects anyone, and getting all hellbent on getting this “evidence” that can’t be used in court once released does more for that pedo network than I ever could. You’re too stupid to see the propaganda game for what it is. END OF STORY

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY Massie is fighting for his job, not truth. The DOJ contends they are in compliance with the law and neither one of us is in a position to definitively say otherwise. Nice try tho. I’m not protecting anyone, but you’re defending Massie who is obviously playing games.

@flooder44 @MassieforKY Massie is fighting for truth, the DOJ is breaking the law, and you spent two hours giving your all to defend the people redacting pedophile names. Enjoy that hill.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY 🙄 my argument has not changed one iota. I’ll restate it one last time for you. This bill was poorly written on purpose with no teeth for a reason….political theater. I’ll come back to this one year from today after nothing has happened to say “told ya so” Now I’m moving on 👋

@flooder44 @MassieforKY So you went from 'the or makes it a separate clause' to 'well all law is just semantics anyway.' You literally just abandoned your own argument. And nobody (not even the DOJ) is using (c)(1)(D) to justify redacting names.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY All legal debate is based on semantics. There are 5 clauses that create exceptions, all of which are subject to interpretation, and any good lawyer is going to use semantics to create their argument. Massie knows this. Hence….poorly written

@flooder44 @MassieforKY Now you are just failing basic English. 'Depict or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury.' The verb 'depict' governs the whole clause. The 'or' separates types of images, not images from something else. That's basic sentence structure.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY This is where your legal analysis breaks down. The use of ‘or’ separates “injury of any persons” from “depicted images”. The two are independent of one another.

@flooder44 @MassieforKY (c)(1)(D) literally starts with 'depict or contain images of.' It's about graphic images, not text redactions of names. You're reading 'injury' as a catch-all when the clause is specifically about depicting images. You are just misreading the bill.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY The fact that the bill has no enforcement provision is MORE PROOF that it was poorly written 😂

@flooder44 @MassieforKY Right ... so the DoJ claims compliance and nobody can effectively challenge them because the bill has no enforcement penalty. That's not a loophole Massie wrote, that's the DoJ stonewalling. You just made the case for why more pressure is needed, not less. Well done.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY Nope not at all…that is what sec. B is for. Sec. D is much broader in language and is an independent clause from sec. B SEC. B covers abuse images and depictions under 18 USC. Sec. D definitions aren’t referenced by any specific code and are open to interpretation

@flooder44 @MassieforKY This applies to withholding images of abuse and injury, not redacting names of implicated people. Read it again. And if 'national security' justifies redacting names of pedophiles, that's an even bigger problem than you think it is.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY DOJ maintains they have complied with Sec. C No suit has been brought yet to challenge them on their reasons for redaction. Just congressional subpoenas so far….which again are totally irrelevant and used for criminal referrals only.

@flooder44 @MassieforKY Happy to: Sec (b): can't withhold for embarrassment or political sensitivity. Sec (c): every redaction needs written justification to Congress. Permitted withholdings limited to victim info, CSAM, active investigations, national security. Now name your specific loophole.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY Sec. D (already highlighted) differentiates between ‘physical abuse’ and ‘injury’. Meaning the injury could be financial, psychological, or anything other than ‘reputational’ injury. The ‘national security’ loophole is so broad I could write a term paper about it.

@flooder44 @MassieforKY Name one specific loophole. You keep saying "poorly written" but can't point to a single provision that lets the DOJ redact implicated names. Because there isn't one, the bill explicitly prohibits it.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY What’s the matter? Why can’t you answer a simple question? Or are you going to defend your “option 3”? Ok I’ll bite….tell us why you think this bill is strongly written.

@flooder44 @MassieforKY Option 3: They wrote a strong bill, the DOJ violated it and now Massie is publicly calling out the violations. Even a blindman can see that, but brain damaged MAGAtards will never criticize their daddy for anything.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY Also I’m still waiting on your answer. It’s been established that the bill was poorly written, now tell me….did Massie and Khana do that on accident or on purpose?

@flooder44 @MassieforKY Says the guy who opened with 'Ok lazy I'll do all the work for you' and 'Are you done looking stupid yet (while being incredibly stupid, claiming the bill didn't have a veto proof majority).' But sure, tone-police me when you run out of arguments. 😂

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY My insults were directed at you, not generalized and not profanity laced, and my tone and vernacular have nothing to do with the way you communicate. Your language has changed since your original comment and that is an indication of something.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY The files are worthless-you already acknowledged this-hence no ongoing investigations. The bill is poorly written with loopholes-either accidentally or on purpose-you decide. Massie has seen an increase in donations since this started. Multiple things can be true.

@flooder44 @MassieforKY You've gone from 'the files are worthless' to 'the law has loopholes' to 'it's a secret fundraising scheme.' At some point the simpler explanation is just that the DOJ is hiding names. Lol

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY I haven’t defended the DOJ in any way at all. I’m just calling out the poorly written bill for what it is.

@flooder44 @MassieforKY So the DOJ has been protecting pedos for decades across multiple administrations ... and you've spent this entire thread defending the current DOJ's decision to redact implicated names. Pick a lane.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY Don’t take the lords name in vain please. Yes he did it on purpose to clog the news cycles and bring anti-Trump money to his campaign. He used broad language on purpose knowing it would create a media shitstorm and he leaned into it. Try to see the playbook for what it is.

@flooder44 @MassieforKY Massie wrote a bill that says names can't be redacted for political sensitivity. The DOJ redacted them anyway. Massie then publicly called them out. Your theory is that he planned all of that as... theater? Against himself? Jesus fucking Christ. 😂

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY My word you’re dense. Epstein was operating for decades across several administrations and not once did the DOJ do anything except make plea deals. Now that it’s a cold case you want to put the onus on this administration 🤦‍♂️

@flooder44 @MassieforKY lol you're SO close. Yes, nobody's getting prosecuted because the DOJ is the one protecting them. That's not theater, that's the whole problem. Thanks for playing!

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY Here is a simple question. Do you think Massie and Khana wrote in these loopholes into the bill on accident or on purpose? If accident-they’re stupid If on purpose-it’s political theater. You decide.

@flooder44 @MassieforKY You keep fixating on the one dismissed case and ignoring the active FOIA lawsuit, the congressional subpoena and Massie's own statement that implicated names were redacted. That's not me having confirmation bias, that's you wilfully ignoring three out of four points.

@Hardrada123 @MassieforKY The problem is and always was the way Massie and Khana wrote the bill. They wrote it this way ON PURPOSE!

@flooder44 @MassieforKY The law YOU posted says no record can be withheld for embarrassment or political sensitivity. Massie fought the president and the AG to get this passed. He then reviewed the unredacted files and said implicated names were redacted. Why would he do that if it was theater?