News media lies.
Google takes the bait again.
Trump is attacking

 

Looking More Political by the Second

This Rayshard Brooks thing is going to get bad. I think that the DA of Fulton County, Paul Howard Jr., should probably recuse himself to try to save face.

Information has come out today that really puts a bad light on this case and Paul Howard:

Howard said that a taser is not a deadly weapon and is not justification for deadly force. But two weeks ago, Howard said that the use of a taser by police was using deadly force. He was referring to a incident where police used a taser on a violent woman during an arrest. In that case, which happened on June 2, he charged a police officer.

Howard said that Devin Brosnan, the other police officer on the scene that received a concussion and taser burns from the peaceful Brooks, has no intention of pleading guilty to any charge and no intention of testifying for the state against Officer Rolfe. He said that in front of his client and Brosnan appeared with a battered face.

Finally, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI for short) said they are still continuing their investigation and have not come up with a determination. They also said that Howard never consulted them with his findings and the charges.

Oops.

What’s also coming out is the life of Rayshard Brooks. And he’s not the jovial loving guy Howard is making him out to be.

• He blew a .108 in his test. That’s over the drunk driving limit.
• The charges to which Brooks pleaded guilty and for which he was still on probation dated back to August 2014.
• He was convicted on four counts – False Imprisonment, Simple Battery/Family, Battery Simple and Felony Cruelty/Cruelty to Children.
• Brooks had not been in trouble since 2016 until last December when he went to Ohio without informing his probation officer – but the case was dismissed.

 

Not so jovial and nonviolent.

But Paul Howard has his own problems:

• He has huge turmoil in the department he is running. According to his competitor for the DA position, he lost 115 lawyers in the last 2 years and his environment is toxic.
• He is under investigation for sexual harassment by a member of the Human Resources department.
• The GBI is investigating him for the disappearance of grant money that was sent to his department. That money has been alleged to have added to his salary.
• He is currently looking at being primaried in the next election in November.

 

Does this look like a diversion to satisfy his voting base?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/da-says-brooks-wasnt-threat-toward-cop-he-shot-taser-at-said-two-weeks-ago-taser-is-considered-a-deadly-weapon
https://www.dailywire.com/news/attorney-for-officer-devin-brosnan-debunks-claims-client-is-state-witness-unloads-on-d-a-paul-howard
https://www.dailywire.com/news/georgia-bureau-of-investigation-responds-to-d-a-s-charges-we-werent-consulted-investigation-not-over
https://www.dailywire.com/news/atlanta-police-officers-not-responding-to-calls-in-multiple-zones-comes-after-d-a-charged-officer-with-murder-in-rayshard-brooks-case
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8431801/Rayshard-Brooks-probation-faced-going-prison-charged-DUI.html

 

 

It’s About Time

Google has threatened to ban the conservative news and opinion site The Federalist from profiting off online advertising through Google Ads for violating the tech giant’s conditions against “inappropriate content.”

NBC News first reported that Google had banned The Federalist and “far-right” website ZeroHedge for “advertising platform over policy violations found in the comments section of stories about recent Black Lives Matter protests.”

Google told the Daily Wire:

“To be clear, The Federalist is not currently demonetized. We do have strict publisher policies that govern the content ads can run on, which includes comments on the site. This is a longstanding policy.”

Apparently, a spokesman had made the comment to NBC News which led to the story:

“We have strict publisher policies that govern the content ads can run on and explicitly prohibit derogatory content that promotes hatred, intolerance, violence or discrimination based on race from monetizing. When a page or site violates our policies, we take action. In this case, we’ve removed both sites’ ability to monetize with Google.”

Google said this was not the case and walked back the comment. But, apparently, Google lied and had tagged The Federalist with hate content. The Federalist refused to comment.

This is not the first time that Google, and its subsidiaries such as YouTube, have been accused of targeting Conservative content. Steven Crowder of Louder with Crowder has continually had his content banned and demonetized due to hate speech while allowing far Left content such as Vox to continue, unabated.

Last month, two doctors had their content banned from YouTube because their medical opinions of the COVID-19 virus countered the World Health Organization, an organization that has been wrong about the virus from day one but is an avid supporter of the communist Chinese government (where the virus originated).

But Google is not the only social media company that has been targeting Conservatives. Twitter has been known to suspend Conservative Tweeters such as Candace Owens and James Woods. They also fact-check Donald Trump. Yet, Left wing pundants, who have said some pretty atrocious things without getting so much as a warning.

The problem is, as the election gets closer, the suspensions are getting more frequent and more obvious.

The Department of Justice is prepping legislation to roll back protections for big tech companies and make them more accountable for content posted on their sites.

The DOJ is expected to introduce a bill to Congress as soon as Wednesday targeting tech companies and social media platforms’ protections under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Section 230 protects a wide variety of web services, platforms, and content providers from liability for outside content that passes through their servers. The law, passed in the early days of the internet, is a key legal protection for large social media platforms and internet search engines. Any change in the law’s protections could drastically affect the way those companies operate.

Essentially, these companies are going to be liable in the same way as newspapers that spread libelous material.

It’s about time.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/google-threatens-to-ban-the-federalist-from-ad-platform-for-comment-section-violations
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-us-justice-department-to-propose-rolling-back-protections-for-big-tech
https://www.dailywire.com/news/cruz-unloads-on-google-over-debacle-in-failed-nbc-news-hit-on-the-federalist-gets-ag-barr-involved
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-bans-two-websites-its-ad-platform-over-protest-articles-n1231176