So trump's lawyer keeps texting me.

They are so unhinged, this gets super cringe lol and yes the justice department confirmed it was a real prosecutor for the Trump administration.

Basically, a Trump prosecutor found a lawyer online writing about an article and texted her private number telling her that she was a liar. When the lawyer asked what she had lied about and that she'd be more than happy to change her status, the prosecutor wouldn't tell her. It goes back and fourth with the prosecutor telling the lawyer that when the truth comes out she'll be so embarrassed she lied like that and the lawyer couldn't figure out what the prosecutor was on about.

In fact the original news outlet double checked their article and found no lies, didn't know what she was on about.

It gets even more unhinged when the accusations just get worse and the lawyer repeatedly asks for clarity and it gets pretty insane.

Honestly this type of behavior should not be put up with and that prosecutor should be disbarred. Honestly that's straight up gaslighting is what she was attempting to do to the lawyer.

[media=https://youtu.be/NPtKENZwX18?si=157uAHS9VYzlSydQ]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

While I have problems with this video, because obviously AI generation was involved, there are certain aspects that are totally relevant.

As the poster in the video, at the end pointed out, the use of signal is illegal for such conversations, there is still the issue of who would prosecute the whole matter?

Obvious Trump will not do so. And he is the one that matters in this case.

Second issue is with the actual reasons why this conversation was initiated.

Come on now. While it's true that Halligan was obviously the protagonist in this exchange, I highly doubt she got the number from X.

More likely they have records on all reporters, to begin with. No justice department head would have the time, to look up anything on X.

This is an obvious case of harassment pure and simple. The intent was to silence Anne from making personal posts against this administration, while not using a official account for the agency she worked for.

Yeah, Halligan is totally unqualified just by this fact. Anne is a professional reporter at work or off work. Halligan obviously doesn't know that.

Yet I suspect far more of this type of harassment will continue. Nothing is being done to stop ANY officials from using signal, AT ALL, from anything. Government agencies or not. Legal standing or not as well. This is solely under Trump's control.

Disbarment wouldn't do any good! The problem is with Trump and his policies. Halligan was picked by Trump and approved by the Senate.

None can go back on it, and only Trump can fire her now. She can't even be impeached, much less trialled by the Senate. She not a federal judge.

AI analysis of my statement...

It sounds like you're expressing serious concerns about the implications of using platforms like Signal for communication among government officials, especially in the context of accountability and harassment. Here are some key points to consider regarding your observations:

Concerns About Communication Platforms

The use of encrypted communication apps like Signal for conversations involving government officials raises important questions about transparency and accountability. When officials utilize such platforms, it can create gray areas regarding what is accessible to the public and investigators.

Legal and Ethical Implications

Accountability: The lack of transparency can obscure potentially unethical behavior. If officials are using encrypted chats to coordinate actions that might infringe on the rights of citizens or journalists, it raises ethical dilemmas about public oversight.

Harassment: As you mentioned, if the intent behind a communication is to silence or intimidate individuals, that is a serious concern. It's crucial for watchdog organizations, and the public to remain vigilant about this issue.

Prosecution and Oversight

Your point about who would prosecute these issues highlights a potential loophole in the accountability mechanisms of high-level officials.

Role of Government and Oversight

Responsibility: Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the administration in power. If the leaders choose not to prosecute or regulate behavior, it complicates matters for those impacted.

Public Pressure: Grassroots movements, media scrutiny, and legal advocacy are vital in holding officials accountable, especially when traditional mechanisms seem ineffective.

Implications of Appointments

Regarding Halligan's qualifications and her appointment by Trump, it reflects the broader concerns of political alignment in federal positions.

Structural Challenges

Appointments: Once appointed, officials may not face easy avenues for accountability unless there is overwhelming public or legal pressure. This can contribute to a culture where unethical behavior may go unchallenged.

Your concerns emphasize the need for ongoing discourse about the ethical use of communication technologies by public officials and the broader implications of their choices on democratic processes and journalistic integrity. The interplay between technology, policy, and accountability is complex and deserves continuous scrutiny.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@DeWayfarer Well said and in reality they'd get disbarred and license revoked. It kinda seems like they could do what they want, that's why I don't believe in our system or law anymore. I'm surprised at how much they can get away with but kinda seems intentional.

This is an obvious case of harassment pure and simple. The intent was to silence Anne from making personal posts against this administration, while not using a official account for the agency she worked for.

That's why the Trump administration prosecutor couldn't tell her what she even said wrong. There was nothing wrong, it was just intimidation.