Can Alex Jones Sue the CIA for Targeting Him and Win?
It’s exploding all over X, “That FBI/CIA Attempted To Silence Him [Alex Jones].” Many pundits argue political motivations drive intelligence operations as weapons against at least half of the American population, including Jones company, Free Speech Systems. This article examines the legal landscape surrounding claims of CIA surveillance and political targeting and assesses the viability of legal recourse for affected individuals. If your family was targeted, you should be worried.
Reporter: “Alex Jones?
CIA Contractor Gavin O’Blennis: “Yea, So We Were After Him. Big Time!”
There was a reason why people "light in the loafers" didn't get security clearances back in the day.
— FilmLadd (@FilmLadd) April 10, 2024
This guy would say and reveal anything to get laid. https://t.co/0Nt45LdTKS
A: “You Can kind of put in anyone in jail if you know what to do.”
Q: “How?”
A: “You Set ’em Up.” 01:52
What Jones Says?
Jones argues that Musk, Tucker Carlson, and others who support limited government threaten the WEF and WHO agenda. With Mother Jones and the far-left, tax-subsidized NPR leading the way, all things Alex Jones were branded as “untrustworthy.” This happened after a Connecticut jury found him liable in the defamation case on behalf of the Sandy Hook victims, discussed below. This prompted Jones to seek bankruptcy protection.
NPR Is Run By Leftists?
NPR is a liberal propaganda shitshow… Should be shut down pic.twitter.com/omQeWDsaN2
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) April 9, 2024
NPR Admitted Days Ago is Buries Bad Press for Democrats?
Yes and it always has.
NPR finally admits they “turned a blind eye” to the Hunter Biden laptop story
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) April 9, 2024
If you think that’s bad, wait until you hear what our corrupt FBI did… https://t.co/TSHkFMw9X8“In the Texas trial, Bernard Pettingill, a forensic economist hired by the plaintiffs, estimated that Jones and his companies have a net worth of up to $270 million. Pettingill also said Jones withdrew $62 million in 2021. Jones has said his businesses are struggling.”
Have you ever wondered how certain fringe personalities manage to draw the attention of powerful institutions like the CIA? If you have, then you’re not alone. Today, we dive into the Alex Jones case. He is an outspoken pro-liberty host. He alleges the US intelligence apparatus targeted him. Getting into a legal tussle with such a behemoth might seem daunting, but there’s a method to the madness, and we’ll break it down for you.
Breakdown
- Who is Alex Jones, and why does he believe he’s being targeted?
- Can he sue the CIA? And if yes, how?
- What strategies could potentially help him win such a case?
“In this fight for truth, justice, and liberty, every move matters. Understanding the steps Alex Jones will need to traverse in a potential lawsuit against the CIA is not just a matter of speculation—it’s also about understanding the very fabric of our rights and freedoms.”
Sandy Hook School Shooting, Sandy Hook Families
“Conspiracy theorist” Alex Jones is known outside the Q and patriot movements for his loss in the Sandy Hook Defamation case. He said it was a hoax and the victims were crisis actors. The Sandy Hook victims (surviving Sandy Hook families) filed multiple lawsuits, and Jones lost.
Many on the right say the defamed Sandy Hook Shooting victims were not accurate and just conspiracy theories. They claimed Sandy Hook was a false flag operation by the CIA, as did Jones. That is why the victim’s families sued him for defamation.
In that case, an attacker was alleged to have killed 20 children and six educators in Newtown, Conn. Many Jones supporters claim the left used the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting to try and carve away more of our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
Jones seized on the story, leading to him being discredited by much of the public as a conspiracy theorist. He thinks the CIA should be held accountable to him for their role in discrediting him without a warrant.
Evolution of the CIA Leviathan
The CIA’s surveillance activities have historically operated under a veil of secrecy, making it challenging for individuals to ascertain whether they have been subject to surveillance or targeting. Nonetheless, revelations have shed light on illegal surveillance programs.
This raises many questions about compliance with the law.
Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
We already know the CIA has a history of little respect for civil liberties, especially the Bill of Rights. Recently, whistleblowers exposed the political targeting of conservatives and families. This once again prompted calls for NSA accountability and transparency.
The Retired CIA Officials
Many recall that former intelligence officials came out and said the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, reinforcing claims by Donald Trump that woke leftists run the CIA. Either way, Jones’ financial fate is now in the hands of Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez. How much money Jones must pay from his bankruptcy filing and how much he can keep are on the agenda.
If you make his mistakes, you could end up in a struggle session yourself and into bankruptcy proceedings. And this is the message to Musk and Tucker Carlson:
if you don’t comply, you’ll have to curb your spending and “extravagant lifestyle.” Based on this video, we can see if you support a lot of the things Jones does, you are likely targeted as a conspiracy theorist like the “Infowars host.”
VIDEO: Can I Sue The FBI?
Courts and politicians are using an exception (Data Broker Loophole) in Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to circumvent warrantless searches of the American people.
“Section 702 explicitly prohibits the government from targeting Americans.”
Wired
The [OVERSEAS] surveillance program, known as Section 702, empowers the government to collect, without a warrant and from American companies like Google and AT&T, the communications of foreigners abroad who are targeted for intelligence purposes — even when they are talking with or about Americans.
NY Times
The Leviathan-like view the CIA uses to ignore this law is based on misconceptions of common law and statutory procedures for handling supposedly secret evidence.
- Courts have permitted the government to invoke the state secrets privilege in Section 702 cases despite Congress’ explicit creation of a statutory method for a federal court to review illegal surveillance evidence in secret under 50 USC § 1806(f).
- Courts have broadened the scope of that privilege, effectively allowing the government to claim secrecy over so-called “widely known facts.” This lets them sneakily terminate litigation if your case also covers ANY public facts. So if I say the CIA planted a wiretap on my bicycle, and I previously posted a photo of my bicycle online, the CIA can tell a court to “pound sand” if I later sue the CIA and demand emails and records of the bike wiretap. The Court can dismiss my case based solely on the government’s unverified assertions. Imagine that?
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is one of the most insidious and secretive mass surveillance authorities still in operation today. The Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act would make some much-needed and long fought-for reforms, but it also does not go nearly far enough to rein in a surveillance law that the federal government has abused time and time again.
EFF
The second major reform the SAFE Act provides is to close the “data brooker loophole,” [Sic.] which EFF has been calling attention to for years. As one example, mobile apps often collect user data to sell it to advertisers on the open market. The problem is law enforcement and intelligence agencies increasingly buy this private user data, rather than obtain a warrant for it. This bill would largely prohibit the government from purchasing personal data they would otherwise need a warrant to collect. This provision does include a potentially significant exception for situations where the government cannot exclude Americans’ data from larger “compilations” that include foreigners’ data.
You can read the full text of the bill here.
Other Issues With Suing the CIA Itself
The CIA hates warrants. To them, you are nothing. Victims of alleged CIA surveillance and political targeting may seek redress through various legal avenues.
Examples include:
- Constitutional claims: Alleged violations can include the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. They include the First Amendment’s free speech and association guarantee and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.
- Statutory remedies include the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Privacy Act, and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA).
- Civil litigation: Litigation could arise from tort claims such as invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violations of federal and state laws, etc.
Big Tech and CIA Instrumentalities of Each Otherother?
Understanding the connection with big tech, the FBI, and the CIA is crucial. This helps us know how entities operate as state instrumentalities. Big tech companies have been scrutinized for acting as conduits for government surveillance, a potentially unsettling aspect of a pro-liberty individual’s life.
Remember, big tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter handle vast user data daily. This allows private companies to help the FBI and CIA. Consequently, these big tech firms are often caught up in controversies involving user privacy invasions – an accusation Jones bases his lawson on. Elon Musk exposed the humongous revolving door employment scheme between military and other administrative agencies, all alarmingly politically left-wing.
Allow me to paint a clearer picture for you. Big tech companies have elaborate data collection mechanisms, allowing them to analyze, store, re, and transmit user data. In many instances, this data is viewed by agencies like the CIA and the FBI- all in the name of national security. When a public/private connection becomes this strong, these agencies and companies are now “instrumentalities” of the state. This makes them unlawful and even treasonous in the eyes of many experts.
Google Hates Infowars Founder Alex Jones and its Supporters?
Maybe? Many say Google discounts links from sites like Google when factoring in organic search rankings. For example, if you are a liberal-leaning site, such as Associated Press or MSNBC, Google considers you an authority, which means you and the sites you link to will rank higher in the search engine. In the minds of Silicon Valley, anything Jones says is a conspiracy theory.
Study Finds: Google Interfered in US Elections 41 Times
Posted by Alice Green | Mar 28, 2024 | 4 (Source Punching Bag Post.)
Their agenda is, in fact, a one-world government and TOTAL control over the media narrative. They employ an army of “fact checkers,” who often fact-check things the article does not even argue, or say a piece critical of a WEF supported as “lacks context,” and use that as a social credit “misinformation” strike on your profile. Your account is throttled, and anyone who saw your post is warned you are engaged in DISINFO. Many people, including myself, have seen this happen in real-time, and I break down a Meta “Fake Check” here.
Holding the CIA Accountable: Exploring Legal Avenues for Victims of Political Targeting
Abstract: Recently, concerns about government surveillance and political targeting have become increasingly prevalent. This article covers individuals targeted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for political views. We’ll explore potential causes of action, as well as procedural hurdles. We will also review civil liberties and government accountability by examining relevant case law, statutes, and constitutional principles.
Can He Sue and Win?
It may come as a surprise, but the NSA and FBI surveilled at least one active US Congressman. During a hearing about the renewal of the disputable collective NSA spying authorizations known as FISA Amendments Act section 702, Rep. Darin LaHood from Illinois made this revelation:
"The member of Congress who was inaccurately queried multiple times using only his name was me."
It seems that among the Congresspersons named in a footnote (footnote 92) in a recent governmental finding. What’s more dumbfounding is that even though he’s fully aware he was a target, he has no recourse to sue.
In no uncertain terms, government secrecy currently renders many checks and balances for national security surveillance in FISA and the US Constitution practically useless.
Now that we’ve set the scene, let’s look at some essential facts to consider:
- The CIA’s targeting program shows the Orwellian-like nature of the US government’s post-9/11 surveillance measures. It highlights the necessity for more Congressional oversight.
- Investigations directed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee are looking into how intelligence agencies target Americans.
- The collaboration between the FBI and other US intelligence agencies has drawn considerable criticism. It set off a wave of intense examination from the new Republican-run Congress.
- Critics like Patrick Eddington from the Cato Institute propose that FBI practices, such as utilizing informants to sway civil society organizations and probing CIA and NSA data streams on US citizens, should be forbidden by law.
- A declassified report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) unveiled alarming evidence of the CIA’s surveillance program. We have direct evidence it was implemented outside of the statutory reforms and scrutiny established for the intelligence community.
- The CIA claims it remains committed to respecting US civilians’ privacy and civil liberties in executing “crucial national security missions.”
- However, the report exposes disturbing instances of broad, invasive financial snooping of private transactions by American consumers.
- Americans are calling for expansive Congressional oversight of surveillance activities, kick-started by an investigation led by House members.
For close to two decades, one of EFF’s significant priorities has been to ensure that you can maintain your privacy online.
A Bit of Background – EFF’s Journey in the Legal Field
The roots of EFF’s involvement in this matter go back even before the introduction of Section 702. We filed a lawsuit in 2006, Hepting v. AT&T, based on first-hand evidence from whistleblower Mark Klein that alleged telecommunications companies were copying the contents of internet traffic at the NSA’s behest.
The passing of the FISA Amendments Act in 2008, which also established Section 702, essentially made this lawsuit redundant by providing the companies with retroactive immunity. Not one to back down, and at the particular suggestion of key Congressional members, EFF yet again launched a lawsuit on behalf of AT&T consumers, this time aiming to hold the government accountable.
This lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA, persisted for 14 years and was strengthened by the Snowden revelations and the wave of additional public information regarding the NSA’s extensive spying programs that followed.
The Case of Jewel v. NSA and the Locking of Legal Remedy
The Jewel lawsuit argued over the unconstitutionality and illegality of the government’s surveillance. Courts accepted the government’s argument that members of the public could not challenge the classified program it harms in a public court.
Specifically, the Supreme Court rejected granting certiorari and re-evaluating a Ninth Circuit decision (and an initial district court ruling) that asserted that the common law state secrets privilege impeded victims’ attempts to prove their data was intercepted. Courts say they had no standing to sue. A case brought to Court by the ACLU on behalf of Wikimedia faced the same fate.
As demonstrated by the Jewel case, the judiciary has utilized secrecy to carve out a broad national security exception to the Constitution, FISA, and Section 702. This allows all Americans to be spied upon by their government. It denies us any feasible recourse. It even directly impacts even a sitting member of Congress.
Report regarding the collective spying program, Rep. LaHood was the one whose name an intelligence analyst inappropriately searched numerous times within the 702 database.
Congress Can Reopen the Courthouse Doors to Surveillance Victims
Congress now stands at a crossroads where it could redress past errors related to Section 702, which is almost at the end of its term. Congress must reinforce its commitment to provide actionable accountability measures in instances where innocent people become surveillance targets and reinstate court access to such individuals seeking to safeguard their rights.
- They can expressly overrule the Supreme Court’s erroneous interpretation of FISA Section 1806 in FBI v. Fazaga, where the Court misconstrued Congress’s intentions to provide legal recourse for individuals wrongfully surveilled.
- They can prove that Section 1806(f) was designed to supersede the state secrets privilege in lawsuits concerning electronic surveillance evidence.
The Supreme Court ruling effectively renders the promise of FISA’s redress for surveillance law violations as merely symbolic. Congress can reaffirm the correct interpretation and rectify this misstep by the Supreme Court.
Secondly, Congress can establish that the case should proceed despite the privileges of the relevant state secrets. Discourse for this prospect has existed since 2009 through the State Secrets Protection Act, HR 984, 110th Cong. (2009), which suggests protocols for secure evidence review in courts when the government claims secret status, thus ensuring cases are not dismissed on grounds of state secrecy till plaintiffs exhaust all non-privileged evidence discovery. It’s an overdue reform. Congress must reform Section 702.
Courts have impeded individuals from pursuing judicial accountability, as envisioned by Congress. Representative LaHood is a prime example, being aware of his surveillance yet with no way to contest it. The average citizen deserves legal redress to uphold their constitutional rights.
These points only scratch the surface of the reforms needed for accountability and oversight of Section 702. Widespread global surveillance infringes on everyone’s rightful privacy. The NSA’s mass surveillance, spanning two decades, violates Constitutional rights. The facade must end, and this authority must finally be put to rest.
Looking back, we must remember that the essence of the CIA surveillance program finds its roots in Executive Order 12333. Unlike the NSA surveillance programs, this program comes under fewer checks since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not bind it. The CIA presumes its targets are foreign bodies. This leads to gathering US personal data, potentially infringing on constitutional rights. This is what they claim: everything is Russian disinformation. It’s a pretext!
This raises an intriguing question – Can Alex Jones successfully sue the CIA? The answer may surprise you – Yes, it is possible, although it would necessitate exceptional legal strategy and compelling evidence of harm.
Standing!
First and foremost, one must establish ‘standing,’ the legal term for demonstrating personal harm caused by the action being sued for. This would mean displaying proof of being a direct target for Alex Jones. He’d need surveillance-reflecting emails, text messages, or other documented exchanges, such as the X video, which is an admission. He already has an admission. Whether it’s enough, only time will tell.
The next step would be to assert that the CIA’s surveillance violated the constitutional boundaries and infringed upon Jones’s Fourth and First Amendment rights, etc. Expert testimony and evidence can strengthen the case.
Lastly, engaging a legal team ingrained in the national security law is critical. This lawsuit requires extensive familiarity with laws, precedents, and intelligence agency operations. Winning such a high-stake case without understanding the rules is unlikely.
Although legally challenging the CIA is not a cakewalk, it’s not entirely impossible. The critical determinant is whether Jones can corroborate his allegations with substantial evidence and successfully traverse constitutional rights remains to be seen.
Challenging CIA Immunity: Exploring Legal Remedies for Victims of Surveillance and Defamation
Does the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) enjoy immunity from engaging in illegal surveillance to harm and defame individuals through various channels, including news media, big tech platforms, and corporations? Let’s examine some legal doctrines, case law, and constitutional principles. Next, let’s look at avenues for legal redress for victims. Here are the broader implications for government accountability and individual rights.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is powerful. It has the resources to gather intelligence or destroy people like Elon Musk. It goes beyond intelligence-gathering functions. It illegally surveils Americans and disseminates propaganda. We just saw in the above video that CIA contractor Gavin O’Blennis at 00:19 corroborated the targeting of individuals, including Jones, with private, external entities. It targets Citizens perceived as adversaries. It often claims its targets disseminate Russian disinformation.
The CIA’s history remains shrouded in secrecy, with little public scrutiny. It has been targeting domestic people using third-party intermediaries, including news media, technology companies, and corporate entities, to further its objectives for years. An agent just admitted it likely engaged in the defamation and character assassination of Alex Jones. His views or activities may be perceived as contrary to the agency’s “woke” interests.
Legal Analysis: CIA immunity hinges on several legal doctrines, including sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and the state secrets privilege. While the government traditionally enjoys certain immunities from liability, these protections are not absolute and may be subject to exceptions under certain circumstances. Victims of alleged CIA surveillance, defamation, or other unlawful activities may pursue legal remedies, including civil litigation. They may be able to sue for constitutional rights violations. Fundamental legal principles they regularly violate include the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and freedom of the press. They regularly violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. They regularly violate the separation of powers doctrine, too.
More on CIA Immunity
The issue of CIA immunity raises profound questions. What should the balance be between national security interests and individual rights? What about accountability for their actions? To offer a fuller perspective of this daunting task, here’s a quick overview of significant CIA surveillance programs over the years, their period of activation, and a summary of their operations:
Other Examples:
FBI whistleblowers Garret O'Boyle and Stephen Friend, speaking at @OversightPR's Weaponization of Government Symposium at @Heritage, explain how the FBI directed them to target concerned parents and pro-lifers. https://t.co/6OIUkmIFrk
— T (@Rifleman4WVU) April 10, 2024
FBI whistleblowers Garret O’Boyle and Stephen Friend, speaking at @OversightPR’s Weaponization of Government Symposium at @Heritage, explain how the FBI directed them to target concerned parents and pro-lifers.
After the shocking revelations of the 9/11 attacks, the United States government ramped up its surveillance efforts. With the CIA at the reins, these efforts culminated in a secretive program established under Executive Order 12333. Unlike the NSA’s surveillance programs, which require oversight as per the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), this CIA program was found to have had less scrutiny.
A declassified report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) disclosed the extent of the surveillance program of the CIA. It found they had been sweeping up US personal data, even potentially domestic data. This was done outside of any statutory reforms and intelligence community oversight. Anecdotal evidence suggested this program was in utter disarray, with compliance to EO 12333 and CIA regulations described as a ‘total mess.’.
With the lid blown off the secret bulk data collection program, the NSA’s ILLEGAL surveillance operations were exposed in 2013. This brought the government’s surveillance tactics into the public eye and mounted pressure for legislative intervention. In response to this call, Congress passed legislation in 2015 ending the NSA’s program, which aimed to prohibit mass data collection under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Another shocking detail emerged with the revelation of the CIA’s internet backbone surveillance. Notably, this was similar to FISA Section 702 and was active even before the 9/11 attacks. Like other surveillance programs, it operated without judicial oversight, raising significant questions about individual privacy and civil liberties.
Considering these historical contexts, any potential lawsuit against the CIA would need to rely heavily on drawing attention to the lack of transparency, showcasing clear violations of personal privacy laws and constitutional rights, and demonstrating the need for robust oversight mechanisms in intelligence and surveillance operations.
One of the most startling revelations in recent history about the CIA’s surveillance programs comes from a declassified report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). This report unveiled operations that occurred without statutory reforms and the proper supervision of the intelligence community.
With a presumption that their targets were foreign entities, the CIA fell into a dangerous pitfall — they accrued data on US citizens, thereby risking a constitutional breach. The gravity of this scenario and the ripple effects it can generate are alarming. Critics like Patrick Eddington, a researcher from the renowned Cato Institute, have argued that specific FBI practices, es like the act of using informants to infiltrate civil society organizations and perusing CIA and NSA data streams on US citizens, ns must be proclaimed illegal by the law.
Another alarming fact revolves around the Central Intelligence Agency’s covert collection practices. There is a prevalent fear that the agency has been amassing private information about American citizens without proper oversight. This action not only goes against the moral fabric of privacy that the country prides itself on, but it may also be unconstitutional, directly infringing upon the civil liberties of individuals.
A glaring example of the secrecy shrouding these surveillance operations can be found in the many redacted CIA/AG audit pages. The number of redacted portions raises concerns about potential abuses and violations of the rights of US citizens. These concerns highlight the urgent need to address the lack of oversight on government surveillance activities.
A page from a leaked 2011 copy of the CIA’s rule book shows that section 20.2 deals with name trace requests and using CIA and NSA data in investigations and assessments. While this is legal for foreign surveillance objectives, the danger lies in the lack of clarification, as this process could be used domestically to track American citizens.
With such considerations in mind, Alex Jones, or anyone wishing to sue the CIA, would need to form a compelling argument against these practices to stand any chance at winning a lawsuit. This battle will not be easy to win, but with transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties at its core, it is undoubtedly a fight worth fighting.
Was the Jones Defamation Judge a CIA Operative??
There is no credible Courtnce to suggest that the judge presiding over Jones’ defamation case was a ‘plant’ by the CIA. While such allegations can be rhetorically powerful, they require a solid fact-based foundation to uphold in Court. As such, it remains crucial to separate fact from speculation when approaching this susceptible issue.
No Different With FBI, all in for Democrats?
The FBI targets gun owners, Christians, and supporters of legal immigration. A whistleblower exposed everything. Can this be interpreted as a bias for Democrat policies?
Critics point out that the FBI has collaborated with US intelligence agencies for over a decade, perhaps leading to aligning strategies. For instance, the expanded use of assessments has drawn bipartisan concern over the years. This is particularly prevalent among civil society organizations who feel targeted due to their political or religious ideologies.
Notably, groups such as the Concerned Women for America, a New York chapter of the League of Women Voters, and the Muslim Justice League in Massachusetts have all been swept up in these FBI assessments. These instances push forth the notion that there’s a directed focus on individuals and organizations who may not align with a particular political narrative.
Adding to the alarm, federal law enforcement, including the FBI and the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), have been conducting backchannel discussions with financial institutions to gather Americans’ private financial data. This raises questions about privacy rights and the potential misuse of data for political ends.
Representatives Nancy Mace and Jamie Raskin have stepped up. They want a comprehensive review of the FBI’s practices. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) needs to step in to stop bias in intelligence agency activities.
Since the surveillance focus is on specific demographics (White males, Christians, and gun owners), it should be questioned. They are clearly all in for partisan politics, according to their victims. Faith in our intelligence agencies is at an all-time low, according to non-democrats.
Conclusion
The intersection of national security interests, individual rights, and government accountability presents complex challenges. We must pursue legal recourse against the CIA. We must uphold respect for civil liberties. We need more legal reforms, judicial oversight, and whistleblower protections. CIA and FBI targeting of veterans and at least half of Americans is an outrage.
Data provided by tech giants has aided illegal intelligence gathering. These operations were found illegal by higher courts. This symbiotic relationship, however, enables an opaque and unsettling potential, posing threats to civil liberties.
So when it comes to the potential success of Alex Jones’ lawsuit, the answer would be found in proving the CIA’s abuse of these connections and demonstrating how they violate the constitutional rights of individuals – a feat that, while challenging, is not impossible. If you were injured in Texas or California, Michael Ehline wants to discuss your case or possibly have you on his show so the world can watch it in real-time.