If the company was a honeypot run by the government fraudulently claiming to be a public square which then failed to facilitate the speech which the government objected to it has everything to do with the first amendment.
lmao, no it absolutely does not. You have no right to use twitter. You have no right to information. The 1st amendment doesn't say that. It says you have a right to speak.
Imagine the government uses a puppet company to develop sound dampening technology which makes it so you can't hear anyone else unless you are within 5 cm of them. Then they deploy that technology only when they detect that someone is about to share information damaging to a government preferred narrative.
Do you claim that people have no right to information? After all you can still speak, all the government is doing is preventing anyone from hearing you right?
After you answer that answer this:
Suppose there is a government with an american constitution on a sparsely populated world in space. People have spread out so that there is hundreds of kilometers between them. There is only one IT company on this planet and that IT company is the only place people go to learn about the politics and events of the world. Then the government puppets that company with agents, proxy stock owners, etc... and uses that company to censor certain information.
Does that violate the 1st amendment?
What weight does it carry when an energy company has connection to the US federal government?
It gives them prestige and legitimacy.
You've moved beyond the realm of reasonable discussion here so I'll drop it.
1) Biden didn't decide to fire the prosecutor. Obama did.
Rumor?
lol what? you think the vice president has the power to put pressure on a foreign government? the VP has basically no power whatsoever, other than what the president says he does.
So no evidence, you just assumed that because the constitution doesn't spell out that a VP can extort a foreign country it can't happen without the president's knowledge and action.
It's a he said she said thing.
lol, so countless people from governments all over the planet agree that Shokin was corrupt.
You are constantly confusing contexts. Whether or not an investigation was ongoing is a "he said she said"
Also:
lol, so countless people from governments all over the planet agree that Shokin was corrupt.
How about you count up to five (with names). I'll wait.
You choose to believe that one person over everyone else.
The balance of evidence aligns with his story.
You really do love conspiracy theories don't you.
I love the truth and would prefer that there were fewer conspiracies in that category.
None before Biden started getting paid and the prosecutor said he was investigating.
there is no evidence joe biden was ever paid
Except for the emails, texts, and testimony.
and there is no evidence the prosecutor was investigating
Except for the prosecutor saying he was investigating after being forced out by someone with financial interests in the target of his investigation. Do you think if you hand out enough false statements I'll just get tired of correcting you and let it stand? I mean that might happen, but also I'm fairly motivated so...
3) Burisma was not under investigation when Biden pushed for Shokin to be removed.
This is disputed as I said.
by who?
Shokin
the person who was widely agreed to be corrupt?
There are millions upon millions of people who think Joe Biden is corrupt.
Did they provide any evidence they were doing any investigating?
There is no question there was an investigation, assets were seized, the lie is that it was officially closed and that somehow meant Burisma was cosmically incapable of bribing Joe Biden to remove the threat.
whatever this link is, i get an error when I click it. So i'm not sure what it is.
First admit that if Biden (or even Obama) quid pro quoed Ukraine for political or personal advantage that would be a crime
That is correct. If they engaged in a quid pro quo to trade government policy to only benefit themselves, then that would be an abuse of office. However, if they took actions that benefited america and also happened to benefit themselves
There is a rule that it can only benefit themselves?
So if I accepted money to approve a permit for a oil pipeline, could I argue it wasn't bribery because oil pipelines benefit people?
In that context motive would be important.
How convenient since motive can so rarely be objectively proved or disproved.
