Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1529825)

3/20/2025 1:38:29 PM

From: Wharf Rat

2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Eric
Tenchusatsu

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1584502

Trump Lawyer Livid as JFK Files Leak His Social Security Number: ‘Absolutely Outrageous’ (msn.com)
Story by Tom Sanders
• 5h

Arnold Sachs / Getty Images

Donald Trump’s former campaign lawyer is furious after his personal information and social security number were made public as part of this week’s release of unredacted JFK assassination files.

“It’s absolutely outrageous. It’s sloppy, unprofessional,” Joseph diGenova, a long-time Trump supporter who formerly served as the president’s lawyer on the campaign trail, told the Washington Post.

“It not only means identity theft, but I’ve had threats against me,” diGenova said. “In the past, I’ve had to report real threats against me to the FBI“There are dangerous nuts out there.”

More than 60,000 documents related to the assassination of former president John F. Kennedy were released by the Trump administration on Tuesday, the vast majority of which were unredacted.

Included in the document dump were the social security numbers of around 200 former congressional staffers and others, according to the Post, including 100 members of the Senate Church Committee established in 1975 to investigate abuses of authority by American intelligence services such as the CIA and FBI.

Many of the individuals mentioned in the documents are still alive, including 80-year-old diGenova, who served on the committee in the 1970s.

“It makes sense that my name is in there,” he told the Post, “but the other sensitive stuff — it’s like a first-grade, elementary-level rule of security to redact things like that.”

Speaking of his prior work for the committee, diGenova, who regularly appears on cable news to defend the president, added: “It was fascinating work. One of the lawyers on our team located the girlfriend of a mafia guy who was supposedly seeing JFK at the same time.

“He found her in Nevada or Arizona and got chased away by her husband. Other work we did was looking into assassination plots against Castro and people who were assets of the CIA. Incredible stuff.”

Other staffers said they were furious about now having to worry about identity theft and financial fraud after being included in the document dump. Some of those interviewed by the Post said they had been forced to freeze their credit cards and bank accounts after being doxxed by the files, while another said they were now looking into the possibility of suing the National Archives.

“It seems like the damage is done, but clearly we have to talk to some lawyers,” they said.

Documents related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy are displayed after they were released following an order from U.S. President Donald Trump, in Washington D.C., March 18, 2025. / Carlos Barria / REUTERS

What appeared to be missing from the 60,000 page document dump was any new insight into the actual assassination of JFK.

Although the outcome of the documents is yet to be determined, many appear to be under 10 pages long and mostly consist of handwritten notes or typewritten reports, many of which are heavily faded due to age and borderline illegible.

The New York Times reported that the files were “profoundly more impenetrable than all the previous more annotated ones,” and lacked proper classification, with some containing “random Cuban stuff from 1965.”

Historian Tim Naftali told the publication: “I am trying to find stuff that has been re-reviewed and re-released with new information,” adding “Some have and some have not.”

Meanwhile, Kennedy expert Larry J. Sabato told the Associated Press it will take a long time to sift through the documents and discern if there is anything truly important contained within.

“We have a lot of work to do for a long time to come, and people just have to accept that,” he added.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1529825)	3/20/2025 1:47:34 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584502

Wharfie, That would be an act of violence, and Rat is for non-violent civil disobedience. I for one don't feel any sympathy for Musk and what's happening to Tesla. He brought this all upon himself. He can also easily hire private security guards that will stop the random acts of vandalism and domestic terrorism. They can resort to measures that regular police officers would be reluctant to do, knowing full well that Daddy Musk will pardon them. There's even historical precedence for a world leader like Musk to hire private law enforcement officers. Pat Sajak will give us the usual R S T L N and E, but it's up to you to pick three more consonants and a vowel: Tenchusatsu

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1529825)	3/20/2025 2:03:42 PM
From: Maple MAGA	3 Recommendations Recommended By locogringo longz Mick Mørmøny Respond to of 1584502

Greenpeace Ordered To Pay Over $660 Million For Defaming Oil Company by Tyler Durden Thursday, Mar 20, 2025 - 09:40 AM Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times, A North Dakota jury has ruled that Greenpeace must pay more than $660 million in damages to Dallas-based oil and gas company Energy Transfer, finding the environmental group liable for defamation and other claims related to protests against the Dakota Access pipeline. The nine-person jury delivered its verdict on March 19 in a lawsuit brought by Energy Transfer Partners, which sought hundreds of millions in damages from Greenpeace. The case stemmed from the 2016–2017 protests against the pipeline’s Missouri River crossing, located upstream of a tribal reservation. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has long opposed the project, citing risks to its water supply and sacred burial grounds. The lawsuit cited Greenpeace’s claims that Energy Transfer desecrated burial grounds and culturally significant sites during construction, as well as assertions that the pipeline would “catastrophically alter the climate.” Cox countered that the company had made 140 route adjustments to protect sacred sites and said Energy Transfer was committed to being “a good corporate citizen in North Dakota.” Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA of acts including defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy. During the trial, which began in late February 2025, the company’s attorney, Trey Cox, argued that Greenpeace funded and organized protesters, provided blockade supplies, conducted training sessions, and spread misinformation to block the pipeline’s construction. Greenpeace attorneys rejected the allegations, stating there was no evidence linking the organization to the disruptions caused by the protesters. They argued the lawsuit was an attempt to silence activism through financial and legal intimidation. “Beyond the impact that this lawsuit could have on the Greenpeace entities, one of the most worrisome things about the case is that it could establish dangerous new legal precedents that could hold any participant at protests responsible for the actions of others at those protests,” Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace USA senior legal advisor, said in a Feb. 24 statement. *“And you can imagine that this would have a serious chilling effect on anybody who wants to engage in protest.* Greenpeace USA was found liable on all counts, while the other entities were held responsible for some. The damages will be divided among the three groups in varying amounts. The total damages amount to nearly $666.9 million. The jury ruled that Greenpeace USA is responsible for the largest share, nearly $404 million, while Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International must each pay approximately $131 million. Energy Transfer said the verdict is a victory for North Dakotans affected by the protests. “While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace,” a spokesperson for Energy Transfer said in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times. “It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law. That the disrupters have been held responsible is a win for all of us.” Greenpeace has not publicly commented on the ruling and did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times. However, allied environmental group EarthRights International in a March 19 statement said that Greenpeace intends to appeal the decision to the North Dakota Supreme Court. EarthRights also raised concerns about trial irregularities, citing alleged jury ties to the fossil fuel industry, Energy Transfer’s $3 million donation to the trial’s host city, and the denial of Greenpeace’s requests for a venue change. “These irregularities, which may amount to a violation of Greenpeace’s right to a fair trial, almost certainly factored into the verdict, and may form the basis of an appeal,” EarthRights said in its statement, adding that it “proudly joins Greenpeace USA in speaking up against brazen legal attacks and ensuring that the environmental movement only continues to grow stronger, despite the appalling result in North Dakota.”