Durham’s Surprise find

[Havok1]

You can argue with the site owners. And your understanding of fair use of copyright does not appear to line up with the doctrine.

Actually, yes it does.

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use41​

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

 

[kbaxter60]

Then what I put in post 1 covers it. Other than a couple of names, the entire Steele dossier was literal fiction. And Durham found the evidentiary proof.

We have long known it was fiction. So the news is the proof. And the names of the guilty?

 

[toddnjoyce]

We have long known it was fiction. So the news is the proof. And the names of the guilty?

It’s a long and tortured list that came out of Servergate of all places.

Let that sink in.

 

[gll]

It’s a long and tortured list that came out of Servergate of all places.

Let that sink in.

Like Hillary oughta be in prison? The fact she ain't says all kinds of bad things about the central government?