The Witch online free refers to the availability of the horror film "The Witch" for free viewing on various online platforms. Released in 2015, "The Witch" is a supernatural horror film directed by Robert Eggers. It tells the story of a Puritan family in 17th-century New England who encounter supernatural forces of evil in the nearby woods. The availability of "The Witch" online free has made it accessible to a wider audience. Many online platforms offer this film for free viewing, whether through streaming websites or online rental services. This has allowed viewers who may not have had the chance to see it in theaters or purchase a physical copy to watch it conveniently from the comfort of their own homes.
From the mid-1970s until the Angels won the World Series in 2002, frequent stories of an Angels “curse” or “jinx” appeared in the local and national media. Typically blamed on a rumor that Anaheim Stadium was built on a Native American burial ground, the curse persists to the present day despite the fact that several of the victims of the curse pre-dated the move to Anaheim in 1966.
Typically blamed on a rumor that Anaheim Stadium was built on a Native American burial ground, the curse persists to the present day despite the fact that several of the victims of the curse pre-dated the move to Anaheim in 1966. Many curse-related articles, starting with Dick Miller s The Sporting News obituary of Mike Miley see below , have reported that Rojas was paralyzed in a car crash in 1968; however, he appeared in 12 Triple-A games in 1969.
This has allowed viewers who may not have had the chance to see it in theaters or purchase a physical copy to watch it conveniently from the comfort of their own homes. "The Witch" received critical acclaim upon its release, with praise for its atmospheric and unsettling tone, as well as its historical accuracy and attention to detail. By being available online free, the film has gained even more attention and recognition.
The President Cries “Witch Hunt,” but Ignores Surveillance Reform
Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference has polarized the surveillance debate along unpredictable lines. On the one side, Trump and his defenders decry the Mueller probe as a “witch hunt” concocted by intelligence community liberals to derail his presidency. On the other, Trump’s progressive critics defend the institutions of the surveillance state—embracing the FBI, the NSA, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as unblemished defenders of American democracy.
The treatment of surveillance oversight as a political football is not an altogether new phenomenon. Usually, however, it’s the opposition party that criticizes the surveillance powers invested in the executive branch; not the other way around. It’s a particular oddity of our odd era that we find Democrats defending the unfettered power of Trump’s own spy agencies, while Republicans in the White House decry the “deep state.”
What neither of these camps appear interested in doing, however, is having a frank discussion about the proper limits of surveillance. If Republicans really believe the FISA process is vulnerable to partisan manipulation, why not support reforms to improve oversight of that process? And likewise, if Democrats believe Trump is a dangerous demagogue, why blindly trust the very agencies with which he could do the most damage?
The partisan fracture in Washington over surveillance oversight has split wide open over the past few weeks. On Wednesday, March 28, the Justice Department announced that its inspector general will be looking into the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page, an oil and gas analyst who worked for the Trump campaign. The review was triggered by a memo released in February by Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Nunes says the surveillance of Page is evidence of politically motivated abuse. In a rebuttal memo, Democrats defend the surveillance.
The result of the dueling memos was embarrassment for Nunes. The central claim of the Nunes memo was that government lawyers had misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about the bias of an important source: Christopher Steele, a former British spy hired by the Democrats to get information about Trump’s Russia connections. In fact, the filing had specifically warned the judges that the FBI believed its source had a political motivation.
A recurring complaint about the intelligence committees is that they place blind trust in the agencies they oversee. The remedy for blind trust, however, is not blind mistrust: it is healthy skepticism and support for surveillance reform. In the Atlantic, Amy Zegart argues that Nunes has invented something even worse than “fake news”—“fake oversight.” According to Zegart, Nunes had abused his oversight power to create a “swirl of doubt” about the good faith of intelligence officials, with results that are “toxic to the democratic process and dangerous to national security.”
Three critics of President Trump—Norm Eisen, Larry Tribe, and Caroline Frederickson—have even suggested that Nunes’s oversight constitutes a “conspiracy to obstruct justice.” Eisen is a Brookings Institution scholar and a leading advocate of ethics in government; Tribe is a legendary scholar of constitutional law; and Frederickson was a director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union when I worked there. The world has clearly gone gone upside down when celebrated civil libertarians like Eisen, Tribe, and Frederickson suggest that the head of the committee Congress has established to question the intelligence agencies should be jailed for, well, questioning the intelligence agencies.
Former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa argues that liberals have only themselves to blame for the president’s “witch hunt” narrative. It was progressives, she says, who “laid the groundwork for the Nunes memo” with their unfair attacks on the system for approving surveillance warrants for those suspected of collusion with foreign governments.
According to Rangappa, progressives had dismissed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as nothing more than a “rubber stump”—not just because the FISA system was flawed, but because government officials couldn’t be trusted. Liberal critics had convinced the broader public that FBI agents “routinely lie to the court and that judges can’t be trusted to do their job.” Was it any surprise when Trump picked up the narrative and ran with it?
Sign up for updates.
Blaming progressives for the Nunes memo—and, by extension, for the whole “deep state” attack on the Russia investigation—completely misunderstands the civil libertarian critique of the surveillance state. I agree that progressives have sometimes unfairly characterized the FISA court. It is no rubber stamp: the judges take their role quite seriously. Yet the progressive critique of the FISA court—and of surveillance oversight more generally—has been structural, not personal.
In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed programs of mass surveillance by the NSA, sparking a global conversation about privacy. Snowden and his supporters certainly used some heated rhetoric about a mass surveillance state. Still, the main goal of civil libertarians has been to fix a broken surveillance system, not to undermine legitimate intelligence gathering on foreign threats.
Among other proposals, progressives pushed President Obama for a special advocate for privacy in the FISA system. Obama agreed, saying he thought government lawyers should be “challenged by an adversary.” A special advocate could have asked tough questions about the Page warrant application, including its reliance on the Steele dossier.
Congress passed a version of the special advocate proposal in the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, reforming government surveillance. Despite this, the FISA court appears to have heard only from the government in the Page case. The reason is because conservatives succeeded in weakening this reform.
During the debate on the Freedom Act, Judge John D. Bates—who had previously served as the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court—strongly objected to an adversarial process. The conservative judge, writing on behalf of the judiciary, wrote that an advocate would be counterproductive “in the vast majority of FISA matters.” Bates said there was no need for an advocate for cases that involve the application of probable cause to “case-specific facts.”
Congress modified the special advocate proposal to meet these objections. Under the compromise, outside lawyers are appointed only if, “in the opinion of the court,” there is a “novel or significant” legal question presented. As the Carter Page warrant application appears to have been a pretty straightforward application of probable cause to particular facts, it would not have been a good candidate for an outside lawyer.
If Devin Nunes and other Trump supporters truly believe there has been abuse, they would offer ideas for strengthening the special advocate and other surveillance reforms, not personal attacks on intelligence officials and other public servants. I’m not holding my breath. At least so far, it appears that Nunes’s wild charges are nothing more than a cynical ploy to distract public attention from the Russia investigation.
If conservatives want an honest and thorough conversation about the vulnerability of the FISA process to political manipulation, let’s have it. I welcome Nunes and company to throw their support behind reforms—like a strengthened special advocate position—which would mitigate such abuses in the future. Indeed, if they’re sincere in their criticisms, failing to do so is an abdication of their oversight role.
The purpose of government oversight of the intelligence community is not the shielding of any particular individual from undue scrutiny, but the protection of every potential target’s civil liberties.
It has become a cult classic among horror enthusiasts and continues to be discussed and analyzed by viewers. However, it is important to note that while "The Witch" may be available for free online, it is still subject to copyright laws. Watching copyrighted content without proper authorization or licensing is illegal in many countries. Therefore, it is recommended to ensure that the source of the film is legitimate and authorized to distribute it for free before watching it online. In conclusion, "The Witch" being available online free has made it more accessible to a wider audience. This has allowed more people to experience and appreciate the atmospheric horror and historical accuracy of the film. However, it is important to respect copyright laws and only watch the film through legitimate and authorized sources..
Reviews for "Channeling the Spirits: Free Online Access to 'The Witch"
1. John - 2 stars - I found "The Witch" online free to be quite disappointing. While the concept of a witch hunt in colonial America seemed intriguing, the execution fell flat. The pacing was slow, and the story didn't have a clear direction. The characters lacked depth, and I found it difficult to connect with any of them. The ending left me feeling unsatisfied as well, as it seemed rushed and didn't provide any closure. Overall, "The Witch" online free failed to live up to the hype for me.
2. Sarah - 3 stars - I understand that "The Witch" online free is supposed to be a slow-burn, atmospheric horror film, but I couldn't help but feel bored throughout most of it. The dialogue was hard to follow at times, and the accents made it even more challenging to understand. While the visuals were impressive and lent to the eerie ambiance, they couldn't save the film from its lackluster plot. I was expecting more scares and suspense, but instead, I was left underwhelmed. "The Witch" online free may appeal to fans of slow-paced horror, but it wasn't my cup of tea.
3. Emily - 2.5 stars - I had high hopes for "The Witch" online free, considering the critical acclaim it received. However, I found it to be pretentious and confusing. The dialogue was archaic and often hard to decipher, and the plot seemed convoluted and disjointed. The film's slow pacing made it difficult to stay engaged, and the occasional jumpscares felt out of place. While the cinematography was beautiful, it wasn't enough to redeem the film for me. I can see why some might appreciate its artistry, but "The Witch" online free simply didn't resonate with me.