Did the Obama Administration spy on Trump?

[Bible2+]

cow451 said in post #119:

Trump Foundation was nailed by his home state for atrocious abuse of the laws and spirit of nonprofits.

Note that his home state is controlled by Democrats who use the justice system there to go after Republicans.

The NYAG nag makes that so clear. (Not a whit of effort against resident Clinton and her utterly corrupt "Foundation".)

How sad to see such politicization of justice.

Trump should make his home state Texas, like easterner Bush I did.

Does Trump have a Tower in Dallas?

cow451 said in post #119:

Your whatabout isn’t making that ok.

Note that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with whataboutism, especially with regard to the equal application of justice on all sides, or its equal non-application (i.e. let the NYAG nag not target Trump like she's not targeting Clinton).

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Every criminal's excuse is "everybody does it."

That's no excuse,

Not a very good one, but that's all Trump and his followers have to offer.

just as it's no excuse for the d.s. to go only after Trump and not Clinton.

Comes down to evidence. They couldn't find anything criminal against Clinton. Maybe they won't find anything against Trump, either. We'll just have to wait and see.

Let it treat Trump like it's treating Clinton.

You guys get all unglued when they do.

Of course not everybody does it,

But that's the excuse you guys give us.

but note that the d.s. is stonewalling Gowdy with regard to the documents regarding the Clinton Foundation's pay-to-play

Nope. He got every document he asked for. What documents did he not get? On the other hand, Trump has refused even show his tax returns, even though he promised that he would, as every other recent presidential candidate has done. Paranoid conspiracy theories about Clinton really don't work very well for you. It just points up the massive corruption of the current administration.

 

[The Barbarian]

What assault are you referring to specifically,

Trump's claims that he can abridge the 2nd and 14th Amendments by executive order, for example. His call to redefine libel to include criticism of public figures.

for the midterms changed nothing with regard to how the Constitution can be amended.

It was a message from the voters. In spite of massive Gerrymandering, the republicans suffered major defeat. Since the midterms, republican leaders are starting to distance themselves from Trump.

Then the Republicans aren't abandoning Trump? Also, how do the Republicans want to amend the Constitution?

Apparently, they just want to ignore it. Putin does it that way. The Russian constitution provides for all the rights we have. They just ignore it.

Also, which of Trump's policies are the Democrats praising?

The reform of federal sentencing guidelines, for example.

Do local police harm kids by separating them from law-breaking mothers who are put in jail?

They don't harm kids as a means of discouraging parents from applying for asylum.

Do you believe that crossing the border illegally is a crime?

Yep. But since the 1970s, (from the Cuban refugee crisis) we've given refugees asylum if they manage to get to U.S. territory.

Also, what about, for example, dragging your kids across a barren desert without food or water for days?

Because the alternatives were worse.

(Pappadoupolos not getting further charges)

Why wasn't he charged with "collusion"?

He confessed and is now cooperating with the law.

The dossier was an "investigation"? By whom, and under what legal authority?

Under the 1st Amendment.

And were then the Clinton emails that Papadopoulos "wanted" a legal "investigation"?

If a judge issued a warrant for them.

For example, Russian intel made a special point of going after ("influencing") black voters. How did that turn out?

Not as well as they did with racists.

How do you know that?

Polls after the election.

Also, if Assange was not working for Russia, then could Trump get Clinton's emails "collected" by Assange?

With a warrant.

[Re: British intel hacking Russian intel to obtain the dossier]

That's another story Trump tells people. Completely false.

How do you know that it's false?

Unable to substantiate the claim.

How do you know that his tapping claim was false?

Unable to substantiate the claim.

That's because it was not done legally, but secretly, and by a foreign power.

Show us the evidence for that.

One of the most dangerous aspects of the d.s. is that it does not have to keep any record or disclose in any way its collusion with foreign i.c.'s.

Notice the warrants are all public record. You've been lied to about that.

This collusion is considered "too secret" to reveal even to the top members of Congress.

The Boogeyman is keeping it all hidden, um?

So the d.s. has given itself a blank check to continually spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant, by simply secretly employing so-called "friendly" foreign i.c.'s to do its illegal spying for it.

Show us the evidence for that.

Why do you think that he wasn't?

No evidence.

How would Feinstein have described the person she was subsequently warned about?

As a driver. Certainly not as Trump described Papadopoulos "an important advisor."

That is, why wasn't Trump warned that his view of Papadopoulos was mistaken, like Feinstein was warned?

Because Papadopoulos indicated a criminal conspiracy within the Trump organization.

Because the d.s. stonewalled his document requests.

Show us that.

Also, to be consistent, if the d.s. charges Trump with "collusion" with Russia, then it would have to charge Clinton (and others) with "collusion" with Britain.

Show us that.

Also, if the d.s. charges Trump with financial crimes, then it would have to charge Clinton with regard to the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play and the Uranium One speech-bribe.

What crime do you think was committed?

So why not back off on Trump like as with Clinton?

You're furious that Trump is being treated like Clinton. Indeed, if Clinton had done a third of the things Trump and his cronies have done, you'd be screaming for her arrest.

The answer is because Trump followers are politicized. They could care less about crimes than about nailing people whom they don't like.

It's not about "blind" justice, but political retribution.

The botched republican "investigation" of Clinton is a perfect example. Perfectly politicized.

We have a buffoon in the WH, who let all these criminals loose in the executive branch.

How sad that our country has come to this.

Not at all, he was still fine after Benghazi. It was Clinton who did herself in with: "What difference does it make?"

It was amusing, at the end of the Benghazi "investigation", which one prominent republican admitted was a plan to damage Clinton politically, to watch Gowdy dancing around, trying to avoid admitting that years of effort and tens of millions of our tax dollars resulted in no findings of crimes on Clinton's part.

Compare to Muller's investigation, which had taken down numerous criminals in the Trump administration and campaign staff.

(additional conspiracy theories deleted)

 

[The Barbarian]

It appears that Manafort might be reconsidering his options. He's maybe just figured out that once Trump uses him, he'll toss him under the bus.

 

[Bible2+]

The Barbarian said in post #122:

They couldn't find anything criminal against Clinton.

Who is they?

For the d.s. has found ample evidence re: Clinton Foundation pay-to-play, but it refuses to release it to Gowdy because it is protecting her.

The Barbarian said in post #122:

Maybe they won't find anything against Trump, either.

They've already found stuff against him, and will use it for everything they've got, because they are against him.

The Barbarian said in post #122:

Paranoid conspiracy theories about Clinton really don't work very well for you.

Note that the whole Trump "collusion" investigation is a paranoid conspiracy theory. That's why it will have to be abandoned in favor of financial charges vs. Trump.

But these should also be abandoned so that financial charges vs. Clinton (not to mention collusion-with-British-intel charges) are not brought by the new a.g.

The Barbarian said in post #122:

It just points up the massive corruption of the current administration.

As of the Clintons. Back off from both, for to go after just one and not the other shows the total politicization of the d.s.

*******

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: How has Trump assaulted the Constitution?]

Trump's claims that he can abridge the 2nd and 14th Amendments by executive order, for example. His call to redefine libel to include criticism of public figures.

He can't actually do that. Only the Supreme Court and New Amendments can actually change the Constitution and how it is interpreted.

Also, how would the redefinition of libel abridge the 2nd and 14th amendments?

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: The midterm election]

It was a message from the voters. In spite of massive Gerrymandering, the republicans suffered major defeat.

Not in the Senate. And incumbent Presidents almost always suffer midterm defeats in Congress. Nothing new at all there.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

Since the midterms, republican leaders are starting to distance themselves from Trump.

Note that the Republican leader of the Senate, and the man who will become the new Republican leader in the House next year are still for Trump.

There has not been a mass defection of Congressional Republican leaders from Trump, for there is no Republican alternative.

And it's not like Republican leaders are going to vote for Biden in 2020.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: The Republicans and the Constitution]

Apparently, they just want to ignore it.

Not at all. The Republicans don't want to ignore any part of the Constitution.

Unlike the Democrats, who would love to repeal the 2nd Amendment and institute nationwide gun confiscation as soon as possible.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: Local police separating children from a law-breaking mother put in jail]

They don't harm kids as a means of discouraging parents from applying for asylum.

But do they still harm kids?

If so, then why not protest what they do? And what is the alternative?

Also, how long was the DHS separation policy in effect before it was rescinded?

Also, are you saying that it doesn't harm kids to be locked up in immigration detention centers with their immigrant parents?

That is, it doesn't harm the tender psyches of kids to be locked up like criminals, even though they are still with mom?

And if it does harm them, then would not the answer be to let them and mom go free while her asylum request is being processed?

And then they can disappear forever into the woodwork of the millions of other illegal immigrants in the U.S., with no enforcement against them.

And then the U.S. effectively has no border.

This is, of course, the real aim of leftists who oppose anything done by the U.S. against immigrants applying for asylum.

But most leftists won't admit that they want no border.

-

Also, why does someone way down in Honduras have to come all of the way up to the U.S. for asylum?

Why not go to Nicaragua, or Guatemala, or Mexico?

Because "asylum" per se is not the real goal, but immigration to the U.S.?

Also, could most "asylum" seekers be liars, simply wanting to take advantage of U.S. law?

That is, could they make up stories about how their lives were in danger, when in fact they weren't really?

If so, that is a serious problem, for "all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8).

The Barbarian said in post #123:

. . . since the 1970s, (from the Cuban refugee crisis) we've given refugees asylum if they manage to get to U.S. territory.

Cubans have carte blanche because of Castro's tyranny. But should Central American countries be labelled as tyrannies, so that the entire population of Central America can freely walk into the U.S.?

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: Dragging your kids across a barren desert without food or water for days]

Because the alternatives were worse.

Really? Every Central American parent who drags his kids across a barren desert without food or water for days was living even worse before that?

No. Not worse, but wanting something better than he had. But that is never worth your kids dying in the process. It is the criminal abuse of children.

Child Protective Services would immediately take custody of the children of even U.S.-citizen parents who did that, no matter what stories the parents made up for doing so.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: Papadopoulos and "collusion"]

He confessed and is now cooperating with the law.

If he confessed to "collusion", then why was he not charged with "collusion"?

The answer is because all that matters is his "cooperating" in the nailing of Trump, the entire point of the charade from its beginning.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: Under what legal authority was the Trump dossier an "investigation"?]

Under the 1st Amendment.

Then why is Assange being charged?

And why wasn't what Papadopoulos "wanted" a 1st Amendment "investigation" into Clinton?

Leftists can't have it both ways.

Clinton actually getting dirt on Trump from Steele from Russia was no different, indeed, it was much worse, than some of Trump's people merely "wanting" to get dirt on Clinton from Assange from Russia.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: Were the Clinton emails that Papadopoulos "wanted" a legal "investigation"?]

If a judge issued a warrant for them.

What judge issued a warrant for Steele to obtain the Trump dossier from Russia?

Of course, none.

So how was what Steele did legal?

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: How well did Russian intel operatives' do with black voters?]

Not as well as they did with racists.

How many racists swung their votes from Clinton to Trump because of Russian influence?

Indeed, how many voters in general did?

The Barbarian said in post #123:

Polls after the election.

What post-election polls showed how many voters swung their votes based on Russian influence?

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: British intel hacking Russian intel to obtain the Trump dossier]

Unable to substantiate the claim.

How would it be substantiated without hacking British intel?

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: British intel tapping Trump Tower]

Unable to substantiate the claim.

Again, how would it be substantiated without hacking British intel, or getting U.S. intel to admit that it colluded with British intel tapping Trump Tower?

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: U.S. collusion with foreign i.c.'s]

Notice the warrants are all public record.

Note that no warrants are needed for U.S. intel to collude with foreign i.c.'s spying on U.S. citizens.

Also, not even FISA warrants are public record.

So U.S. intel can spy on U.S. citizens without the public ever knowing.

This is the danger of the d.s.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: Feinstein being warned about someone on her staff]

As a driver. Certainly not as Trump described Papadopoulos "an important advisor."

Then why wasn't Trump warned even more urgently that his view of a staff member was mistaken?

The answer is because Trump was the target from the start, not Papadopoulos.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: The d.s. stonewalled Gowdy's document requests]

Show us that.

It was in the news. The d.s. refuses to hand over Clinton Foundation pay-to-play documents to Congress.

Show us where they did, and what the documents show.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: If the d.s. charges Trump with "collusion" with Russia, then it would have to charge Clinton (and others) with "collusion" with Britain]

Show us that.

Clinton got the Trump dossier from Britain, just as Brennan and Obama colluded with GCHQ's tapping of Trump Tower, based on Fox analysts who have whistleblower contacts within the d.s.

The latter cannot go public without being locked up for the rest of their lives.

For U.S. intel collusion with foreign i.c.'s is claimed to be too "top secret" to reveal to anyone, even to the top members of Congress.

This is the danger of the d.s.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

[Re: Clinton Foundation pay-to-play and the Uranium One speech-bribe]

What crime do you think was committed?

Pay-to-play is bribing public officials, which is the crime.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

You're furious that Trump is being treated like Clinton.

Not at all. Clinton is being given a free pass by the d.s., while Trump is being targeted by it.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

. . . Trump followers are politicized.

But Clinton followers aren't?

The Barbarian said in post #123:

The botched republican "investigation" of Clinton . . .

It wasn't botched, but shut down by the d.s.'s refusal to hand over Clinton Foundation pay-to-play documents to Congress.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

It was amusing, at the end of the Benghazi "investigation", which one prominent republican admitted was a plan to damage Clinton politically, to watch Gowdy dancing around, trying to avoid admitting that years of effort and tens of millions of our tax dollars resulted in no findings of crimes on Clinton's part.

Benghazi was too nebulous to pin on Clinton. But the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play isn't.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

Compare to Muller's investigation, which had taken down numerous criminals in the Trump administration and campaign staff.

Because the d.s. is all for Mueller's investigation of Trump, while it is utterly against any investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

The Barbarian said in post #123:

(additional conspiracy theories deleted)

Note that the Russian "collusion" investigation itself is a conspiracy theory, and one which has resulted in not one charge of "collusion"?

Why is that?

Because the idea from the start was to nail Trump himself, and financial charges will now do just fine.

They would also do just fine against Clinton, if they were pursued by the d.s.

So why not back off from Trump like backing off from Clinton, especially with a new a.g. coming into power?

 

[The Barbarian]

They couldn't find anything criminal against Clinton.

Who is they?

Republicans, using several years and tens of millions of our tax dollars. Nothing. Huge waste of resources. And at the time, they controlled the entire federal government.

For the d.s. has found ample evidence re: Clinton Foundation pay-to-play, but it refuses to release it to Gowdy because it is protecting her.

Show us that.

Maybe they won't find anything against Trump, either.

They've already found stuff against him

You don't know if they've got enough to make a criminal case. Be patient.

Paranoid conspiracy theories about Clinton really don't work very well for you.

Unlike the Democrats, who would love to repeal the 2nd Amendment and institute nationwide gun confiscation as soon as possible.

Hillary Clinton, for example, supports the 2nd Amendment and affirms the right to bear arms. You've trusted people who lied to you about that. And don't bother with "yes, she says that, but I know what she really thinks."

Barbarian notes that the difference between sending a parent to jail and separating kids from parents to punish them for applying for asylum is primarily intent; the Trump administration made child abuse an instrument of policy.

But do they still harm kids?

Not so much anymore. The court ordered them to stop and to return the kids to their parents. Problem is, they often threw away the paperwork, so some kids will never be returned. Which was the intent of the Trump policy.

If so, then why not protest what they do? And what is the alternative?

You elect someone like that, he's going to do things like that.

But most leftists won't admit that they want no border.

Technically, extreme libertarians want no border controls. They point to the fact that during the time the United States became a great nation, there were none.

If he confessed to "collusion", then why was he not charged with "collusion"?

He confessed to lying. So he was charged with lying.

Then why is Assange being charged?

He committed a sexual assault.

Julian Assange has finally been interviewed over allegations of sexual assault, more than four years after he was granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Here is all you need to know about the allegations and why it has taken six years for him to be interviewed.
Explained: Assange to be interviewed over sexual assault allegations

And why wasn't what Papadopoulos "wanted" a 1st Amendment "investigation" into Clinton?

He was nailed for lying. Whatever other crimes he might have committed, he wasn't charged with them.
You can't have it both ways.

Clinton actually getting dirt on Trump from Steele from Russia was no different, indeed, it was much worse, than some of Trump's people merely "wanting" to get dirt on Clinton from Assange from Russia.

Opposition research is legal. Trump, for example, did it. Where it crossed the line, is in attempting to get the assistance of an unfriendly nation to do it.

What judge issued a warrant for Steele to obtain the Trump dossier from Russia?

Russia didn't give it to him.

So how was what Steele did legal?

Explain to us how you think it was illegal.

Again, how would it be substantiated without hacking British intel, or getting U.S. intel to admit that it colluded with British intel tapping Trump Tower?

Show us where anyone tapped Trump's offices.

Note that no warrants are needed for U.S. intel to collude with foreign i.c.'s spying on U.S. citizens.

Show us that it happened.

Also, not even FISA warrants are public record.

They can be subpoenaed. And they are in deed public record. That's how we know they were issued.

So U.S. intel can spy on U.S. citizens without the public ever knowing.

Even local police can do that, if they can convince a judge that it's necessary for a criminal case. But a president can't just order that to happen without approval. Trump's attempt to bypass the Constitution was thwarted by separation of powers. This is the safeguard against tyranny provided by the deep state. In Russia, the shallow state allows Putin to rule as he will. The founders designed the deep state precisely to stop a man like Trump from using government to go after his enemies.

Then why wasn't Trump warned even more urgently that his view of a staff member was mistaken?

Because the evidence suggested that Trump was involved. That may or may not turn out to be true. Be patient.

It was in the news. The d.s. refuses to hand over Clinton Foundation pay-to-play documents to Congress.

Show us where they did, and what the documents show.

Clinton got the Trump dossier from Britain, just as Brennan and Obama colluded with GCHQ's tapping of Trump Tower,

As you learned, Obama neither ordered nor approved such taps. No point in saying otherwise.

based on Fox analysts who have whistleblower contacts within the d.s.

So nothing? Why is no one surprised? How about linking to the "evidence" you claim Fox has?

Your conspiracy theory is a giant soap bubble, inflated by imagination.

So why not back off from Trump like backing off from Clinton

For one, the investigation is proceding nicely. It has nailed numerous criminals, recovered more stolen money than it costs, and continues to find new leads. Stuff like that.

Compare to the years of effort, tens of millions of tax dollars spent, investigating Clinton, with no results at all.

Understand now?

 

[Bible2+]

The Barbarian said in post #126:

[Re: Who couldn't find anything criminal against Clinton?]

Republicans, using several years and tens of millions of our tax dollars.

Do you mean Congressional Republicans? If so, note that the d.s. has denied them the relevant documents regarding Clinton Foundation pay-to play. This is because the d.s. is protecting Clinton, while it is going after Trump with everything it's got.

Why not back off from both?

The Barbarian said in post #126:

And at the time, they controlled the entire federal government.

No one controls the d.s.

It's a power unto itself.

That is why it is so dangerous.

The Barbarian said in post #126:

Paranoid conspiracy theories about Clinton really don't work very well for you.

Note that the whole Trump "Russian collusion" investigation is a paranoid conspiracy theory, which has not worked out at all.

That is why there has not been even one charge of "collusion".

What is being resorted to now is financial crimes, but only with regard to Trump, never Clinton.

Also, the "Russian collusion" investigation was a paranoid investigation not in the sense of any investigator actually believing that it was true, but because it was based on the paranoia of Brennan and Obama that they would be charged by a Trump Administration for their collusion with British intel's tapping of Trump Tower, for example.

That is, the Russian Collusion ruse was simply a distraction from the real collusion, which was with British intel.

The Barbarian said in post #126:

Barbarian notes that the difference between sending a parent to jail and separating kids from parents to punish them for applying for asylum is primarily intent . . .

Why does intent matter with regard to the harm?

That is, manslaughter is still a crime.

Also, how long was the DHS separation policy in effect before it was rescinded?

Also, why haven't Democrats protested the harm done by local police in separating children from their law-breaking mothers put in jail?

The answer is because all that matters is going after Trump, not rectifying harm.

The Barbarian said in post #126:

[Re: Papadopoulos]

He confessed to lying. So he was charged with lying.

So there is no proof that he committed "collusion"?

Is there any proof that anyone did, except Brennan, Obama, and Clinton colluding with British intel against Trump?

The Barbarian said in post #126:

[Re: Why is Assange being charged?]

He committed a sexual assault.

Why is he being charged with regard to "collecting" the DNC's and Clinton's emails from Russia?

How is that any different than Steele "collecting" the Trump dossier from Russia?

Or the New York Times "collecting" the Pentagon Papers?

The Barbarian said in post #126:

[Re: The Steele dossier]

Russia didn't give it to him.

How did he get it?

The Barbarian said in post #126:

Explain to us how you think it was illegal.

It was receiving illegally-obtained information against Trump compiled by a hostile foreign power.

That's no different than the crime of receiving stolen goods.

The Barbarian said in post #126:

Show us where anyone tapped Trump's offices.

GCHQ did, with the collusion of Brennan and Obama, for they had (and still have) very extreme cases of tds.

The Barbarian said in post #126:

[Re: FISA warrants]

They can be subpoenaed. And they are in deed public record.

Note that the public has no right to see FISA warrants, especially the parts of them that involve U.S. intel collusion with foreign i.c.'s, for example.

This is too "top secret" for even the top leaders of Congress to see. It's blacked out even for them.

This is the danger of the d.s.

No accountability to the People.

Indeed, no accountability to the Constitution.

That is, sadly, FISC is like a FIST (a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Travesty) in the eye of the Constitution. For unlike a normal court, FISC does not have competing pleaders. And so there is no due process for the violation of a U.S. citizen's Fourth Amendment right to privacy, just as there is no due process for the violation of a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right to a "public trial". Instead FISC hearings are utterly secret.

Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Instead, FISC relies solely on government-friendly judges. If judges are deemed skeptical of the government, they are never picked for FISC in the first place. Or, if judges are picked, but then later are found to be rejecting too many warrant requests, they are simply "promoted" from FISC to some other court, and replaced with judges who are compliant.

Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" against him. Instead, he does not even know that there is any accusation against him.

Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him". Instead, the witnesses testify against him in secret, without him even knowing about it. Truly, this rises to Stasi-level tyranny.

Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor". Instead, the FISC judges are only allowed to hear witnesses against him. Truly, the Founders are turning in their graves.

Also, FISC denies a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence". Instead, he is left utterly defenseless. Truly, this is a crime against justice.

But the d.s. feels that the current setup must abide. For it has allowed the d.s. to become a Power unto itself. It is now an Anti-Constitutional, Fourth Branch of government, with no accountability whatsoever to the People.

May God help us.

The Barbarian said in post #126:

[Re: U.S. intel can spy on U.S. citizens without the public ever knowing]

... a president can't just order that to happen without approval.

Of course he can. For Obama did it against Trump Tower, for example, by employing GCHQ to do the dirty work for him. No warrant needed, because no court has to be notified regarding U.S. executive branch collusion with foreign i.c.'s.

It's too "top secret".

Not even FISC has to be notified because it's not U.S. intel spying on U.S. citizens. It's foreign intel.

This is the danger that we are exposed to.

The Barbarian said in post #126:

The founders designed the deep state precisely to stop a man like Trump from using government to go after his enemies.

The Founders knew nothing about a deep state, for its secrecy allows it to try to stop a man like Trump from being duly elected by the People, or being allowed to serve as a duly elected President without unrivaled harassment from the d.s.

This must end, or U.S. democracy is dead, murdered by an unelected bureaucracy with unconstitutional powers granted to it by itself.

May God help us.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you mean Congressional Republicans? If so, note that the d.s. has denied them the relevant documents regarding Clinton Foundation pay-to play.

That's not what Trey Gowdy said. And he should know, he was running the investigation.

This is because the d.s. is protecting Clinton,

The founders made the state deep precisely to protect citizens from abuse by the government. So Trump was unable just toss her into jail, and Gowdy finally had to admit that there was no evidence showing that Clinton committed any crimes. In a shallow state like Russia, citizens don't have that protection.

while it is going after Trump with everything it's got.

Not yet, if ever. The law has caught many criminals who were in Trump's organizations, but so far hasn't gotten Trump. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. The good news for Trump is that the deep state will keep him from merely being jailed suspicion.

Why not back off from both?

They aren't done with the Russian investigation. So far, it's been very successful at taking down criminals, and in recovering money stolen from the American people. Be patient. It's doing what it's supposed to do.

No one controls the d.s.

That's what has Trump in a fury; the separation of powers means no one person can run the government. It's a remarkably good way to prevent would-be dictators from taking over the country.

It's a power unto itself.

It's the Law of the Land. And in America, it's sovereign.

That is why it is so dangerous to dictator wannabees like Trump.

Note that the whole Trump "Russian collusion" investigation is a paranoid conspiracy theory, which has not worked out at all.

It's caught numerous criminals and it's returned a lot of stolen money to the taxpayers. A good result indeed.

What is being resorted to now is financial crimes, but only with regard to Trump

So far, we don't know that. For all we know, this is all circumstantial evidence, and Trump is completely innocent. Be patient.

Why does intent matter with regard to the harm?

In the law, intent often matters.

Also, how long was the DHS separation policy in effect before it was rescinded?

About as long as it took the public to get wind of what Trump was up to.

Also, why haven't Democrats protested the harm done by local police in separating children from their law-breaking mothers put in jail?

Probably because it wasn't done as a way of intimidating parents to avoid applying for asylum.

(paranoid misconceptions about the Steele dossier)

(Yawn)

Note that the public has no right to see FISA warrants, especially the parts of them that involve U.S. intel collusion with foreign i.c.'s, for example.

One can subpoena them, if one has standing to show a legal need.

The deep state prevents any single person from imposing his will on America. This is the danger of the deep state to would-be dictators. The Constitution makes the deep state the mean by which our liberties are preserved.

For unlike a normal court, FISC does not have competing pleaders.

Because it's not a trial. It's merely a control on the state, preventing it from snooping into our lives without a judge's permission.

And so there is no due process for the violation of a U.S. citizen's Fourth Amendment right to privacy,

Nope. As you now realize, such snooping can only be legal when authorized by a judge issuing a warrant per the Constitution.

just as there is no due process for the violation of a U.S. citizen's Sixth Amendment right to a "public trial". Instead FISC hearings are utterly secret.

There is no "trial." So no violation of the Sixth Amendment. Further, if there is a trial, all the relevant documents regarding the warrant are discoverable. You seem unclear on what a "trial" is. An investigation is not a trial.

Trump is infuriated at his temp AG, whom he expected to protect him from the law. But even the AG is limited by the Constitution, a deep state that prevents rule by decree.

The Founders intentionally set up a deep state, for its controls on government allows it to restrain a man like Trump from ruling by decree , or being allowed to toss his enemies in jail without due process.

This won't end, until U.S. democracy is dead with unconstitutional powers granted to a dictator.

So far, God has blessed us, for which we should be thankful.

Trump maybe not so much.

 

[SolomonVII]

Trump Claims His Campaign Was 'Spied' On. Here Are the Facts


President Donald Trump is mounting an increasingly aggressive attack on investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, charging that the Obama Administration actively spied on his campaign.

Watergate was illegal spying.
The Obama administration and the Chicago machine are very adept at using all agencies of government from the IRS and Justice Department to the FBI and CIA to gather dirt for insurance against their political opponents.
When it comes to government agencies, the Swamp is very much a Democratic mud hole.

 

[The Barbarian]

Watergate was illegal spying.

Nixon, like Trump wanted to use the government to go after his enemies. Nixon was taken down by the deep state, which repeatedly thwarted his attempts to use the FBI and IRS to after enemies.

Trump attempted the same thing, and was angered and dismayed to learn that he couldn't just order investigations against his enemies.

While Nixon was very adept at using all agencies of government from the IRS and Justice Department to the FBI and CIA to gather dirt for insurance against his political opponents, Trump is fortunately very clumsy and inept at such things, deprived of his fixers. And as you know, the Justice Department has already nailed a number of his criminals who used to do those things for him.

When it comes to government agencies, the Swamp is very much Trump's mud hole.

 

[tulc]

Watergate was illegal spying.

uhmmm...by Republicans, not Democrats.

The Obama administration and the Chicago machine are very adept at using all agencies of government from the IRS and Justice Department to the FBI and CIA to gather dirt for insurance against their political opponents.

Actually, it's more that the Republican Party tends to be better at getting their base to believe myths (HER EMAILS!! BENGHAZI!! DEEPSTATE!!) then the Democrats are with theirs.

When it comes to government agencies, the Swamp is very much a Democratic mud hole.

...then why has President Trump made the "swamp" into the executive branch of the US government?
tulc(is honestly curious)

 

[Bible2+]

The Barbarian said in post #128:

[Re: The d.s. has denied Congress the relevant documents regarding Clinton Foundation pay-to play]

That's not what Trey Gowdy said.

What did he say?

Also, when were the documents handed over and what do they say?

(This is not to say that Clinton should be gone after, but that Trump should be given a break like Clinton is being given a break. Anything less shows how politicized the d.s. has become. So much for "blind" justice.)

The Barbarian said in post #128:

The founders made the state deep precisely to protect citizens from abuse by the government.

Note that the Founders did not make the deep state, for it is now abusing citizens' Constitutional rights in the name of "secrecy" and "national security".

The Barbarian said in post #128:

. . . the separation of powers means no one person can run the government.

But the d.s. is a fourth, unconstitutional branch which can run the government in the sense of doing "secret" things that no other branch of government can even know about, even when those things are done against individuals in the other branches.

The Barbarian said in post #128:

It's a remarkably good way to prevent would-be dictators from taking over the country.

But the d.s. has taken over the country in the name of "national security".

It is a dictator completely unaccountable to the People.

The Barbarian said in post #128:

[Re: The "Russian collusion" investigation]

It's caught numerous criminals and it's returned a lot of stolen money to the taxpayers.

But not one charge of "collusion".

And it ignores the "collusion" with British intel against Trump.

(This is not to day that the colluders with Britain should be gone after, but that Trump should be given a break just as they have been given a break.)

The Barbarian said in post #128:

In the law, intent often matters.

But crimes can be committed even without intent, such as manslaughter.

So if local police are, without intent, "harming" kids by separating them from their law-breaking mothers put in jail, then why aren't leftists up in arms over this harm? Because they don't care about it, only about going after Trump.

Also, it has never been shown that he thought that the temporary DHS separation policy was doing any harm to the kids. So saying that he intended any harm to them is unsupported.

The Barbarian said in post #128:

[Re: FISA warrants]

One can subpoena them, if one has standing to show a legal need.

Can you give an example where one was actually handed over on that basis?

Also, one that was not heavily redacted?

For even when FISA warrants are handed over to Congress, they are so redacted that they are useless for the purpose of determining the Constitutionality of the warrant. Usually it is d.s. collusion with foreign i.c.'s that is redacted. For the d.s. has given itself carte blanche in that regard, with no review by Congress. So much for checks and balances. The d.s. is a power unto itself.

Indeed, the Senate is even told that it has to consider its approval of new leaders of the d.s. without knowing their past "secret" activities on behalf of the d.s.

For example, imagine that someone who has worked for the CIA for 20 years is seeking confirmation as the new head of the CIA. He doesn't have to tell the Senate anything about his past "secret" activities for the CIA. He could have tortured people in the name of "national security". He could have murdered people. He could have sacrificed infants to Satan in the sub-basement of a foreign agency's HQ. It doesn't matter, because the Senate cannot know anything about his past "secret" activities.

Such is the power of the d.s.

The Founders are turning in their graves.

The Barbarian said in post #128:

The Constitution makes the deep state the mean by which our liberties are preserved.

Note that the Constitution knows nothing about a deep state, for the deep state is the utter enemy of our liberties, trampling over them continually in the name of "secrecy" and "national security".

The deep state is an unaccountable dictator which has annulled the whole point of the American Revolution.

May God help us.

 

[The Barbarian]

What did he say?

That the evidence does not show that Clinton committed crimes.

Also, when were the documents handed over

When his committee requested them.

and what do they say?

What they don't show is any criminal behavior on Clinton's part.

This is not to say that Clinton should be gone after, but that Trump should be given a break like Clinton is being given a break.

That will happen when the democrats take over the House in January.

Note that the Founders made the deep state, precisely to stop people like Trump from abusing citizens' Constitutional rights.

But the d.s. is a fourth, unconstitutional branch

No. There is no part of the Constitution that says "separation of powers", but it clearly outlines the powers and limitations of each branch of the government. The founders made the state deep precisely because they wanted prevent any one person from completely controlling the government. In a shallow state like North Korea, the leader can do whatever he pleases. Not so in a deep state like the United States.

A ruler in a shallow state can run the government in the sense of doing "secret" things that no other branch of government can even know about, even when those things are done against individuals in the other branches. But the founders wisely gave us a deep state where would be dictators are tripped up before they can succeed.

And because we are a representative democracy, the deep state is subject to the consent of the people.
As the founders intended.

Barbarian regarding the Mueller investigation:
It's caught numerous criminals and it's returned a lot of stolen money to the taxpayers.

But not one charge of "collusion".

Gee whiz.

And it ignores the "collusion" with British intel against Trump.

It ignores the Tooth Fairy, too. For the same reason.

Trump should be given a break just as they have been given a break.

It's coming. When the democrats have control of the House, then Trump will get the same break Clinton got.

So if local police are, without intent, "harming" kids by separating them from their law-breaking mothers put in jail, then why aren't leftists up in arms over this harm?

Intent. The police don't intend to harm kids, as Trump did. When he was informed his plan of separating them from parents asking for asylum, would harm them, he decided to use it as a way to get at the parents. And of course, police don't toss the kids into cages, or sexually abuse them. And they turn them over to agencies meant to protect the kids, and keep paperwork so they can be returned to the parents.

Also, it has never been shown that he thought that the temporary DHS separation policy was doing any harm to the kids.

“Did any member of this panel say to anyone, maybe this isn’t such a good idea,” Blumenthal asked.


White responded:

During the deliberative process over the previous year, we raised a number of concerns in the ORR program about any policy which would result in family separation. Due to concerns we had about the best interest of the child, as well as whether that would be operationally supportable with the bed capacity we had.


“You told the administration that kids would suffer as a result, that pain would be inflicted, correct?” Blumenthal then asked.


“Separation of children from their parents entails significant risk of harm to children,” White responded.


“It’s traumatic for any child separated from his or her parents,” Blumenthal continued.


“There’s no question that separation of children from parents entails significant potential for traumatic psychological injury to the child,” White responded.


Blumenthal then asked White what the administration said when he warned them of likely consequences.




White, who left his previous position at ORR on March 15, said that they had advised him that no such policy was being undertaken.


Blumenthal pointed out to White that the policy was eventually launched a few weeks after this date “even though you raised concerns.”


“Yes, we raised concerns about the effect on children as well as the effect on the program,” White said. “At no time during the time that I was in ORR, was there an actual policy announcement of family separation. It was merely a discussion of possible future consequences.”


This was a stunning confirmation from White of something that had already been apparent: There was no intention by the government to reunite these families. Not only did the government not have a plan to reunite the families, though, it was apparently told that these separations were likely to traumatize the children.
The Trump Administration Was Warned Separation Would Be Horrific for Children, Did It Anyway

So saying that he intended any harm to them is unsupported.

See above. You've been lied to about that.

[Re: FISA warrants]
One can subpoena them, if one has standing to show a legal need.

Can you give an example where one was actually handed over on that basis?

Well, let's take a look...

FBI releases FISA warrant for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page
The documents appear to discount claims made by some Republicans that the FBI failed to properly disclose sources of information used to seek it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ant-former-trump-campaign-aide-carter-n893466

Trump obviously would like to use the government like a Mafia Don, but the deep state keeps him from doing so.

Such is the power of the deep state.

The Founders would be very pleased.

Note that the Constitution knows nothing about a deep state

As you know realize, they set up the deep state specifically to protect us. For the deep state is the guarantee of our liberties against men like Trump who would trample over them continually to suit his own purposes.

The deep state is a constant threat to would-be dictators as intended by the founders.

Thanks be to God.

 

[Bible2+]

The Barbarian said in post #133:

[Re: What did Gowdy say?]

That the evidence does not show that Clinton committed crimes.

Note that the d.s. has denied him the evidence re: Clinton Foundation pay-to-play. This is because the d.s. is protecting Clinton.

The Barbarian said in post #133:

[Re: When were the documents handed over]

When his committee requested them.

Note that is not true. Instead, he is still being stonewalled because the d.s. is running the clock out until the Dems take over the House.

The Barbarian said in post #133:

[Re: What do the documents say?]

What they don't show is any criminal behavior on Clinton's part.

How do you know that?

The Barbarian said in post #133:

[Re: Trump should be given a break like Clinton is being given a break]

That will happen when the democrats take over the House in January.

No, exactly the opposite, for then Trump will have both the d.s. and the House going after him, while neither will go after Clinton.

The Barbarian said in post #133:

. . . the Founders made the deep state, precisely to stop people like Trump from abusing citizens' Constitutional rights.

Note that the Founders knew nothing of the deep state, which is currently abusing citizens' Constitutional rights.

For example, the Fourth Amendment declares the right of the People to be free from all unreasonable searches, and no warrants shall be issued except upon probable cause. Yet the d.s. now, with the help of computers and compliant corporations, continually spies upon all of the People, and without any probable cause. For it tracks everywhere that the People go, through their cell phones, via 'StingRay' devices and compliant cell phone corporations, and through license-plate reading cameras at major intersections and on patrolling police cruisers. And the d.s. tracks every letter, magazine, catalog, or package that the People send or receive through the U.S. Mail, Federal Express, UPS, DHL, or any other courier, through the compliance of these companies. And the d.s. tracks everything that the People buy with a credit or debit card, through compliant bank, credit card, and retail companies. And it tracks the People's Ad Choices and Catalog lists, and even sometimes makes insulting additions to them.

And the d.s. tracks everything that the People watch on cable TV or the internet, through compliant cable, telecom, ISP, and internet companies and forums. And it tracks everything that the People post on the internet. And it tracks every website and web page that they view. And it tracks every phone call, text message, and email that they send or receive, even recording and saving all of their contents. And it tracks every "like" that they give to anything on the internet. And it tracks everything that they do in public places, by employing facial recognition and "security" cameras in almost every store and restaurant, and while they are walking along public streets. And it has scores of bigger-than-Hubble spy satellites which can zoom in on anyone outside anywhere at anytime, and even make out the expression on someone's face as he is doing something as harmless as watering his backyard, for example.

And the d.s. also listens in on everything that the People say even in their homes, cars, or anywhere else, by remotely and secretly tapping into the microphones on their cell phones, landline phones, computers, televisions, smart speakers, children's web-connected toys, home-security devices, automobile-navigation devices; and through 'gunshot detecting' microphones (ShotSpotters) placed ubiquitously on public streets, which can pick up conversations of people on sidewalks or sitting on their front stoops. By all of these means, the Fourth Amendment right to Privacy for the People has been completely obliterated by the d.s. (It thinks that it is protecting 'national security' by these means, but what it has actually done is set everything up for the future Antichrist's total surveillance and subjugation of everyone: Revelation 13:4-18.)

Also, the d.s. has taken advantage of compliant intelligence and oversight committees in Congress, and a horrible FISA bill which created a secret, rubber-stamp, FISA court, a veritable Star Chamber, without any effective oversight by the People, to take away the People's Fourth Amendment rights under the guise of 'judicial warrants'. The FISA bill also allows for unlimited, unwarranted, 'backdoor' snooping on U.S. citizens through its Section 702 loophole. So the d.s. (like the Stasi before it) has created and maintains extensive dossiers on 100,000 U.S. citizens who are completely innocent legally. (The Founders are turning in their graves.) Also, you can be put on a terrorist watch list just for having body odor and long hair. This is the point that we have reached. For the d.s. is given so many billions of dollars every year that it must find a way to 'spend its money', or it will get less money next year. And so it goes after people (even with invasive, in-person surveillance) for almost any reason that it can think of.

Also, its dossiers leave so many people open to blackmail, or to the public leaking of information regarding their private matters, by unscrupulous people in the d.s. (even very high up), and by unscrupulous people in d.s. contractors who are given access to these dossiers, and by foreign intelligence agents and their contractors who hack into these dossiers, just as they were able to hack into even the personnel files of all of the d.s.'s own agents with top secret clearances, and just as foreign hackers have been able to penetrate the servers of U.S. corporations with top secret military contracts.

Also, the d.s. has 'doxxed' innocent U.S. citizens by secretly handing over their names, addresses, and daily and weekly schedules to so-called 'friendly' foreign intelligence agencies who see these citizens as potential threats to their national security. In this way, the d.s. has exposed these U.S. citizens to surveillance and possibly even murder by foreign intelligence agencies operating with the knowledge and consent of the d.s. on U.S. soil. The d.s. allows such a setup as this so that it can maintain a good relationship with these foreign intelligence agencies, so that they will continue to share their valuable human intelligence with the U.S., which is very weak in humint; and also so that the d.s. can, in turn, surveil, and even murder, citizens of foreign 'friendly' nations in their own countries if it deems these foreigners to be dangerously hostile to U.S. national security. Also, the d.s. temporarily employs 'loaner' and 'trainee' intelligence agents from friendly foreign nations (e.g. Colombia, Mexico, Poland, Taiwan, etc.) to come to the U.S. and surveil U.S. citizens on behalf of the deep state. In exchange, these foreign nations are given intelligence on their own citizens which has been collected by, for example, the NSA, which spies globally and continually on everyone's electronic communications.

The Barbarian said in post #133:

There is no part of the Constitution that says "separation of powers", but it clearly outlines the powers and limitations of each branch of the government.

The d.s. is an unconstitutional fourth branch of government with no effective checks and balances by any of the other, constitutional branches.

The d.s. is a Power unto itself, with no accountability to the People whatsoever.

The Barbarian said in post #133:

The founders made the state deep precisely because they wanted prevent any one person from completely controlling the government.

Note that the Founders knew nothing of the deep state, which has prepared the way for the future Antichrist's total control of the government and the People through universal and continual surveillance and subjugation: A total police state, which is the whole aim of the deep state, done in the name of "national security".

The Barbarian said in post #133:

[Re: Trump and immigrant kids]

When he was informed his plan of separating them from parents asking for asylum, would harm them, he decided to use it as a way to get at the parents.

Note that Trump never intended to harm the kids separated from immigrant parents in any way different than when kids are separated by local police from criminal parents who are put in jail.

That is, if the left sees the former as "harm" then it would have to see the latter as "harm". And yet there is no outcry against the latter, because the left is not interested in harm, but in going after Trump.

The Barbarian said in post #133:

. . . police don't toss the kids into cages, or sexually abuse them. And they turn them over to agencies meant to protect the kids, and keep paperwork so they can be returned to the parents.

Are you saying that the "harm" was not the separation from parents per se?

Also, when did Trump advocate putting kids in "cages" or sexually abusing them? Also, when did he instruct the DHS to purposely not protect the kids and purposely lose paperwork so that the kids could not be returned to their parents?

The Barbarian said in post #133:

“It’s traumatic for any child separated from his or her parents,” Blumenthal continued.

Then has he condemned local police for doing that?

The Barbarian quoted a link in post #133:

There was no intention by the government to reunite these families.

What is that claim based on? For White never said that in his discussion with Blumenthal.

The Barbarian quoted a link in post #133:

FBI releases FISA warrant for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page

Who was it released to?

Also, was the entire warrant released or just portions of it?

Also, with regard to the portions released, how many redactions did they have? And why?

The Barbarian quoted a link in post #133:

The documents appear to discount claims made by some Republicans that the FBI failed to properly disclose sources of information used to seek it.

Why "appear"?

And what were the sources of information used to seek it?

The Barbarian said in post #133:

Trump obviously would like to use the government like a Mafia Don, but the deep state keeps him from doing so.

Note that the deep state and so-called "friendly" foreign intel went after candidate Trump and his people simply because they didn't like him. They felt that they had the right to decide who gets to run for President and who doesn't. And even after he was duly elected by the People, the deep state and so-called "friendly" foreign intel continue to go after him. For they hate democracy. They want to be the only Power.

God forbid.

 

[The Barbarian]

Note that the d.s. has denied him the evidence re: Clinton Foundation pay-to-play. This is because the d.s. is protecting Clinton.

In other words, "there's no evidence for my belief, and it's because the boogeyman is hiding it."

When were the documents handed over

When his committee requested them.

Note that is not true.

Sorry, you're wrong. The documents were obtained by the committee, and they went through all of it and finally admitted there was no crime to be found.

What they don't show is any criminal behavior on Clinton's part.

How do you know that?

Gowdy's final report.

Trump should be given a break like Clinton is being given a break

That will happen when the democrats take over the House in January.

No

Yep. Trump will, as Clinton did, face a committee run by the opposing party. Poetic justice.

Note that the Founders built the deep state into the Constitution which is currently frustrating Trump, who wants to be able to jail his opponents at will.

For example, the Fourth Amendment declares the right of the People to be free from all unreasonable searches, and no warrants shall be issued except upon probable cause. It does not protect you from people writing down your license plate, taking pictures of you in public, and so on. You have no Constitutional expectation of privacy in public. And the constitution does not protect you from corporations snooping for your data, absent specific laws for the circumstances.

If you're worried about someone noticing the expression on your face while watering the lawn, maybe that's kind of a clue for you, um?

zens by secretly handing over their names, addresses, and daily and weekly schedules to so-called 'friendly' foreign intelligence agencies who see these citizens as potential threats to their national security. In this way, the d.s. has exposed these U.S. citizens to surveillance and possibly even murder by foreign intelligence agencies operating with the knowledge and consent of the d.s. on U.S. soil. The d.s. allows such a setup as this so that it can maintain a good relationship with these foreign intelligence agencies, so that they will continue to share their valuable human intelligence with the U.S., which is very weak in humint; and also so that the d.s. can, in turn, surveil, and even murder, citizens of foreign 'friendly' nations in their own countries if it deems these foreigners to be dangerously hostile to U.S. national security. Also, the d.s. temporarily employs 'loaner' and 'trainee' intelligence agents from friendly foreign nations (e.g. Colombia, Mexico, Poland, Taiwan, etc.) to come to the U.S. and surveil U.S. citizens on behalf of the deep state. In exchange, these foreign nations are given intelligence on their own citizens which has been collected by, for example, the NSA, which spies globally and continually on everyone's electronic communications.

Note that the Founders built the deep state into the Constitution. The separation of powers prevents would-be dictators like Trump from acting as autocrats. Shallow states like Russia provide no such protections.

Trump was warned that separating families would harm the kids separated from immigrant parents, and decided that it would be a good way to discourage them from applying for asylum. It was intended to harm the children as away to get at the parents, and as you learned, he was advised of this by his own people.

Also, when did Trump advocate putting kids in "cages" or sexually abusing them?

He just let ICE people do it. There were no controls on them, so they did what they pleased.

 

[tulc]

Note that the d.s. has denied him the evidence re: Clinton Foundation pay-to-play. This is because the d.s. is protecting Clinton. (snip)

Or (if we apply Occam's Razor to the above) ...after many, MANY investigations could it be there simply isn't any evidence for what you think?
Occam's razor - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.

tulc(just a thought)

 

[Bible2+]

The Barbarian said in post #135:

In other words, "there's no evidence for my belief, and it's because the boogeyman is hiding it."

Note that if there were no evidence of pay-to-play, the Clinton Foundation documents would have been provided to Congress by the d.s.

The Barbarian said in post #135:

The documents were obtained by the committee, and they went through all of it and finally admitted there was no crime to be found.

Note that is not true. The committee is still being stonewalled because the d.s. is protecting Clinton.

The committee has never said that there was no crime to be found.

The Barbarian said in post #135:

[Re: The documents]

What they don't show is any criminal behavior on Clinton's part.

How do you know that?

The Barbarian said in post #135:

Gowdy's final report.

Note that there has not been any final report regarding Clinton Foundation pay-to-play.

The Barbarian said in post #135:

[Re: Trump should be given a break like Clinton is being given a break]

That will happen when the democrats take over the House in January.

No, exactly the opposite, for then Trump will be attacked by both the House and the d.s.

The Barbarian said in post #135:

. . . the Founders built the deep state into the Constitution which is currently frustrating Trump, who wants to be able to jail his opponents at will.

Note that the Founders knew nothing of the d.s., which does want to jail its opponents at will.

For the d.s. got Obama to ensure warrantless searches and indefinite detention without access to counsel when he signed into law the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act.

That is chilling. For the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that no searches shall be conducted without a Warrant, and "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause".

Also, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that every accused person "shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury".

Also, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that every accused person shall "have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence".

The Founders indicated these requirements precisely to counter the tyranny of George III of England, who thought that he could do whatever he wanted with his citizens in the name of Britain's national security. And he thought that he could get away with doing his will often secretly. For tyranny loves secrecy. Indeed, "indefinite detention without access to counsel" assures secrecy, as well as no Supreme Court review. For without counsel, someone locked up indefinitely for "national security" reasons can never challenge the NDAA in federal court. And the law requires someone with "standing", i.e. someone who has actually had his civil rights denied through the NDAA, to bring a suit in federal court for Constitutional review of the NDAA statute.

Because the NDAA countervails the Constitution in these ways, the latter now means NADA and we are back under a gross tyranny. The Founders are turning in their graves, and what was the point of the American Revolution?

To establish the tyranny of the d.s.

The Barbarian said in post #135:

You have no Constitutional expectation of privacy in public.

The government can track your movements and activities which you do publicly only if it has a judicial warrant based upon probable cause that a crime has been committed, but not on mere "possible cause" that a crime has or "could" be committed. For that would be no different than the crime of stalking.

As an analogy, imagine that a male stalker of a female celebrity was arrested and brought to trial.

During the trial, he testified: "Your honor. I am not a stalker. For I only followed and watched her in public places, and in public forums on the internet, where she had no expectation of privacy".

The judge answered: "I'm sorry, sir, but that is irrelevant. For otherwise you would be here under the charge of trespassing on private property, or under the charge of the crime of hacking. The crime of stalking refers to public places".

"But I did her no harm, your honor."

"You did her the harm of the invasion of her life, so that she could not post anything on the public internet, or go to any public restaurant, or have any guests park on the public street in front of her house, without you being there breathing down her neck, knowing everything that she did publicly. She had to stop eating in restaurants to avoid you and your friends sitting at tables next to her, and surveilling everything that she did and said. You ruined her life. And now you must go to prison, and pay a million dollars in damages to your poor victim, whose life you struck with your obsessive stalking."

The Barbarian said in post #135:

And the constitution does not protect you from corporations snooping for your data, absent specific laws for the circumstances.

The d.s. has taken full advantage of that through the "third-party doctrine" established in Smith v. Maryland by the Supreme Court. But it is still a mistaken doctrine, just as, for example, the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson by the Supreme Court was a mistaken doctrine. For the Supreme Court can make mistakes. For it consists only of fallible human beings.

Also, the "third-party doctrine" is fundamentally wrong because it ends up vitiating the whole purpose for the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is to protect the privacy of the People from government intrusion, apart from a warrant based upon probable cause.

For the "third-party doctrine" is found nowhere in the letter or the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, but was invented out of whole cloth in Smith v. Maryland solely to support a government overreach which had already occurred. That is, the government had obtained from a phone company all of the phone numbers which had been called by a criminal suspect. And these phone numbers had been obtained without a warrant based upon probable cause.

In this case, as in all others, the "third-party doctrine" is wrong because the suspect had to provide the phone company with those phone numbers in order for the company to complete his calls. The suspect was in no way intending for his calls to be made public. Indeed, that is why companies today go out of their way to provide their customers with "Privacy Policies", which indicate that the customer information which they obtain will not be made public without the permission of the customers.

But the government wants to obtain all information without any permission from such customers. The government wants to utterly violate their right to privacy, enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.

Imagine that what you have said to a "third party" such as your lawyer, your priest, your doctor, your psychiatrist, your banker, your very spouse, were to be made fair game for any government snooper to listen to, or to read, without your permission, and without any warrant based upon probable cause. Your sacred right to privacy would be utterly obliterated. This is what the awful, "third-party doctrine" established in Smith v. Maryland by the Supreme Court has now made "legal".

It must be overturned, or the Constitution is dead.

Smith v. Maryland represents a failure of one of government's core functions -- the protection of fundamental rights.

The Barbarian said in post #135:

If you're worried about someone noticing the expression on your face while watering the lawn, maybe that's kind of a clue for you, um?

Yes, that there should still be privacy.

But how do human snoopers justify to themselves their violating our civil right to privacy?

They ask: "Why does it bother you, if you are not doing anything wrong?" But this shows a lack of understanding of what privacy is, in itself. For privacy per se has nothing to do with any fear of being caught doing something wrong, but is a basic human right, in itself, as enshrined, for example, in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

As an analogy, imagine that a man, his wife, and young son sat on their living room sofa to watch (again) a DVD of the movie "Frozen", and to eat popcorn together. A few minutes into the movie, a policeman lets himself into their house, walks over to the TV and just stands there next to it, watching them. The man jumps up from the sofa: "What are you doing? How dare you come into our house to watch us! Get out! Leave us alone!" To which the policeman could reply: "Why does it bother you, when you are not doing anything wrong?"

The Barbarian said in post #135:

Note that the Founders built the deep state into the Constitution.

Note that they didn't.

The Barbarian said in post #135:

The separation of powers prevents would-be dictators like Trump from acting as autocrats.

Note that it is the d.s. which is now the dictator, an unconstitutional, fourth branch of government with no checks and balances by the other, constitutional branches.

For the d.s. can cloak everything that it does, no matter how unconstitutional, in the garb of "secrecy" and "national security".

God help us.

The Barbarian said in post #135:

Trump was warned that separating families would harm the kids separated from immigrant parents . . .

How would it harm them in any way different than local police separating kids from criminal parents?

And why isn't the left up in arms over the latter?

Because it doesn't care about harm, but only about going after Trump,

The Barbarian said in post #135:

[Re: When did Trump advocate putting kids in "cages" or sexually abusing them?]

He just let ICE people do it. There were no controls on them, so they did what they pleased. .

When did Trump ever agree with ICE people putting kids in "cages" or sexually abusing them?

 

[The Barbarian]

Note that if there were no evidence of pay-to-play, the Clinton Foundation documents would have been provided to Congress by the d.s.

You're just repeating the same stuff. As you see, you were badly misled about almost all of it. You're getting boring, so we'll let you go now.

 

[Jamsie]

You're just repeating the same stuff. As you see, you were badly misled about almost all of it. You're getting boring, so we'll let you go now.

If at first you don't succeed in convincing anyone without facts then resort to conspiracy theories, such as the dreaded "deep state". Barbarian, you have remarkable patience. Interesting: Why So Many People Believe Conspiracy Theories

 

[The Barbarian]

If at first you don't succeed in convincing anyone without facts then resort to conspiracy theories, such as the dreaded "deep state". Barbarian, you have remarkable patience.

Well, he's starting to go in with the PRATTs, so I'm cutting him loose. But it's good to air out that stuff now and again, just to show how paranoid it is. The big deal is to make sure that everyone understands that the "deep state" is another term for "separation of powers."

The founders intentionally made the state deep to prevent any one person from taking power.

Interesting: Why So Many People Believe Conspiracy Theories

“Conspiracy theories are for losers,” says Joseph Uscinski, associate professor of political science at the University of Miami and co-author of the 2014 book American Conspiracy Theories. Uscinski stresses that he uses the term literally, not pejoratively. “People who have lost an election, money or influence look for something to explain that loss.”

Very insightful. Hence Trump's short-lived voter fraud commission, to explain Trump's popular vote loss as being due to voter fraud, and dropped only after it became clear that the only documented cases of voter fraud were by Trump voters.