maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Mon May 21, 2018 5:12 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 576 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Obama DOJ & FBI Conspiracy
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 10:30 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 25605
Reputation points: 20000
Crapper has been a political hack from day 1. I have some understanding of why he was covering for the NSA but when you are busted....just admit it or ask for a secret session.

I heard Ron Wyden on NPR once...Dem from Oregon..I almost turned it off...but by the end of the interview I could tell from the guys voice there was a problem at the NSA. He did everything thing he could without breaking the law to tell the listeners. I respect Wyden even though he may have been dropped on his head as a baby.

As for Crapper, forget about Vietnam...this is 50 years later. Take Hussein's tuber out of your mouth pal.

The Constitution was a brilliant document. You don't get to act like a Stalin protégé just because Mocha Jesus got elected.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Obama DOJ & FBI Conspiracy
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 11:21 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 18766
Reputation points: 17177
jack t ripper wrote:

As for Crapper, forget about Vietnam...this is 50 years later. Take Hussein's tuber out of your mouth pal.

The Constitution was a brilliant document. You don't get to act like a Stalin protégé just because Mocha Jesus got elected.


;)

I actually read one of Clapper's last documents quite awhile back. The one he made in January '17, right before he resigned. Hrmm.. President Trump gets sworn in, Clapper writes a nasty doc about some vague & trumped-up suspicions about Trump-Russia collusion without any evidence given, then he promptly quits shortly after penning this partisan faux memo intended to support the soft coup.

The dude needs to sizzle in the interrogation chair. Let him lie himself into deeper shit. At some point his special Get Out Of Jail Free card will get revoked.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Obama DOJ & FBI Conspiracy
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 1:16 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 28687
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 19649
NefariousKoel wrote:
jack t ripper wrote:

As for Crapper, forget about Vietnam...this is 50 years later. Take Hussein's tuber out of your mouth pal.

The Constitution was a brilliant document. You don't get to act like a Stalin protégé just because Mocha Jesus got elected.


;)

I actually read one of Clapper's last documents quite awhile back. The one he made in January '17, right before he resigned. Hrmm.. President Trump gets sworn in, Clapper writes a nasty doc about some vague & trumped-up suspicions about Trump-Russia collusion without any evidence given, then he promptly quits shortly after penning this partisan faux memo intended to support the soft coup.

The dude needs to sizzle in the interrogation chair. Let him lie himself into deeper shit. At some point his special Get Out Of Jail Free card will get revoked.


You mean that someone will rise to a position of authority that CAN prosecute him AND on whom Clapper doesn't have any dirt to intimidate them from doing otherwise.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Obama DOJ & FBI Conspiracy
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 2:13 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 18766
Reputation points: 17177
chijohnaok wrote:
NefariousKoel wrote:

;)

I actually read one of Clapper's last documents quite awhile back. The one he made in January '17, right before he resigned. Hrmm.. President Trump gets sworn in, Clapper writes a nasty doc about some vague & trumped-up suspicions about Trump-Russia collusion without any evidence given, then he promptly quits shortly after penning this partisan faux memo intended to support the soft coup.

The dude needs to sizzle in the interrogation chair. Let him lie himself into deeper shit. At some point his special Get Out Of Jail Free card will get revoked.


You mean that someone will rise to a position of authority that CAN prosecute him AND on whom Clapper doesn't have any dirt to intimidate them from doing otherwise.


* wink wink nod nod *

.. and then Clapper & Co will do their best to get rid of such a threat to their oligarchy. ;)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Obama DOJ & FBI Conspiracy
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 3:40 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 10502
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 12874
I have a sneaking suspicion that the rules of engagement by which Team Trump operates will change in non-trivial ways after the 2018 elections, although not to the 'maximum.'

After November 2020, I suspect we will see the Kid Gloves come off COMPLETELY.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Obama DOJ & FBI Conspiracy
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2018 8:33 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 28687
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 19649
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/ ... standards/

Quote:
POLITICS & POLICY

In Politicized Justice, Desperate Times Call for Disparate Measures

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
May 19, 2018 6:00 AM

FBI director Comey and the Obama Justice Department applied a double standard in their handling of the Clinton-email and Trump–Russia investigations.
We wuz robbed. That’s the theme Democrats and their media allies are working hard to cement into conventional wisdom. And robbed in a very specific way: The 2016 presidential election, we’re to believe, was stolen from Hillary Clinton by disparate treatment. As Democrats tell it, the FBI scandalized their candidate while protecting Donald Trump.

You might think peddling that story with a straight face would be a major challenge. But they figure it may work because it was test-driven by the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, in his now infamous press conference on July 5, 2016 — back when the law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus on which we rely to read the security tea leaves was simply certain that Mrs. Clinton would win.

If you or I had set up an unauthorized private communications system for official business for the patent purpose of defeating federal record-keeping and disclosure laws; if we had retained and transmitted thousands of classified emails on this non-secure system; if we had destroyed tens of thousands of government records; if we had carried out that destruction while those records were under subpoena; if we had lied to the FBI in our interview — well, we’d be writing this column from the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth. Yet, in a feat of dizzying ratiocination, Director Comey explained that to prosecute Mrs. Clinton would be to hold her to a nitpicking, selective standard of justice not imposed on other Americans.

So it was that the New York Times, in this week’s 4,100-word exposé on the origins of the FBI’s Trump–Russia probe, recycled the theme: Government investigators were savagely public about Clinton’s trifling missteps while keeping mum about the Manchurian candidate’s treasonous conspiracy with Putin.

As we contended in rebuttal on Thursday, the Times’ facts are selective and its narrative theme of disparate treatment is hogwash: Clinton’s bid was saved, not destroyed, by Obama’s law-enforcement agencies, which tanked a criminal case on which she should have been indicted. And the hush-hush approach taken to the counterintelligence case against Donald Trump was not intended to protect the Republican candidate; it was intended to protect the Obama administration from the specter of a Watergate-level scandal had its spying on the opposition party’s presidential campaign been revealed.

But let’s put that aside. Let’s consider the disparate-treatment claim on its own terms.

The DNC Server

It has now been confirmed that the Trump campaign was subjected to spying tactics under counterintelligence law — FISA surveillance, national-security letters, and covert intelligence operatives who work with the CIA and allied intelligence services. It made no difference, apparently, that there was an ongoing election campaign, which the FBI is supposed to avoid affecting; nor did it matter that the spy targets were American citizens, as to whom there is supposed to be evidence of purposeful, clandestine, criminal activity on behalf of a foreign power before counterintelligence powers are invoked.

But what was the rationale for using these spying authorities?

The fons et origo of the counterintelligence investigation was the suspicion — which our intelligence agencies assure us is a fact — that the Democratic National Committee’s server was hacked by covert Russian operatives. Without this cyber-espionage attack, there would be no investigation. But how do we know it really happened? The Obama Justice Department never took custody of the server — no subpoena, no search warrant. The server was thus never subjected to analysis by the FBI’s renowned forensics lab, and its evidentiary integrity was never preserved for courtroom presentation to a jury.

How come? Well, you see, there was an ongoing election campaign, so the Obama Justice Department figured it would be a terrible imposition to pry into the Democrats’ communications. So, yes, the entire “Russia hacked the election” narrative the nation has endured for nearly two years hinges on the say-so of CrowdStrike, a private DNC contractor with significant financial ties to the Clinton campaign.

In Investigations 101, using foreign-intelligence authorities to spy on Americans is extraordinary, while taking custody of essential physical evidence is basic. By the way, the government’s failure to ensure the evidentiary integrity of the DNC server by taking possession of it and performing its own rigorous testing on it makes it practically impossible to prosecute anyone for “colluding” in Russia’s cyber-espionage. It’s tough to prove that anyone conspired in something unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the something actually happened the way you say it happened. To do that in a courtroom, you need evidence — a confident probability analysis by your intelligence agencies won’t do.

The Espionage Act v. the Logan Act

Here is then-director Comey’s explanation of why Mrs. Clinton should not be indicted for patent felony violations of the Espionage Act’s provisions on mishandling classified information:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.


This statutory analysis is gibberish. Notwithstanding that Mrs. Clinton’s actions were intentional and willful, the Espionage Act does not require proof of that mental state. Despite considerable evidence that she obstructed investigations, it’s not necessary to prove that either. Nor to establish disloyalty or any intent to harm the United States. To avoid indicting Mrs. Clinton, the FBI and Justice Department ignored the statute that has been on the books for a century and substituted an impossible-to-prove statute of their imagination.

Now, let’s consider a statute that’s been on the books for over two centuries, the Logan Act.

Despite the absence of any evidence that the Trump campaign conspired in Russia’s espionage, the Obama Justice Department — led by then–acting attorney general Sally Yates — relied on the Logan Act to conduct a criminal investigation of General Michael Flynn, a 30-year decorated combat veteran. A key Trump campaign adviser who played a central role in the Trump transition and was designated as the incoming national-security adviser, it was Flynn’s job to communicate with such foreign counterparts as Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, a Washington fixture whose dance card has never been short on Democrats. Flynn was also an intense Obama critic, and the outgoing administration understood that he was preparing to reverse Obama policies.

The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigated Flynn — including an ambush interview — on the theory that his discussions with Kislyak and other diplomats violated the Logan Act. Currently codified as Section 953 of the federal penal code, this statute purports to criminalize “any correspondence or intercourse” with agents of a foreign sovereign conducted “without authority of the United States” — an impossibly vague term that probably means permission from the executive branch. The Logan Act is patently unconstitutional, but no court has had the opportunity to invalidate it because, to borrow a phrase, no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. As our Dan McLaughlin has explained, the Act dates to 1799, a dark time for free-speech rights during the John Adams administration. Never in its 219-year history has it resulted in a single conviction; indeed, there have been only two indictments, the last one in 1852.

By contrast, there have been several prosecutions under the Espionage Act, including several convictions of military personnel prosecuted under the same provisions at issue in Mrs. Clinton’s case — although their misconduct was far less extensive.




Continued at above link due to length

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 576 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 54, 55, 56, 57, 58

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group