Perhaps there is some hope for the Republic after all

Is Sen. Ron Wyden trying to warn the public about an unknown government surveillance effort that affects domestic communications? The Oregon Democrat isn’t saying, leaving experts guessing as he presses a cryptic inquiry.

On Thursday the privacy advocate's office circulated to reporters a letter Wyden sent to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, demanding that Coats offer a third answer to a question about government surveillance.

The question, first asked by Wyden at a June 7 hearing and restated Thursday, seems straightforward: “Can the government use FISA Act Section 702 to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic?”

Click here for the rest of what I consider to be a bigger scandal than Watergate and the coup d'etat "gate"(i.e. the Russian investigation against our president) combined! 

Views: 126

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

THAT's what I want to know. How the hell does domestic = foreign??

IT DOES NOT!! This is 0bama and his bullshit again!!

Any, and every thing coming from the mouth of Wyden fits into three categories. One, patently stupid. Two, based on ignorance without limitation, and three, completely designed to advance the agenda of the Left, and the truth can go straight to hell.

This man is not to be considered as a Senator interested in anything other than his own personal vain attempt at relevance. He is a waste, period.

Sometimes people even look like what they are.  And he does, in spades.

FISA has no provision to gather domestic intel thru ease dropping... or any means.  FISA stands for FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT...  Surprise, The FOREIGN INTEL SURVEILLANCE ACT does not authorize DOMESTIC intel surveillance?

"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a United States federal law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of espionage or terrorism."

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

Why would a US Senator think otherwise... FISA doesn't authorize domestic surveillance, and any incidental collection from a domestic source is supposed to be 'masked'  (protected/hidden) without a FISA Judge, issuing a FISA warrant,  which provides authorization to unmask... the domestic source.

Yes, one would think so. So why hasn't the National Intelligence Agency responded the way you just did? 

Why do tyrants do what they do?  Answer that question and you will know why the NSA and our intel services act the way they do.

The most severe threat this Nation has faced since the Civil War is, once again, not a foreign one, but criminals within determined to utterly control the government and the public by the incessant effort to abolish patriotism and sovereignty, replacing it with dependence rather than the independence our Founders were willing to give their lives for.

All government agencies have been compromised by this assault continuing over many years. Justice is largely a joke and corruption is now the normal means in doing business. The free press is now a criminal enterprise only following the orders they are given rather than presenting useful information regarding events.

If this condition is not stopped and turned around, then we will not survive, and America will be lost. High stakes, indeed.

Dale:

I could agree more or said it better...

 One of the FISA Act Section 702, Section 702. Title VII, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), “Procedures for. Targeting Certain Persons Outside the United States Other ...

New England Law Review: Volume 48, Number 1 - Fall 2013:
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1610278607
New England Law Review - 2014 - ‎Law
2 (2013) (requiring semiannual reports of Section 215 and Section 702 surveillance in ... 191 See,e.g., FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012,Pub. L. No. ... Constitutional and common law doctrines dating back to the Magna Carta ...

First you look up a act, then you study the policy, see if it was a Constitutional Act, or a Federal Mandate, such as legislation for regulations.

 [PDF]Justice-Commission-Presentation-for-TBK-7-19 ... - Take Back Kentucky
www.takebackkentucky.com/.../Justice-Commission-Presentation-for-TB.......
due process provision was found in the Magna Charta, as well as early state .... Google Inc. under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over ...

Legislation for Regulations, the solution to instate Laws, as a way to govern without a so said violation of the Constitution. The Proxy of the system, is seen as  Magna Carta Acts, by the Democratic Democracy, and Obama,the Clinton's were gifted with the ability to do so. The Bush Family, pushed such Congressional Acts, under the legislation body of the UK.

 People see it, but they lack the ability to read through the cluster of codes.

Trump, now has very dangerous goals, the last President that tried to remove the Fed, died.

 My last reply on this subject !

I have one to ask, seeing how Jason is tripping every one out, including me, ready here it is.

 I know you seen the little Conspiracy Theory of (NAFTA) North American Trade Agreement, of which Trump does not like,but the NAFTA is listed as a NAFTA Magna Carta Treaty,

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

 

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 

 

Questions and Deceptions Of the Constitutional Democratic Democracy

 With bias, and not in respect to the Republican Party or the Democrat party of We The People. The Republic Of America. 

1. Why would the framers insist that even the most insignificant federal regulations should trump even the most important of state constitutional provisions?
2.  If a state makes criminal an action using language identical to language in a federal statute criminalizing the same action, is the state law preempted?  Clearly, there would be no conflict between federal and state law, but might state criminal enforcement jeopardize federal enforcement, or might the federal government be seen as having occupied the field of criminal enforcement?  (See Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956), in which the Supreme Court found preempted a state sedition law virtually identical in its reach with the federal sedition law.)
3.  If the federal government has occupied a field of regulation, for preemption purposes it becomes important to precisely identify the boundaries of that field.  What suggestions to you have for how that inquiry ought to be conducted?
4.  Don't punitive damages against a nuclear plant have the same practical effect as direct state regulation of the plant?  What is the basis for finding the latter preempted but the former not in Silkwood?
5.  How should we read federal statutes for preemption purposes?  Should we read them normally, as Justices Thomas and Scalia contend, or should we read them narrowly ( a presumption against preemption) as the other justices in Cippollone argued?

LOL Tif

Hell Ya ! You Go Girl ! LMAO

1. Why would the framers insist that even the most insignificant federal regulations should trump even the most important of state constitutional provisions? 

First the framers never insisted that federal regulations should trump state constitutional provisions.... they limited the powers of the federal government to SPECIFIC powers as contained in Article 1, Section 8 and 9. They also, restricted their ability to make Laws to those specific areas and nothing more.  

Next, the Constitution clearly limits the scope of the Federal Government too making only those Laws and establishing those Treaties that PURSUE the Constitution... remain within the four corners of the Constitution.  The Federal Government may not make Laws or ratify Treaties that fall outside of their Constitutional Powers as delegated in the Constitution... Period.

Finally, the Federal Government has passed Statutory law, promulgated regulations and  Treaties that don't make Constitutional muster... they exceed the authority of the President and Congress. Fundamental changes or amendments to the US Constitution may only be made pursuant to Article 4 of the US Constitution and require 3/4ths of the States to ratify them.  Therefore, any Treaty or statutory Law that is clearly outside of the four corners of the Constitution are not enforceable.  

The State's and the People have abdicated their Constitutional sovereignty and power... under Article 9 and 10 of the US Constitution... to the Federal Government.  They have permitted the Federal Government and its Courts to grossly exceed the limits on their powers.  The Courts for example are limited in there Jurisdiction over the States, by Article 3, Section 1, Clause 2,  in all cases affecting States the Supreme Court alone has original jurisdiction.  The inferior Federal Courts have NO... Zero... Constitutional Jurisdiction to hear cases involving a State.  

The abdication of the People and the State, to properly restrain the Federal Government, has made the Constitution moot as a lawful document.  Until the Federal Courts, Congress and the Administration are once more bound by the four corners of the Constitution, under the authority of the People and the several States we don't have Constitutional Government at all.  America is being ruled by a plutocracy.... a cabal of the wealthy and their corporations.  The Constitutional voice of the People and there State Governments has been totally mooted.   

2.  If a state makes criminal an action using language identical to language in a federal statute criminalizing the same action, is the state law preempted?  Clearly, there would be no conflict between federal and state law, but might state criminal enforcement jeopardize federal enforcement, or might the federal government be seen as having occupied the field of criminal enforcement?  (See Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956), in which the Supreme Court found preempted a state sedition law virtually identical in its reach with the federal sedition law.) 

First, the only Constitutional Jurisdiction for criminal law granted to the Federal Government is limited to Federal Property and the enforcement of Constitutional federal law and regulations. SInce, many of the federal laws are not Constitutional the federal courts have no jurisdiction to enforce them.  Those federal laws which are Constitutional and carry criminal penalties are under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.

Next, State Criminal Statues have precedent, where Federal Courts have no Jurisdictional authority ... powers.  Federal Courts derive their Jurisdiction from the Constitution, Article 3, Sections 2 and 3.  Where both the State and Federal Government have conflicts of Jurisdiction the Federal Courts have a superior claim ... If the Federal Courts decide to press their jurisdictional claim.  If the Federal Courts fail to press their claim, the State's may proceed... with their claim.

3.  If the federal government has occupied a field of regulation, for preemption purposes it becomes important to precisely identify the boundaries of that field.  What suggestions to you have for how that inquiry ought to be conducted?

 I suggest that the State's use NULLIFICATION... ignore Unconstitutional Federal Law and pass legislation that penalizes and or criminalizes anyone who attempts to enforce UnConstitutional law.

Failing that, Jury Nullification... we need to educate juries on their right, as the final artibors of the law, too reject any case as unlawful that ignores the Constitution... its jurisdictional prohibitions and provisions.  Jury's were to be the final line of protection against unjust or unconstitutional law.


4.  Don't punitive damages against a nuclear plant have the same practical effect as direct state regulation of the plant?  What is the basis for finding the latter preempted but the former not in Silkwood?

In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the original verdict, in Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp. 464 US 238 (1984), ruling that "the NRC's exclusive authority to set safety standards did not foreclose the use of state tort remedies."[19]

5.  How should we read federal statutes for preemption purposes?  Should we read them normally, as Justices Thomas and Scalia contend, or should we read them narrowly ( a presumption against preemption) as the other justices in Cippollone argued?

I believe that federal statutes must be read 'normally' as intended by Congress... with a view to ensure they are both Constitutional and supported by Statutory authority.  Some regulations may be Constitutional but have no Congressional Statutory Authority.  Promulgating agencies must not be permitted to issue regulations where they have neither constitutional or statutory authority to do so.

That is not the case today... we have many regulations that are not constitutional and have exceeded or have zero statutory authority.

I wounder how long it took you to find this so you copy and paste it ?

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

ALERT ALERT

Breaking:  FBI Admits Comey Leaked Memos 
 That Were Classified   Material! 

The FBI turned over the Comey memos to Congress today after missing their deadline earlier in the week.

Congressional leaders threatened to impeach deep state leaders if they continued to stall on the memos.

Fired FBI Chief James Comey wrote about the memos in his book and leaked the documents to reporters last year. Congress has not yet had a chance to look at the memos — Until tonight.

AND—– THE MEMOS ARE CLASSIFIED!

Meaning Fired FBI Chief James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS TO THE PRESS.

From the report:

From the DOJ to Congress:

Therefore, pursuant to your request, we are providing the requested memoranda in both the redacted and unredacted formats for your convenience. Consistent with your request, we are providing an unclassified version of the documents redacted to remove any classified information.

The DOJ wrote Congressional leaders this evening.

page 2

Hannity: Good news for Trump, crushing blows for the left

GOP Congressional Leaders Nunes, Gowdy And Goodlatte Release Statement On Comey Memos

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) issued a statement on the memos later tonight.

The House chairmen note that the memos prove that fired Director Comey never felt obstructed or threatened from his relationship with the president.

And… former Director Comey leaked at least one of these memos for the stated purpose of spurring the appointment of Special Counsel.

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence published the statement tonight:

Today House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) issued the following statement:

“We have long argued former Director Comey’s self-styled memos should be in the public domain, subject to any classification redactions. These memos are significant for both what is in them and what is not.

Former Director Comey’s memos show the President made clear he wanted allegations of collusion, coordination, and conspiracy between his campaign and Russia fully investigated. The memos also made clear the ‘cloud’ President Trump wanted lifted was not the Russian interference in the 2016 election cloud, rather it was the salacious, unsubstantiated allegations related to personal conduct leveled in the dossier.

The memos also show former Director Comey never wrote that he felt obstructed or threatened. While former Director Comey went to great lengths to set dining room scenes, discuss height requirements, describe the multiple times he felt complimented, and myriad other extraneous facts, he never once mentioned the most relevant fact of all, which was whether he felt obstructed in his investigation.

The memos also make certain what has become increasingly clear of late: former Director Comey has at least two different standards in his interactions with others. He chose not to memorialize conversations with President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, Secretary Clinton, Andrew McCabe or others, but he immediately began to memorialize conversations with President Trump. It is significant former Director Comey made no effort to memorialize conversations with former Attorney General Lynch despite concerns apparently significant enough to warrant his unprecedented appropriation of the charging decision away from her and the Department of Justice in July of 2016.

These memos also lay bare the notion that former Director Comey is not motivated by animus. He was willing to work for someone he deemed morally unsuited for office, capable of lying, requiring of personal loyalty, worthy of impeachment, and sharing the traits of a mob boss. Former Director Comey was willing to overlook all of the aforementioned characteristics in order to keep his job. In his eyes, the real crime was his own firing.

The memos show Comey was blind to biases within the FBI and had terrible judgment with respect to his deputy Andrew McCabe. On multiple occasions he, in his own words, defended the character of McCabe after President Trump questioned McCabe.

Finally, former Director Comey leaked at least one of these memos for the stated purpose of spurring the appointment of Special Counsel, yet he took no steps to spur the appointment of Special Counsel when he had significant concerns about the objectivity of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

As we have consistently said, rather than making a criminal case for obstruction or interference with an ongoing investigation, these memos would be Defense Exhibit A should such a charge be made.”

YES PATRIOT STORE

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service