Friar Bijou wrote:
Look, little buddy: While I can't say for any certainty what happened it's clear that this President and his people are extremely opaque is all their doings. Something (or several somethings) have occurred which have a stink about them and people want clear answers which are not forthcoming from this administration.
Way to basically chuck the entire concept of 60% of the bill of rights out the window. You do understand that we have due process rules precisely because "has a stink about him" isn't a great reason to base the use of executive power on, right? I mean, you do actually understand this? Please tell me you do...
"We think something stinks and needs investigating at the highest levels" was a good enough excuse to go after Hillary for years. It's certainly sufficient for an investigation of President Cheeto and his posse.
I'm sorry. Could you show me the point at which unwarranted surveillance (or even warranted) was used against Clinton at any point in this? No one's saying that having an investigation is wrong. What we're saying is "secretly using our intelligence services to spy on someone because you don't like them" instead of having an above board investigation
is a serious problem and represents a break down of some of the most fundamental constitutional protections that folks like Obama were supposed to be upholding. He took an oath to protect and defend the constitution, not the odds of his party winning the next election. It's pretty clear that he put one of those in front of the other, and it wasn't the constitution he was protecting.
How massive must your blinders be for you not to see this? On the one hand we have nothing
to support the claim that Trump or his campaign did a single thing to justify being spied upon. On the other, we absolutely know that the Obama administration, apparently under the direct orders of Obama himself (unless you think that the National Security Adviser position is anything other than the presidents direct link to our intelligence agencies, and orders from said person are treated as coming directly from the president, that is), engaged in direct and targeted surveillance of members of the Trump campaign.
Again, even if there was a FISA warrant obtained (and guess what? We have no evidence or confirmation of that, which you'd think would be the very first thing that would be trotted out if you were trying to justify what you did), It still has a very very negative political connotation. We can't have a system where the party in power uses what should be non-political agencies for political reasons. And if you think that "detecting and preventing some kind of wrongdoing" was remotely as much a motivator for this spying as "finding something we can use against Trump to help Clinton win", you are probably the most naive person on the planet.
Given that the *only* effect we've seen from this surveillance was the illegal leaking of the contents of a conversation by Flynn, and it was leaked specifically to damage him and Trump, I don't think it's wrong to suggest that this was precisely why the unmasking and distribution of that surveillance was done in the first place. Where's the supposed collusion that prompted all of this? I'll give you a prediction: It didn't happen. But we'll spend the next couple years with demands for investigations, and then investigations, and speculative news stories, and as much smokescreen as possible, all designed to do maximum political damage based on what "might be", but over time, the topic will shift, and you'll have forgotten that the original claim, that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, was never proven. And it wont matter to you by then either.
Because this is how these things work. Remember the massive smoke screen of the Plame investigation? Remember how we had to get to the bottom of who leaked Plames identity and CIA employment? Remember a freaking movie
made that dramatically (and hysterically falsely) went off on a dream quest of all the people presumably harmed because of her outing? You remember all of that, right? Do you also remember how none of it was true
. There was no outing. She wasn't really a secret agent of the CIA. There were no secret lists of contacts at risk. And the source of the "leak" of her identity wasn't anyone connected to the Bush white house, and worse, the investigators knew that before they even started their investigation
. The purpose of the investigation itself wasn't ever about finding out who outed her, because it wasn't a crime and they already knew. The purpose was entirely about causing political damage to president Bush, by the mere act of having an investigation.
This is no different. It's a political party finding themselves out of power, and using any trick they can to try to cast fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the other direction. And heck, it worked back in the mid 2000s, leading to the Dems retaking congress and the White House, so maybe it'll work this time too? I guess when your party doesn't have any actual platform to stand on that can sufficiently win them elections, the only thing they've got left is "make the voters afraid of the other guy". We'll see how well it works this time around. Edited, Apr 7th 2017 6:28pm by gbaji