doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com A reminder from our Founding Fathers

I appreciate the time you offered to walk through these thoughts. They are insightful, but are you concluding that there was intent to collude?

I think we can say that what you commented about Mueller is true. Instead of speculation about his finding, wouldn't a special counsel related question be why in this case did he make that politically charged televised report and extrapolate with opinion not in his report? Who knows, maybe he'll share when he testifies, or maybe we'll see future counsels that take the political ball and run with it instead of dabble around the edges.

Is it productive to speculate about what an agency fails to deny? Did you uncover facts that're being ignored by right wing conspiracy theorists? The one thing that we can both see in plain sight, is that the CIA director from the last administration lost his security clearance. Was that political retaliation from the top, or did the agency have to make a decision based on improper use if the information? Who knows, but his televised track record of statements has taken a distinct backtracking trend in recent months.

Why did you characterize a couple of folks as love birds? Doesn't that conflict with your 'how it really is' approach? All we really know is that they were relieved from the highest level of duty for reasons not related to their private lives, right? Did the acting director get relieved from duty purely for politics, even McCabe has been tap dancing in recent months on tv instead of maintain professional standards. And, wouldn't you say it's misleading to speculate on non leaking, when the relieved director himself volunteered that he leaked information to an unauthorized friend to ensure a special counsel would be appointed? Why isn't that a juicier area to speculate about?

You mentioned Page and FISA being rock solid. Do we know that or are we speculating about that? Maybe, maybe not, but aren't the facts that we might learn more about FISA abuses in the upcoming Horowitz report? I think a key point about this 'discussion' is that just because nca likes to repeat things, doesn't logically follow on that they are true, right?

Junior very clearly intended to collude. He said so in an email. Eager to get Russian govt dirt on Hillary. However, the dirt didn't materialize . . . so he dodged a bullet on that one. But, in response to his willingness to collude, I'll repeat the comment made by FBI Director Wray during his Senate confirmation hearings:

"To the members of this committee: Any threat or effort to interfere with our election, from any nation state or non-state actor, is the kind of thing the FBI would want to know."

In other words, if a campaign is approached with such an offer from a foreign government . . . no, you do NOT lick your chops over the thought of receiving the dirt in question. You report it to the FBI. Maybe they'll send along an agent (under cover), maybe wearing a wire, to the meeting where the dirt is supposed to be delivered. Slam, bam . . . we just nailed the bad guys. Maybe can charge them, try them, convict them, toss them in jail. If they have diplomatic immunity, kick them out of the country. That's how you send the message that we take such interference very seriously.

Craig, you do NOT sign away your First Amendment rights when you accept a security clearance--with CIA or with anyone else. But even after resigning, retiring, etc, you are still under the same rules when it comes to unauthorized disclosure of classified information--which, we're all briefed, is a fairly serious crime. And leakers have been convicted. Brennan lost his clearance not because he revealed classified information (he would have been charged if that had been the case), but because Trump didn't like some of the things he was saying.

I referred to the two FBI agents as love birds because they were . . . exchanging foolish emails about the campaign, obviously not liking Trump. But neither they nor anyone else leaked the existence of the investigation into possible collusion with Russia. If they had, it would have been a political bombshell of nuclear proportions. And the so-called "deep state" people--at CIA in particular--understand how to orchestrate a coup. They know very well that it's much easier to keep a candidate from being elected in the first place than it is to remove him after he's been elected. Especially within our system . . . where there's no precedent for successfully removing an elected president. (Nixon resigned.)

No speculation whatsoever about Page. We have his own testimony before Congress in which he relates how upset he was when the FBI knocked on his door to question him about his contacts with Russian spies. We have the transcripts from the bugs in the Russian office, in which the Russians discussed Page. Can't get a whole lot more rock solid than that.

I'm not commenting on nca's comments. I'm commenting on what I know to be accurate, from the record. Remember when the Republicans on the House Intel Committee submitted their memo questioning the legitimacy of the FISA warrant on Page? Feel free to read that memo . . . and tell me if they EVER bothered mentioning that the FBI had a file on Page's contacts with Russian intelligence going back years before there was a Trump campaign and before he'd been named a foreign policy adviser. Both FBI Director Wray and Director of National Intelligence Coats--BOTH APPOINTED BY TRUMP--complained to the White House that the Republican memo on the FISA warrant contained "material omissions of fact" . . . like the fact that the FBI knew about Page long before Steele ever went to work on his dossier.

Childish retort that means nothing, from a lost half-witted conspiracy theorist, brainwashed by the left-wing media who hate our President. What else you got, reprobate?
JR

Well,since you asked, an unyielding drive to point out that you and all other Trump supporters threw your country under the bus for personal gain. You are disloyal and unpatriotic and your actions smacks of hyprocracy when you attempt to honor the founding fathers. Where they around today they would send you packing.

The same can be said about you and your support of the 30 socialist candidates in the guise of the Democratic Party. The founding fathers are more likely to roll in their graves when they hear people like you spouting pundit rhetoric and disgracing his fellow Americans because they are smarter than you. It shows a real ignorance on your part. I believe if it were the 1770�s you would have been one that would have sided with the British. So I guess with all things considered we all owe you a debt of gratitude, for if it was not for people like you our founding fathers would not have been great in creating a nation to protect it�s citizens from the likes of you and your ilk!

You must be a product of a creationist educational system. Since you are so well versed in the Constitution and the founders, please point out where it created an economic system the government is bound to follow? You are aware that Socialism is a form of an economy and not a form of government, do you idiot? Here is a clue, Socialism was first espoused during the French Revolution in 1789. That's 13 years after the founding of the country and 2 years after the drafting of the Constitution.
I know, I know. When you think the earth is 6000 years old, timelines seem to merge.

Please also point out where the Constitution establishes a two party system as well?
News flash, it doesn't. In fact, the Founders, whom you falsely revere, disapproved and were distrustful of a two party system. They also HATED Kings and Monarchies, just like the one Trump thinks he is.

https://ritholtz.com/2011/07/founding-fathers-beware-two-party-system/

https://www.history.com/news/founding-fathers-political-parties-opinion

You are a lot like Jr. To stupid to know that you are disloyal and unpatriotic. Thankfully, ignorance is no defense.

Now we�re talking about the constitution, typical another excuse to name call and belittle, the modus operandi of the left! You are truly off your meds. You are mentally ill. Hopefully when Trump takes 2020 he�ll reopen up the mental wards and bring you back home! I�m surprised they actually let you own guns.

Constitutionalists may see a lot of slipping and sliding here of the purposes of the US constitution, or any constitution for that matter.

When Christ enunciated the philosophy that the Sabbath was made for man rather than vice versa he was giving expression to that feeling with which most modern students of constitutional law approach their subject. There was at one time a disposition to regard a national constitution, with all its machinery of �checks and balances,� and its fervent adherence to dogmatic principles of political and economic liberty, as a thing immutable and eternal and a clearly defined political concept to which all future social development must strictly conform.

This conception of the constitution quite naturally enjoyed the support of the great majority of political scientists in those periods when the social structure protected by the terms of the constitution continued to prove itself adequate to meet the demands for �the greatest possible happiness for the greatest number of people.� When it had quite obviously ceased to fulfill these demands and when the swelling agitation for reform began to throw an unprecedented strain on the machinery of government we find an increasing number of political students favouring the view that the constitution ought not to be regarded as a static formula, but as a fluid and flexible one.

This modern and certainly more popular view holds that the constitution, as a formula for social conduct, should be open to the broadest interpretations in order to meet the demands of a rapidly changing society. If necessary the constitution should be twisted, stretched, bent or even broken to make its structure conform to the changing shape of the social order, which occurs daily throughout the modern world, echoing Lincoln�s reminder: the people may exercise the constitutional right of amending the constitution, or the revolutionary right of over-throwing it---in brief, that the constitution was made for man, and not man for the constitution.

I offer this as a non-partisan opinion of constitutional development, of which my family has actively participated, written on and lectured for many decades.

Was hoping for something aboot tree bugs or golf but get this bullshyte.


___________________________
USA! USA! USA!
(England lost today)

Thank you for explaining it. I couldn't tell if nca is a contortionist or if it was just his time of the month. Haven't you shared many adventures of the underdog's righteous struggle? Is nca expressing his displeasure in taking the unpopular path?