White House Won't Fire Mueller

[bripat9643]

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.

Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied, you congenital moron.

They were spied on before they were unmasked, you retarded partisan buffoon.

So you admit they were spied on.

 

[Syriusly]

No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason, such as national security issue.

So the distinction is that the government gave itself a free pass from the Constitution in the latter case. Otherwise, they have the same effect: the government gets to listen in on private conversations. That's exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.

You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Think you do? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client :rolleyes;

You failed to prove what I posted wrong. Whether it's an effective legal strategy isn't being discussed here.

You posted baseless bullshit, there is nothing to dispute.

No where in constitution does it say that legally acquired evidence (Kysliak's communications) cannot be used against a person he is having a conversation with.

In criminal case law this is a total non-issue. Once evidence is acquired legally, enforcement can follow it wherever it leads to.

The law that allows the govenment to spy on Americans is unconstitutional, you Stalinist douchebag.

And that law was just reauthorized by the Republican controlled Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump in January

Why do you believe that Trump and the Republicans are in favor of this 'unconstitutional law'?

 

[Syriusly]

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

Only a Fascist would lie like you do in order to protect your Dear Leader.

The names of former campaign members were unmasked- legally- as part of an investigation.

Unmasking is not the same thing as wire tapping- but like your Fascist heroes- you certainly like 'alternative facts'

I know you will excuse anything the Obama administration does, even if it's staight out of Stalin's playbook. Any law that allows the an administration to spy on the campaign of the opposing party is obviously not constitutional. Only servile stalinist bootlickers would disagree.

President Donald Trump has signed the FISA reauthorization bill

President Donald Trump has signed the FISA reauthorization bill

 

[Syriusly]

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.

Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied, you congenital moron.

They were spied on before they were unmasked, you retarded partisan buffoon.

So you admit they were spied on.

Former campaign members were 'spied upon' as part of surveillance against Russia- sure.

Of course Trump wasn't.
Nor were his campaign members.
Nor was Trump wiretapped.

All lies promoted by you.

 

[bripat9643]

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing.

No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason, such as national security issue.

So the distinction is that the government gave itself a free pass from the Constitution in the latter case. Otherwise, they have the same effect: the government gets to listen in on private conversations. That's exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.

You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Think you do? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client :rolleyes;

You failed to prove what I posted wrong. Whether it's an effective legal strategy isn't being discussed here.

You posted baseless bullshit, there is nothing to dispute.

No where in constitution does it say that legally acquired evidence (Kysliak's communications) cannot be used against a person he is having a conversation with.

In criminal case law this is a total non-issue. Once evidence is acquired legally, enforcement can follow it wherever it leads to.

The evidence wasn't legally obtained, dumbshit. You can't spy on Americans without a warrant, and a FISA court is not a real court where its actions can be observed by the public. Secret courts and secret warrants do not meet constitutional muster. They are an obscenity as far as the constitution is concerned.

 

[bripat9643]

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.

Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied, you congenital moron.

They were spied on before they were unmasked, you retarded partisan buffoon.

So you admit they were spied on.

Former campaign members were 'spied upon' as part of surveillance against Russia- sure.

Of course Trump wasn't.
Nor were his campaign members.
Nor was Trump wiretapped.

All lies promoted by you.

What's the difference between "former campaign members" and "campaign members?" Is that campaign still in progress? Somehow you imagine your fictional distinction makes a difference.

The bottom line is that the Obama administration spied on the campaign of the opposing party. If the tables were turned, all you snowflakes would be screaming bloody murder.

Trump was spied on
His campaign staff was spied on.
The use of the term "wiretap" is irrelevent.

 

[bripat9643]

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

Only a Fascist would lie like you do in order to protect your Dear Leader.

The names of former campaign members were unmasked- legally- as part of an investigation.

Unmasking is not the same thing as wire tapping- but like your Fascist heroes- you certainly like 'alternative facts'

I know you will excuse anything the Obama administration does, even if it's staight out of Stalin's playbook. Any law that allows the an administration to spy on the campaign of the opposing party is obviously not constitutional. Only servile stalinist bootlickers would disagree.

President Donald Trump has signed the FISA reauthorization bill

President Donald Trump has signed the FISA reauthorization bill

Yes he did. A big mistake. I'm sure a bunch of sleazy establishment Republicans told him he had to.

 

[bripat9643]

Whether it's their job has been debated since Mrvury v. Madison. That doesn't alter the fact that the SC interprets it to mean what the judges wish it meant, not what it actually means.

LOL

You’re such a fucking moron...

Ok, so who’s supposed to interpret what it actually means, if not the Judiciary?

A moron couldn't imagine any alternative to having the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution says.

Alternatives have been proposed. I see no point in disussing them with a moron who has no intention of listening with an open mind.

LOLOL

Translation: the USMB’s fucking moron knows his bullshit won’t stand up to scrutiny.

Obviously, name-calling is all the dumbass has got.

Fucking moron, I call you a fucking moron because you call yourself a fucking moron; with which I happen to agree.

You have to be a fucking moron to believe the photo is showing the Cuban coast.

Well, what do you know, that picture is actually in Cuba.

As far as Mueller, trump’s presidency is effectively finished if he fires him.

As far as the Judiciary, the Constitution gives it Judicial powers over any legal case arising under the Constitution.

Now ya know.

Write it down.

Memorize it.

Spread the word.

Was the above blather supposed to prove you didn't post something totally wrong and utterly stupid?

 

[bripat9643]

So the distinction is that the government gave itself a free pass from the Constitution in the latter case. Otherwise, they have the same effect: the government gets to listen in on private conversations. That's exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.

You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Think you do? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client :rolleyes;

You failed to prove what I posted wrong. Whether it's an effective legal strategy isn't being discussed here.

You posted baseless bullshit, there is nothing to dispute.

No where in constitution does it say that legally acquired evidence (Kysliak's communications) cannot be used against a person he is having a conversation with.

In criminal case law this is a total non-issue. Once evidence is acquired legally, enforcement can follow it wherever it leads to.

The law that allows the govenment to spy on Americans is unconstitutional, you Stalinist douchebag.

And that law was just reauthorized by the Republican controlled Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump in January

Why do you believe that Trump and the Republicans are in favor of this 'unconstitutional law'?

There is no shortage of douchebag establishment Republicans in Congress.

 

[kaz]

That's for sure. They are pathetic

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it truth

Yet you keep doing it, thinking that some idiots will believe your lie.

Playground! Syriusly's home turf

 

[kaz]

No, he revealed his Fascist cloven hoof.

hey bri have any excuse to make for trumps lead lawyer walking out?

As a business owner and career management / management consultant I've worked with a lot of lawyers.

The worst ones who don't last are the ones who think I work for them, they don't work for me

his LEAD lawyer?? He was getting paid to give advice NOT have it ignored We already know trump is smarter than the generals ,,,Lawyers too???

My post directly addressed that. Yes, his LEAD lawyer works for Trump too. Obviously you have no experience working with lawyers, but their job is to advise you and learn what YOU want to do, then help you do it. Trump does not work for his lawyers, they work for him

So you mean if your lawyer advises you not to do something you want to do, they're wrong?

That question is wayyyyy too vague to answer.

I get advice from my lawyer and consider that. I ask them why and what the consequences are. I tell them what I want to do and see what the tradeoffs would be. I don't worship lawyers like you do. My lawyers work for me

 

[Syriusly]

You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Think you do? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client :rolleyes;

You failed to prove what I posted wrong. Whether it's an effective legal strategy isn't being discussed here.

You posted baseless bullshit, there is nothing to dispute.

No where in constitution does it say that legally acquired evidence (Kysliak's communications) cannot be used against a person he is having a conversation with.

In criminal case law this is a total non-issue. Once evidence is acquired legally, enforcement can follow it wherever it leads to.

The law that allows the govenment to spy on Americans is unconstitutional, you Stalinist douchebag.

And that law was just reauthorized by the Republican controlled Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump in January

Why do you believe that Trump and the Republicans are in favor of this 'unconstitutional law'?

There is no shortage of douchebag establishment Republicans in Congress.

So we are in agreement- Donald Trump is a douchebag.

 

[Syriusly]

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing. The bottom line is that the Obama administration conducted espionage against the opposing party's campaign. Only a Stalinist wouldn't see a problem with that.

Only a Fascist would lie like you do in order to protect your Dear Leader.

The names of former campaign members were unmasked- legally- as part of an investigation.

Unmasking is not the same thing as wire tapping- but like your Fascist heroes- you certainly like 'alternative facts'

I know you will excuse anything the Obama administration does, even if it's staight out of Stalin's playbook. Any law that allows the an administration to spy on the campaign of the opposing party is obviously not constitutional. Only servile stalinist bootlickers would disagree.

President Donald Trump has signed the FISA reauthorization bill

President Donald Trump has signed the FISA reauthorization bill

Yes he did. A big mistake. I'm sure a bunch of sleazy establishment Republicans told him he had to.

Because of course Donald Trump is just a gullible fool and doesn't know what he signs....

 

[kaz]

Stop kazzing, you’re not quoting the 4th Amendment. You’re stating what you wish it said; not what it actually says.

That's exactly what the SC does.

LOL

It’s their jobto interpret the Constitution when a case on it arises. That doesn’t help Kaz’s dementia.

Whether it's their job has been debated since Mrvury v. Madison. That doesn't alter the fact that the SC interprets it to mean what the judges wish it meant, not what it actually means.

LOL

You’re such a fucking moron...

Ok, so who’s supposed to interpret what it actually means, if not the Judiciary?

A moron couldn't imagine any alternative to having the Supreme Court decide what the Constitution says.

Alternatives have been proposed. I see no point in disussing them with a moron who has no intention of listening with an open mind.

State legislatures should balance the Federal government. That's where the real power should be. Legislators who run for the Federal government legislature should consider it a step down and a sacrifice

 

[Syriusly]

He did not, ya fucking moron. Not a single campaign member was spied on.

Their names were unmasked, which means they were spied, you congenital moron.

They were spied on before they were unmasked, you retarded partisan buffoon.

So you admit they were spied on.

Former campaign members were 'spied upon' as part of surveillance against Russia- sure.

Of course Trump wasn't.
Nor were his campaign members.
Nor was Trump wiretapped.

All lies promoted by you.

What's the difference between "former campaign members" and "campaign members?"

You don't know?

Here is a clue: a former campaign member is not part of the campaign.

So when you say claim that Donald Trump was wiretapped- and then we point out that you are lying.

And then when you switch to lying saying that Donald Trump's campaign was wiretapped- and we point out that there was no campaign member wire tapped- then you will then ask what the difference is between a person working for the campaign- and someone not working for the campaign.

 

[kaz]

That's for sure. They are pathetic

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing.

No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone at DoJ or CIA in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason to have done it.

You already admitted that Flynn was wiretapped by the Feds pretending to wiretap a Russian who he talked to

 

[Syriusly]

Is that a Constitutional quote too?

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing.

No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone at DoJ or CIA in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason to have done it.

You already admitted that Flynn was wiretapped by the Feds pretending to wiretap a Russian who he talked to

No- again- you are just kazzing again.

I admitted that Michael Flynn's conversation was caught because the Russian Ambassador's phone was tapped- and Flynn was speaking with the Ambassador.

And then lied about it.

Which is why he was fired. And was one of the first Trump former campaign members to plead guilty to charges brought by Mueller.

 

[kaz]

If Hillary's staff was being wiretapped without a warrant using that shallow excuse past that particular Constitutional inconvenience, you'd suddenly grasp the issue

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing.

No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone at DoJ or CIA in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason to have done it.

You already admitted that Flynn was wiretapped by the Feds pretending to wiretap a Russian who he talked to

No- again- you are just kazzing again.

I admitted that Michael Flynn's conversation was caught because the Russian Ambassador's phone was tapped- and Flynn was speaking with the Ambassador.

And then lied about it.

Which is why he was fired. And was one of the first Trump former campaign members to plead guilty to charges brought by Mueller.

I wondered how long you could keep it up. Obviously I don't care how much you insult me, but use your own material. Not interested in the playground crowd that you want to belong to. Given the number of times we've been through this, I won't waste either of our time by giving you a warning. I never make final decisions, but I can't imagine we're going to do it again.

So ...

 

[Syriusly]

Since none of Trump's staff were wiretapped without a warrant that is hardly relevant.

Their names were unmasked, which is effectively the same thing.

No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone at DoJ or CIA in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason to have done it.

You already admitted that Flynn was wiretapped by the Feds pretending to wiretap a Russian who he talked to

No- again- you are just kazzing again.

I admitted that Michael Flynn's conversation was caught because the Russian Ambassador's phone was tapped- and Flynn was speaking with the Ambassador.

And then lied about it.

Which is why he was fired. And was one of the first Trump former campaign members to plead guilty to charges brought by Mueller.

, I won't waste either of our time by giving you a warning.

LOL.....as you proceed to do just that....in order to deflect from replying to the substance of my post

To repeat:

No- again- you are just kazzing again.

I admitted that Michael Flynn's conversation was caught because the Russian Ambassador's phone was tapped- and Flynn was speaking with the Ambassador.

And then lied about it.

Which is why he was fired. And was one of the first Trump former campaign members to plead guilty to charges brought by Mueller.

 

[AntonToo]

No it is not "the same thing", wiretapping someone's lines requires a FISA warrant, internal unmasking someone in already captured communications does not, all you need is a proper reason, such as national security issue.

So the distinction is that the government gave itself a free pass from the Constitution in the latter case. Otherwise, they have the same effect: the government gets to listen in on private conversations. That's exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.

You fools have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Think you do? Go give a call Flynn's lawyers and tell them how to better defend their client. Tell them about what a huge transgression was done against his constitutional rights and how incompetent they are to allow the government to get away with using such a tainted evidence into a case against their client :rolleyes;

You failed to prove what I posted wrong. Whether it's an effective legal strategy isn't being discussed here.

You posted baseless bullshit, there is nothing to dispute.

No where in constitution does it say that legally acquired evidence (Kysliak's communications) cannot be used against a person he is having a conversation with.

In criminal case law this is a total non-issue. Once evidence is acquired legally, enforcement can follow it wherever it leads to.

The evidence wasn't legally obtained, dumbshit. You can't spy on Americans without a warrant, and a FISA court is not a real court where its actions can be observed by the public. Secret courts and secret warrants do not meet constitutional muster. They are an obscenity as far as the constitution is concerned.

Yes it was ignoramus. Kysliak's lines were 100% legally wiretaped.

How can you rightwingers be so wrong, so often? It's an art form.