Let's make it easy for the mods, and keep it all here. The Russian Collusion Hoax now exposed as a failed attempt by criminals inside and outside of the government to cover for crimes previously committed over the past decade, to rig the election to allow the continuance of their crimes, and ultimately the use of a SC in an attempted coup of a sitting President to prevent the prosecution for their crimes. And some will indeed be prosecuted. Being that most of the handful of crimes charged by the $30,000,000 Mueller fiasco were created by Mueller for leverage that only served to disprove what he hoped to find, the justification is at least supportable for several his victims to request Presidential pardons. Let's start with the obvious ones... Sen. Paul: Trump Should Pardon Flynn, Foreign Intel Shouldn’t be Used Against Americans By Petr Svab ch 27, 2019 Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he told President Donald Trump that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn should receive a pardon. Foreign intelligence was unfairly weaponized against Flynn in a way that should be unconstitutional, Paul said. “The one that I have the strongest feeling about is General Flynn,” he told Fox News on March 26 when asked if Trump should pardon anybody after special counsel Robert Mueller concluded his probe. In 2017, Mueller took over an FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with such interference. After nearly two years, he finished it without recommending any indictments related to collusion. Flynn pleaded guilty to a process crime, lying to FBI agents about conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The interviewing agents came to Flynn a day after he was appointed as Trump’s national security adviser. Armed with intercepts of Kislyak’s calls with Flynn, they caught him on several points answering inconsistently with how the calls went down. Paul took issue with how the call transcripts were obtained and used. “No American should be prosecuted for something they said in a private phone call unless a judge gave a warrant to the government and said they can listen to the phone call,” he said. “They listened to General Flynn because they were spying on the Russian ambassador. Okay, that’s foreign intelligence, but that shouldn’t be domestic prosecution. So what they did to Flynn not only was unfair, but I think should be unconstitutional.“ The senator would like to see even the incidental use of foreign intelligence against Americans greatly abridged. “I’ve been bugging the president for years to come forward and fix this for all Americans and say that no foreign intelligence gathering of information could ever be used against an American citizen in court for a crime unrelated to terrorism,” he said. “So what they did to General Flynn was unfair, and I have told the president—he’s not responded to me—but I’ve told him my opinion is that he ought to pardon General Flynn.” Surveillance of Americans On paper, Americans can’t be surveilled by the government without a warrant signed by a judge. But intelligence agencies have ways to circumvent the constitutional protection. The communication may be intercepted, for example, if the American is on the phone with a surveillance target outside the U.S. or a foreign agent inside the U.S. who is spied on through a warrant issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That’s what happened to Flynn, based on Paul’s comments. The names of Americans inadvertently caught in such communications are masked by the intelligence agencies to protect their privacy, but can be unmasked when “necessary to understand such foreign intelligence information or assess its importance.” In 2017, it was revealed that top Obama officials, including national security adviser Susan Rice and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power, requested the unmasking of communications belonging to some members of the Trump campaign and transition team. There’s no direct evidence publicly available that Flynn was under a FISA warrant himself. It happened, however, to another associate of the Trump campaign, Carter Page. The FBI obtained a FISA warrant on Page in October 2016, shortly after he left the campaign. The warrant was renewed three times, expiring in September 2017. Page was never charged with any crime. FISA Abuse The Page warrant was largely based on the now-infamous Steele Dossier, a collection of unsubstantiated claims of Trump-Russia collusion collected by former British MI6 Agent Christopher Steele, who was hired on behest of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Stuart Evans, the former deputy assistant attorney general who was in charge of FISA warrants in 2016, had concerns about the warrant on Page, according to text messages obtained by Fox News detailing conversations between then-high ranking FBI officials. Still, the warrant went thought with the approval of top FBI and Justice Department (DOJ) officials, all of whom have since left or were fired, except for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed the warrant’s final renewal in June 2017. U.S. Attorney John Huber has been investigating FISA abuses related to the Page warrant, then-Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said during his February testimony to Congress. Another investigation into the alleged FISA abuses has been conducted by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The Page warrant has been publicly released, but with extensive redactions. Some Congress Republicans have asked Trump to declassify a tranche of documents, including the full warrant, or at least about 20 key pages of it. Trump said in September the documents were handed to Horowitz for a review after the DOJ “agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe.” With the Mueller probe concluded, that obstacle should be out of the way, though Trump also said that “’key Allies’ called to ask not to release” the documents. “In the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary,” Trump said. https://www.theepochtimes.com/sen-p...ouldnt-be-used-against-americans_2855723.html
Yeah well, this shit should never have happened. It damn sure should not be done again to any American President. I should think that would be apparent by now.
A possible starting point. "The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny. " http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/fedimpeachment.htm
No no! It is in the Constitution, and rightfully so. It also spells out how to do it. Mr. Hamilton quite clearly gave you the back ground and the original intent of why. We do not indict a President or put him on trial, like may happen to a normal Citizen. But even the normal citizen is entitled to not be tried in press and public opinion, but a real trial where he must be proven guilty of charges sufficiently to a juror of his pears. Where he was given every opportunity to refute all charges with aid of counsel. Where the Prosecutor will subject him/her self to their electorate to be held accountable for bringing the defendant to trail. To reap the reward when well done, or suffer the scorn of using poor judgement. This process of investigation opened to press by leaks or intent is tantamount to trial in the press. The press today is in the tank and supports this kangaroo charade with glee. See CNN (lost 50% of their viewer this week) and MSNBC,... Gone is the is the dignity of the process by the peers of the President (the Senate) as Mr. Hamilton tutored. Representative of the people must be individual held responsible by their constituents instead of the DA for charges brought against the President. Likewise the Senator for their judgment in the conviction. This must be the way to prevent cavalier treatment we see in the Democrats today, example Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff... The same thing 20 years ago, in the Cavalier treatment of Clinton after the long embarrassing investigation by Ken Starr. Although that one did indeed cost the Republicans in their house their seats. And rightfully so. The member of the House need to be held responsible for bringing charges against the President, not some appointed fall guy that has no accountable connection to the people. He walk free, no matter who his action please, or not. His function is not in the Constitution. But this one is even worse! What we have is a first time, an investigation into an opposition Presidential Candidate without a shred of evidence that he committed a crime. Then after being Elected by the people, he was shackled to the course set by the previous administration by threat of obstruction if he attempt to change the course as is his lawful right as the duly elected Chief Executive of the Nation. I fear this run amok process as a threat to our republic far more than the Russians.
