Replies

[[I think it was McCarthy or his other guest that said it appeared that this was a well oiled process.]]

And that’s the problem here- the left are very sneaky people- they know how to do underhanded things and not be found guilty- they know how to exploit loopholes- and work the system-

I disagree with Mcarthy’s article in the first link for the reasons pointed out in my previous post- His second article you point to claism she ‘abused her power’ but did she? She may have exploited her position, but kept things ‘legal’ technically- she may have been ‘within her legal right to order unmasking’ even though government protocol may not be followed- Was what she did unethical? You betcha- Was it a felony? —Probably not— unfotunately-

His stateemnt below brings up a very itneresting point- one I’ll have to read over in a little while- as it could possibly go to show that a SPECIFIC crime need not be comitted in order for someone to be tried and possibly convicted- There is also the idea of esponage, which also i believe is less specific, and can rely on circumstantial evidence, and showing collusion to railroad citizens, more so that a felony indictment might need regarding specific objective laws be broken in order to bring the charge- I think i agree with napolitano on the espionage claim-

[[This is why a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the constitutional standard for impeachment — need not be an indictable criminal offense. It may be a chargeable crime, but it need not be one.

Another important point to consider is what McCarthy pointed out- in which a govenrment official

[[”has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purpose[s] of these agencies.”]]

It however will have to be proved that constitutional rights were violated- not an easy thing to prove when one party- the government, claims they had to order the unmasking ‘for security reason’

The burden then falls on the prosecutors to prove that there was no actual pressing need to order unmaskings-

This whole issue is goign to be very messy- but very interesting-

And that’s the problem here- the left are very sneaky people- they know how to do underhanded things and not be found guilty- they know how to exploit loopholes- and work the system.

Yes indeed, witness the Clintons, the DNC, all of them.

It however will have to be proved that constitutional rights were violated- not an easy thing to prove when one party- the government, claims they had to order the unmasking ‘for security reason’ The burden then falls on the prosecutors to prove that there was no actual pressing need to order unmaskings- This whole issue is goign to be very messy- but very interesting-

Very interesting indeed. This has to be thoroughly investigated and the laws tightened so the next totalitarian doesn't abuse the system like Obama did.