Yates and Clapper Testimony Begins

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: allsee4eye

Good thing for us our constitution covers inalienable HUMAN rights...

People from other countries WHO ARE NOT HERE ON US SOIL OR HER EMBASSIES are not Protected by the constitution. SO banning them from GETTING HERE is not Illegal or against the 14th amendment or that stupid clause.

Wrong. And it doesn't become true if you write in caps lock either. The Constitution protects ALL people within or trying to enter the country. Citizen or otherwise. It always has.

It does not cover you if you are not a US citizen IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY. I use caps for EMphasis by th eway instead of that stupid bolding. its too aggravating to use. Show me where I am wrong on the constitution protecting a foreigner IN ANOTHER NATION. If that was the case then we could practice christianity openly in saudi arabia and not be tossed in jail or killed correct?

a reply to: Sillyolme

We still don't know what was said in Flynns phone calls...

A much bigger blackmail target would be someone who had no clearance but had access to thousands of sensitive including classified emails, that was caught sexting a teenager...

Much bigger blackmail target than some advisor who lied to the vice president...

a reply to: SonOfThor

I think National Security Advisor is a little more than just some advisor.
Consider all of the sensitive meetings and discussions Flynn was still involved in after the WH had been made aware that he could be compromised. Kind of reckless and scary, IMO. Weiner wasn't remotely privy to the kinds of information Flynn was, let alone in a position to influence policy. Flynn is clearly a more valuable target.

a reply to: yuppa

Well then you need to learn that when it comes to emphasis less is better. The more you use, the more it comes off like you are ranting instead of just stressing a singular point. I've also started using bold as a form of emphasis since caps lock is so easily confused with yelling on the internet. Just some friendly advice. Take it or leave it.

As for your point. If the foreign is trying to enter the country then they are protected by the Constitution. It's not 100% protection because they are still subject to immigration authority underneath said Constitution, but they DEFINITELY have rights that are protected by the document too. Here's one example.
Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

How does the Constitution apply to a non-citizen blocked from entering at JFK International Airport?

The same way it applied to enemy combatants held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay in a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush, which held that the basic right of habeas corpus to challenge illegal detentions extends even to non-citizens on foreign territory.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It really surprises me how folks can't get over Yates' refusal to implement Trump's EO, especially in the overall context of yesterday's meeting. Talk about not seeing the forest for the chlorophyl. That should be ancient news by now. The federal courts pretty much validated her actions, and now we have the EO reprise. Let's move on!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I present the counter article to the one you posted. And you are not getting my meaning here. If i was a saudi arabian on the terror watch list And I am in SAUDI ARABIA. I do not have US law protecting me correct?

That is what Trump is doing with his EO and why its constitutional.
Muslim countrys travel ban legal

a reply to: Gandalf77

The Court decision is on a INDIVIDUAL basis and not a blanket protection. The article also has the statement that this doe snot grant total protection to foreigners. There have been decisions for Both sides made as well and this has not been legally settled yet.

a reply to: Gandalf77

Now he's waving the war flag again. I expected something to take the focus off of the hearings.
A tweet storm calling it a hoax and fake news followed by some big measure to change the news cycle , to which he is a slave, his hatred of them be damned.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I present the counter article to the one you posted. And you are not getting my meaning here. If i was a saudi arabian on the terror watch list And I am in SAUDI ARABIA. I do not have US law protecting me correct?

Correct.

That is what Trump is doing with his EO and why its constitutional.
Muslim countrys travel ban legal

Wrong. I literally just (see bold) pointed out to you that people entering the country have rights under the Constitution too. Just not 100% rights.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The transcript of the conversation between flynn and the ambassador.
Without collusion or a crime unmasking flynn is illegal; taking that classified info and spreading it to the media is illegal.

How flynn did his job is not grounds to spy on him. Flynn was fired because he did not agree with obamas foreign policy, still not grounds to be spied on. The fact that obama knew about this and warned trump is nixonian.

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gandalf77

I guess I have to ask how any of us can be so sure about this collusion thing?

The assessment released in an unclassified form last januaray?
or is the opinion of 16 intel agencies not enough to convince you?

Something else to keep in mind here:
The US IC was tasked with assessing whether or not there was an effort by the Russians to interfere w/the election, & both the classified and unclassified reports indicated they did indeed believe this to be the case.

The law enforcement and counterintelligence duties fall squarely within the purview of the FBI, not the IC.
And the FBI is extremely tight-lipped about counterintelligence matters. It doesn't surprise me one bit that they would sign off on that initial assessment while still actively investigating the potential for criminal activity.

so you believe one part of the assessment and not the other?
nice
way to pick and choose your facts

a reply to: yuppa

I understand what you're saying.
My point is that the original EO Yates refused to implement didn't hold up in court, and they had to rewrite it.

Republicans used yesterday's hearings to focus on her refusal to implement that EO as a distraction from the real issues at hand. Just like their focus on the leaks, rather than the substance and implications of those leaks, they're really just trying to muddy the waters.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the next big fight is over the need for a special prosecutor. It really seems to be heading in that direction.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm not surprised you have no idea what I'm talking about. You should try getting up to speed before you engage in a conversation you know nothing about.


What Flynn did put the country in jeopardy.
That does mean Jack squat...to a lot of people.
Or are you even denying Flynn spoke with the Russians?

clapper has claimed multiple time in multiple forums now that there was no collusion and there was no crime
how you square that with flynn putting the country in jeopardy i will never understand

clapper and the 16 agencies that prepared the assessment had access to the same info yates did and found no evidence of collusion or crime

yates assessment that flynn "could be blackmailed" does not square with the intel assessment
unless you are going to sell that yates knows better than 16 intel agencies

flynn misspeaking about a meeting with a russian ambassador to the vice president in no way "put our country in jeopardy".
you are full of crap

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Tapping means picking in this instance. Not actual tapping...
He picked Flynn even though Obama warned him about him.


Hey did you notice how I clarified that without resorting to out of place quotation marks?

Obama is crap his warning isn't worth the breath used to speak it. Obama should have learned to cover his tracks better than tricky dick did; now the big o gets to explain spying on american citizens in the oppositions political party.
But hey obama weaponized the irs against the tea party, the doj against ice agents, why not the intel community against his political rivals.
what trash

We don't if Flynn was "gathering" information inside the Russians' comfort zone.

He may have actually been spying against the Russians all along.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gandalf77

I guess I have to ask how any of us can be so sure about this collusion thing?

The assessment released in an unclassified form last januaray?
or is the opinion of 16 intel agencies not enough to convince you?

Something else to keep in mind here:
The US IC was tasked with assessing whether or not there was an effort by the Russians to interfere w/the election, & both the classified and unclassified reports indicated they did indeed believe this to be the case.

The law enforcement and counterintelligence duties fall squarely within the purview of the FBI, not the IC.
And the FBI is extremely tight-lipped about counterintelligence matters. It doesn't surprise me one bit that they would sign off on that initial assessment while still actively investigating the potential for criminal activity.

so you believe one part of the assessment and not the other?
nice
way to pick and choose your facts

I'm not picking and choosing facts. I'm pointing out that even if the IC had an inkling that there could be some collusion at the time they were drafting that assessent, they could not, as a matter of course, include it because it's part of an ongoing investigation by the FBI. Clapper has so much as acknowledged this. They didn't mention anything about potential shady business deals with Russia either, but Clapper has acknowledged that this too has since become a part of the investigation.

Again, that assessment was by no means the final say on this matter. Otherwise, why the investigation? Comey has indicated that the potential for collusion is indeed within the scope of that investigation. Where it goes, I certainly don't know. But the matter is still ongoing, regardless of what was in that assessment.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I present the counter article to the one you posted. And you are not getting my meaning here. If i was a saudi arabian on the terror watch list And I am in SAUDI ARABIA. I do not have US law protecting me correct?

Correct.

That is what Trump is doing with his EO and why its constitutional.
Muslim countrys travel ban legal

Wrong. I literally just (see bold) pointed out to you that people entering the country have rights under the Constitution too. Just not 100% rights.

the EO though WAS in most part for people OUTSIDE the US is what I am trying to pound into your skull though. In that article th elady said even if you are at JFK you are not officially in the US correct?

If the foreignner was in another country and boarded a US flight and was Turned away before take off they are not ON US soil and as such are not protected under US law.

SO a saudi getting on a US flight has no constitutional rights until they are Within US airspace and on US soil. remember you said That a saudi in saudi arabia is not protected by our laws.(you said correct to my question specifically)

That is what I have been trying to say. SUre if they are already here Yeah they are protected. But if they are not they are not protected. is that clear enough this time?

a reply to: Gandalf77

But the matter is still ongoing, regardless of what was in that assessment.

yeah clapper had this to say about your ridiculous comment

While it's been over four months since the issuance of this assessment, as Directors Comey and Rodgers testified before the House Intelligence Committee on the 20th of March, the conclusions and confidence levels reached at the time still stand.

unless you can show proof otherwise......

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, Comey has stood by the conclusions and confidence levels reached in that assessment--the primary scope of which was to determine whether or not Russia interfered with the election.

Again, the law enforcement and counterintelligence duties fall squarely in the FBI's camp, not the IC.

Comey has stated in a hearing that such an investigation is underway, and the potential for collusion is a part of that investigation. You don't seem to want to talk about that particular fact.

You also seem to be ignoring the implications of the other comments Clapper made yesterday.

originally posted by: yuppa
the EO though WAS in most part for people OUTSIDE the US is what I am trying to pound into your skull though. In that article th elady said even if you are at JFK you are not officially in the US correct?

When you are trying to enter somewhere you have to logically start off outside that place.

If the foreignner was in another country and boarded a US flight and was Turned away before take off they are not ON US soil and as such are not protected under US law.

They are still subjected to Constitutional rights to be treated like any other human. I already showed you that there is court precedence for it too.

SO a saudi getting on a US flight has no constitutional rights until they are Within US airspace and on US soil. remember you said That a saudi in saudi arabia is not protected by our laws.(you said correct to my question specifically)

No. I said that a Saudi in Saudi Arabia has no constitutional rights. And technically you said he was also on the terrorist watch list, but I don't care about that detail right now because that complicates matters and Trump's EO addresses more than just watch list suspects. But as SOON as he goes to try to enter the US on a flight he is covered under certain rights of the Constitution.