Yates and Clapper Testimony Begins

America is a country having several times the population as Russia. If Russia can hack the US, the US can hack Russia. There is nothing Russia has that America does not have. Don't forget, it was the US that invented the modern computer and internet and world wide web and computer languages.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

IN.

But that wasn't your statement. The statement was that only citizens have protections under the Constitution.

Outside of the US I haven't seen any legal precedent where non citizens have those protections.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Only citizens. This is a strict interpretation. The US constitution is not written for monkeys, not for dogs, not for cats, for CITIZENS of America.

a reply to: allsee4eye

So are Muslims that fight against ISIS as well as Theocractic regimes.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Your strict interpretation is wrong. Period.

You should correct it to include whether or not a person is a non citizen within the US borders. In that case you may have a better argument.

To be a citizen of the US a person must be born on US soil or born to an American parent or swore allegiance to the US upon naturalization. I fail to see why the US constitution would protect non citizens considering they may be hostile to the US in the first place.

a reply to: allsee4eye

This little thing called the US Justice department.

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: allsee4eye

Also wrong. Illegal immigrants or involuntary immigrants did not come through customs. But the Constitution still applies to them.

The critics all claim that undocumented workers or immigrants or migrants — whichever label is the flavor of the day — don't have legal rights because they are lawbreakers by entering the country illegally and owe no loyalty to the United States. They claim that only U.S. citizens (natural born or naturalized) are protected by the Constitution. The critics are not only wrong — they are really, truly and sincerely wrong.

"Aliens," legal and illegal, have the full panoply of constitutional protections American citizens have with three exceptions: voting, some government jobs and gun ownership (and that is now in doubt)

Source with court cases cited.

What part of they have to be on US soil to have the 14th apply, don't you understand?

originally posted by: allsee4eye
To be a citizen of the US a person must be born on US soil or born to an American parent or swore allegiance to the US upon naturalization. I fail to see why the US constitution would protect non citizens considering they may be hostile to the US in the first place.

With out sounding like an arsehole, you really should do a little research to firmly cement your opinion.

Folks on American soil have certain unalienable rights regardless of citizenship.

Hmmm.
Jut watched Clapper and Yates.
They had nothing much to say other than Clapper who confirmed he had requested unmasking of Trump associates AND members of Congress, and both Yates and Clapper had read documents with unmasked names.
Yates clearly is a partisan and the exchanges on her refusal to defend Trump's EO proves it.

Quite disappointing for Democrats desperate to find even a shred of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Well, keep reading. Because i understand it completely and have responded in kind.

I even elucidated on your point.

You're welcome.

a reply to: JinMI

If they want rights they can apply for citizenship and swear allegiance to the US. Otherwise, they should get no protection IMO.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Only citizens. This is a strict interpretation. The US constitution is not written for monkeys, not for dogs, not for cats, for CITIZENS of America.

Why tell me? Tell them.

And btw, the constitution doesn't over ride laws of another country that US citizens are in.

It was interesting to note that while Clapper acknowledged that he was not aware of any evidence of collusion, it is a matter of policy that the FBI would not have notified him about such a counterintelligence investigation. So he's not personally aware, but he's not in a position to say for certain. That kind of disarms team Trump's reliance on his previous statements.

Also, it was quite telling that he acknowledged the existence of reports from British intelligence regarding suspicious contacts between Trump associates and the Russians. That info was handed off to the US IC in 2015, & Clapper indicated it was quite sensitive.

Is no one else curious why it took 18 days from the time the administration was informed that Flynn was compromised and his firing?

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: JinMI

If they want rights they can apply for citizenship and swear allegiance to the US. Otherwise, they should get no protection IMO.

Certainly you can see the ignorance in that statement?

Should we not show rights to anyone here on business or vacation? Should we cease to do any overseas commerce?

I get where your coming from but your argument is very weak. My opinion is that you make citizenship easier that crossing the border or overstaying a visa.

originally posted by: Kali74
Is no one else curious why it took 18 days from the time the administration was informed that Flynn was compromised and his firing?

According to the MSM today, Obama gave Trump the heads up.

Perhaps the Trump administration thought it was just another line of BS.

a reply to: Kali74

I listened to a bit of the testimony here and there. Other than Sally Yates explaining WHY she decided ignore her boss, by not enforcing the Executive Order on Immigration, were there any other new facts divulged? Anything we know now, that we didn't know yesterday?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Precedent has been set in other immigration cases that immigrants, even illegal immigrants are entitled to several Constitutional rights. I don't know 100% that the 14th protects refugees and/or immigrants but the EO certainly violates the Establishment Clause.

ETA: AnonyMason has the answer.

Here is where the 14th is not covered. Peoples who are still in another country who are denied entry onto a US bound flight or conveyance to get here Can legally be denied entry onto those bound for the US and the COnstitution dont protect them UNLESS they are on american soil.

The Travel ban(its own words said it was a general ban not a muslim ban) was lawful. SPirit of a Law does not trump a LETTER of the law.

a reply to: Kali74
I'm very curious about that. It looks a lot like Flynn might still be there if the information about Yates' briefing hadn't gotten out to the public. Hence the real reason for all the bluster around the leaks.