• charrob's Avatar
    02-22-2017, 09:09 PM
    Put aside partisan politics and U.S.-Russia relations for just a moment. The resignation (or firing) of Michael Flynn as national security adviser raises a serious and troubling question about when and under what circumstances the sort of government surveillance operation that ended his career may be used against a private American citizen. The very same laws that authorize the routine interception of a foreign national’s telephone conversation also include important protections for American citizens. Was proper protocol followed by the agents who identified Flynn and transcribed his phone call? Shouldn’t Flynn’s status as a private American citizen have forced the agents to stop listening, or at the very least to wash out the recording? Or did they instead ride roughshod over the rights of an American as they overstepped their license to listen in on a foreign agent? At the very least, the law appears to require that “minimization procedures” be used to protect a private American citizen’s identity in such an instance so that, in place of Flynn’s name, the transcripts would have said only “U.S. Person.” Don’t conflate this issue with the leaks of those transcripts to media outlets. The leaks are separate bad acts — and not enough noise has been made about them. The question I am asking is whether the transcript should exist at all. Also, separate and apart from the inquiry into who did the actual leaking, we must now also ask: How did such a large group gain access to this information? As this story unfolds, we must not lose sight of whether Flynn’s rights were ignored or violated. The government’s power to monitor foreigners on our soil must be carefully constrained to respect the bedrock of every American’s protections under the U.S. Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.
    0 replies | 88 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-20-2017, 09:03 PM
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/16/judicial-watch-planning-sue-fbi-nsa-cia-flynn-records/
    1 replies | 96 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-19-2017, 12:01 AM
    So I guess what is confusing to me is exactly what is being said here? Do 16 other agencies mirror NSA's hard drives and now they have their own servers with that mirrored information at their agencies? Or do they simply log in to the NSA servers to access the NSA information? What exactly did this new law by Obama do? The latter would allow what William Binney is saying... simply look into the network logs inside NSA to see who accessed those files. But if that data is mirrored/copied to servers in the 16 other agencies, then i guess to find out who accessed those files would mean having to go through the network logs on the servers at all the rest of the 16 agencies. Has anyone read anymore about this... what Obama's law actually did?
    70 replies | 1750 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-18-2017, 09:56 PM
    thanks for sharing. Not sure, but this looks to be the interview:
    70 replies | 1750 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-18-2017, 02:12 AM
    I'd bet Elizabeth Warren will be the Dem nominee in 2020. Not that she'd be any better than Hillary... :eek:
    33 replies | 704 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-16-2017, 02:04 PM
    Is Pence a neoconservative mole? Yep. That's been clear for a long time.
    25 replies | 561 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-16-2017, 01:33 PM
    Here's a place in an interview with Flynn on AlJazeera where Flynn basically acknowledges what the photo in the OP states: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG3j8OYKgn4&t=10m15s Shortened version of interview with information:
    57 replies | 1059 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-16-2017, 01:20 PM
    This video "Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael T Flynn" on AlJazeera clearly shows one solid reason why the CIA/deep state threw Flynn under the bus (Flynn acknowledges that the Obama Administration was arming al Qaeda, the Salafists, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria in order to overthrow Assad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG3j8OYKgn4&t=10m15s Other reasons were, of course, his desire for detente with Russia and an overhaul of the "intelligence" agencies. Shortened version of information from above video is here:
    70 replies | 1750 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-15-2017, 09:18 PM
    I tend to be in the court of public opinion that i need to see proof before prosecuting another human being. So far that proof has not been given by a media that has repeatedly proven itself to be nothing more than liars and propagandists. What's going on on the MSM about Flynn right now reminds me of the Puritan witch trials. What "security laws" has Flynn even violated? There's no proof he's done anything! I look at other human beings as innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. There's a lot of possibilities where this man could be innocent. As Glenn Greenwald stated: "Even the anonymous sources out to get Flynn said that the conversation was vague about what Flynn was really saying." The only "evidence" that will ever prove anything is if they release the transcripts of the conversation. Unless, and until, that happens I will look at Flynn as innocent of everything the completely unhinged media is in its present state of hysteria about. And so would any court of law.
    70 replies | 1750 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    50 replies | 1603 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-14-2017, 10:26 PM
    From ConsortiumNews: A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See:
    7 replies | 196 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-14-2017, 09:02 PM
    >>> Trump expects Russia to 'return Crimea' -- White House Yep, here's a link to today's White House Press Briefing where Sean Spicer says exactly this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C4LrbBgL4I&t=6m33s
    67 replies | 1208 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-14-2017, 07:21 PM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to AZJoe again. +1 rep.
    70 replies | 1750 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-14-2017, 07:13 PM
    I’m not convinced that this was such a “lie” that was said by Flynn, and won’t be until, and unless, the full conversation is leaked and we, the public, can read it. The Russian ambassador almost assuredly asked Flynn about the sanctions placed upon them by Obama in the yet-to-be-proven case that the Russians hacked the Democratic elections. Flynn might have said “we’ll look into it” and nothing more. That’s the kind of thing that is so trivial in a busy day that it is almost equal to saying “no comment”. It’s highly probable that he wouldn’t have remembered saying such a trivial comment as this. But after digging deep into his memory, the next day he stated to the Wash. Post he “couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.” imho, this is highly probable. Our brains do not register every single thing we say everyday and, in fact, we lose a lot of the trivial memories inside of a day. imho a truth-seeking reader should not assume anything more about this conversation until we can read it. Statements by so-called "officials" don't cut it for me. No – the real story here is that we the public do not have the transcripts of the conversation and the media is working with (or for) the neocons that infest the CIA to create a fictionalized account that the public will never be able to verify so that they could destroy a man who refused to toe the CIA propaganda line on U.S. foreign policy. I am no supporter of Michael Flynn and completely disagree with his hawkish views on Iran. But even more than that, I absolutely abhor witch hunts on people where truth cannot be verified.
    70 replies | 1750 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-14-2017, 02:55 PM
    I'm still not seeing any evidence that Flynn told the Russians in advance that the Obama admin was going to impose sanctions. I've only read that Flynn spoke to the Russians after the sanctions were already in place.
    70 replies | 1750 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-14-2017, 02:03 PM
    Do you have a link for that? I read that Flynn talked to the Russian ambassador the same day, but after, Obama had already imposed the sanctions. How would Flynn have known about the sanctions before Obama imposed them?
    70 replies | 1750 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-14-2017, 01:37 PM
    I’m not convinced that this was such a “lie” that was said by Flynn, and won’t be until, and unless, the full conversation is leaked and we, the public, can read it. The Russian ambassador almost assuredly asked Flynn about the sanctions placed upon them by Obama in the yet-to-be-proven case that the Russians hacked the Democratic elections. Flynn might have said “we’ll look into it”, or “we’ll probably be able to decrease the sanctions”, etc. He probably didn’t go into any negotiating which is why he told Pence there was really nothing discussed. A true journalist should not assume anything more until there is valid proof that it occurred. No – the real story here is that we the public do not have the transcripts of the conversation and the media is working with (or for) the neocons that infest the CIA to create a fictionalized account that the public will never be able to verify so that they could destroy a man who refused to toe the CIA propaganda line on U.S. foreign policy. ----------------------------- Also, isn't it the NSA that keeps and transcribes all of our telephone calls? So now the NSA is giving this information to the CIA?
    70 replies | 1750 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-11-2017, 07:04 PM
    Oh that's neat. Thanks!
    7 replies | 196 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-11-2017, 06:49 PM
    I found it easier to view the movie with the volume off then trying to read through it with the volume on. I wonder if it will ever be released in the U.S. in English? The English version apparently came out on June 16, 2016 in Italy, then in November of 2016 came out in Russian.
    7 replies | 196 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-11-2017, 06:25 PM
    Here is the movie, but with English Subtitles:
    7 replies | 196 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-10-2017, 04:03 PM
    I agree with Judge Napolitano that Trump has the authority to stop foreigners from coming into the country: ie. no new Visas and no new Green cards as per the executive order. From the way the Judge talks, I think Trump has the authority to deny anyone he wants (ie. even though Trump's executive order was not a Muslim ban, the Judge makes it sound like Trump has the authority to even do that if he wanted). And I tend to agree with him: Trump probably has that authority. I think Trump also has authority over the States who complain that they lose tax revenue because of the ban. What the Judge doesn't discuss in this video, however, is that one of the reasons the 9th Circuit refused to lift the injunction was that 5th amendment due process rights have been overlooked for both current Visa card holders and current Green card holders. As has been stated in another thread, the re-writing of this executive order needs to emphasize that all current Visa card holders and current Green card holders are exempt from the new, re-written, executive order. Only then would the courts have no say.
    18 replies | 419 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-10-2017, 02:32 PM
    Wouldn't that also include current Visa card holders? I think the judges alluded to the 5th Amendment and Due Process to apply to them as well? Trump's best bet imho would be to exclude both current Green card as well as current Visa card holders from his new re-written executive order. In other words respect the 5th Amendment due process complaints for those who have already been given the green light to be here. As for current Visa card holders who have overstayed their Visas, I don't think he needs an executive order for that; just implement the law that states those with expired Visas need to leave.
    73 replies | 1955 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-10-2017, 01:34 PM
    Thanks.
    73 replies | 1955 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-10-2017, 11:54 AM
    So if Trump's executive order is re-written to include exceptions for current Visa and Green card holders (independent of whether they are currently inside or outside the U.S.), then the Courts would have no problem with his executive order?
    73 replies | 1955 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-09-2017, 08:27 PM
    73 replies | 1955 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-09-2017, 04:48 PM
    -so much respect for Rand. It's one thing to be good on issues and theory, but even above his talents in those areas Rand is really quick on his feet in creating good answers to these pundits. The gotcha questions on Trump's tweets regarding the federal judge in Seattle were quickly, and amazingly answered. And after another journalist doubled down on these questions later in the interview alluding to the importance of the separation of powers and Rand's supposed constitutional bonafides, Rand's answers were amazing. That's a real talent to be so quick on his feet... And he's right, where does it say in the Constitution that those employed in the three areas of government cannot be critical of each other?
    2 replies | 359 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-08-2017, 10:44 PM
    "Tim Mak", the author of the above article, apparently used to write for David Frum's site (no surprise there). Awful. This is now a witch hunt against her just for being a moral, ethical human being searching for truth. :mad:
    6 replies | 371 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    02-06-2017, 11:27 PM
    http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2017/february/06/rep-maxine-waters-trump-must-be-impeached-because-putin-invaded-korea/
    57 replies | 1328 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    01-31-2017, 10:09 PM
    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317261-democrats-line-up-against-trumps-supreme-court-pick
    88 replies | 2401 view(s)
  • charrob's Avatar
    01-31-2017, 07:41 PM
    It might depend on Mitch McConnell to change Senate rules and get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court Nominees. Unfortunately, he has already said he won't do that. Hopefully the Democrats won't filibuster.
    88 replies | 2401 view(s)
More Activity

2 Visitor Messages

  1. Dammit! I'm out of rep for: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...92&postcount=9

    I will try to remember tomorrow.
  2. View Conversation
    Please help! I'm counting on RPF! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=251175
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 2 of 2
About BenIsForRon

Basic Information

Signature


if modern agriculture continues to follow the path it's on now, it's finished. The food-growing situation may seem to be in good shape today, but that's just an illusion based on the current availability of petroleum fuels. All the wheat, corn, and other crops that are produced on big American farms may be alive and growing, but they're not products of real nature or real agriculture. They're manufactured rather than grown. The earth isn't producing those things.. petroleum is! -Masanobu Fukuoka

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,403
Posts Per Day
1.25
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
2
Most Recent Message
11-07-2010 07:10 PM
General Information
Last Activity
03-27-2016 06:39 PM
Join Date
06-22-2007
Referrals
0

4 Friends

  1. charrob charrob is offline

    Member

    charrob
  2. coyote_sprit coyote_sprit is offline

    Banned

    coyote_sprit
  3. Ecolibertarian Ecolibertarian is offline

    Member

    Ecolibertarian
  4. WaltM WaltM is offline

    Banned

    WaltM
Showing Friends 1 to 4 of 4
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...