The very idea that the GOP nominee for President would be colluding with Russia to steal the election is absurd, preposterous, and laughable. It is on par with the idea that George Bush staged the 9/11 hijackings and the destruction of the twin towers. No reasonable person would give any credence to such a ridiculous theory. You would have to be seriously deranged to even entertain such a thought.
And yet, here we are.
Proper investigations begin with an event such as a crime or tragedy, and the purpose of that investigation is to determine what happened and who, if anyone, is to blame. Watergate started with a crime – a “third-rate burglary” – and the investigation eventually led to Richard Nixon. In Russiagate, there is no crime or other triggering event.
The triggering event serves as an anchor to keep the investigation on track. When the crime is solved, the investigation stops. If new crimes were uncovered, those are each a new anchor.
Russiagate started with a person – Donald Trump. It is an inquisition to find something that can be used to impeach Donald Trump. The lack of evidence doesn’t deter the inquisitors, it justifies expanding the scope of the inquisition.
You don’t launch an investigation of the opposing party’s nominee for President without solid, credible evidence of wrongdoing. So where’s the beef?
The counter-offensive begins.
After Watergate Congress passed FISA to prevent any future POTUS from using the FBI and CIA to spy on Americans, especially his political opponents and perceived enemies. FISA has very strict rules and there are no good-faith exceptions. It originally included a provision that made telephone companies liable if the obey illegal orders or requests to eavesdrop.
It is now clear that the Obama Mob spied on Donald Trump. Our news media likes to pat themselves on the back for their role in uncovering Watergate. This is worse than Watergate and they just shrug.
I recently became aware that my education was lacking. When I learned about the Bill of Rights I was never told that some rights are more important than others, and that some rights are obsolete, limited by age, or contingent.
The most important right of all, I have been told, is freedom of the press. This right is holy and sacrosanct. It actually empowers the press to do things that ordinary people cannot. This is because a free press serves an essential function to our system of government. That is why the press must be allowed access to the halls of government and can demand answers from our public servants. This right is so critical that for a President to question the way in which that right is exercised (or to mock the people it protects) endangers our entire way of life.
Freedom of speech is also important, but it doesn’t apply to things like hate speech. Freedom of religion only applies to beliefs that are politically correct and do not interfere with favored identity groups.
The second amendment is contingent on membership in a militia, and it is limited to weapons that existed at the time the Bill of Rights was written. This right is basically obsolete, and it should be repealed. Freedom of the press is not limited by the technology that previously existed, so it covers new technologies like television and the internet.
Last but not least, I learned that the US Constitution gives us our rights. Silly me, I thought it just enshrined our natural rights. Like I said, my education is woefully lacking.
 | Dora on W.O.O.T. |
 | votermom on W.O.O.T. |
| Dora on W.O.O.T. |
 | elliesmom on W.O.O.T. |
 | Jadzia on W.O.O.T. |
| Jadzia on W.O.O.T. |
| Jadzia on W.O.O.T. |
 | Lulu on W.O.O.T. |
| votermom on W.O.O.T. |
| votermom on W.O.O.T. |
| Dora on W.O.O.T. |
| Lulu on W.O.O.T. |
| Lulu on W.O.O.T. |
| Dora on W.O.O.T. |
 | Underwhelmed on W.O.O.T. |
