https://taibbi.substack.com/p/democrats-...-liberties

Mollie's article referenced this article from the Rolling Stone:

"Emmet G. Sullivan, the judge in the case of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, is refusing to let William Barr’s Justice Department drop the charge. He’s even thinking of adding more, appointing a retired judge to ask “whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.”

Pundits are cheering. A trio of former law enforcement and judicial officials saluted Sullivan in the Washington Post, chirping, “The Flynn case isn’t over until a judge says it’s over.” Yuppie icon Jeffrey Toobin of CNN and the New Yorker, one of the #Resistance crowd’s favored legal authorities, described Sullivan’s appointment of Judge John Gleeson as “brilliant.” MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said Americans owe Sullivan a “debt of gratitude.”

One had to search far and wide to find a non-conservative legal analyst willing to say the obvious, i.e. that Sullivan’s decision was the kind of thing one would expect from a judge in Belarus. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley was one of the few willing to say Sullivan’s move could “could create a threat of a judicial charge even when prosecutors agree with defendants....”

Republicans throughout this time were usually as bad or worse on these issues, but Democrats have lately positioned themselves as the more aggressive promoters of strong-arm policies, from control of Internet speech to the embrace of domestic spying. In the last four years the blue-friendly press has done a complete 180 on these issues, going from cheering Edward Snowden to lionizing the CIA, NSA, and FBI, and making on-air partners out of drone-and-surveillance all-stars like John Brennan, James Clapper, and Michael Hayden. There are now too many ex-spooks on CNN and MSNBC to count, while there isn’t a single regular contributor on any of the networks one could describe as antiwar.

Democrats clearly believe constituents will forgive them for abandoning constitutional principles, so long as the targets of official inquiry are figures like Flynn or Paul Manafort or Trump himself. In the process, they’ve raised a generation of followers whose contempt for civil liberties is now genuine-to-permanent. Blue-staters have gone from dismissing constitutional concerns as Trumpian ruse to sneering at them, in the manner of French aristocrats, as evidence of proletarian mental defect...."

https://amgreatness.com/2020/05/17/the-l...e-loathed/

"Compare the current progressive view about civil liberties against the old liberal positions of the past.

Surveillance and spying on U.S. citizens? Remember liberal Senator Frank Church of Idaho and his 1975 post-Watergate select Senate investigative committee? It found the CIA, FBI, and NSA improperly over three decades had tapped into the phones of Americans, opened their mail, and worked with telecommunications companies to monitor the data of supposedly suspect politicians, actors, celebrities, and political activists. “Collusion” with the communists and the Russians was often the pretense to surveil American citizens.

Consider Church either a bastion of civil liberties protection or a dangerous firebrand who weakened the CIA and FBI. But the point is that the Left’s position had once mostly been that the government’s unelected deep-state intelligence officers simply had too much power to trust.

Indeed, the ACLU was outraged at what the committee revealed. Church was deified as a liberal hero uncovering government abuse. About the worst thing a government could do, liberals reminded us, was to spy on its own citizens....

The response of the Left to all this was not to help ferret out, in Frank Church or Sam Ervin style, outrageous government criminality, but to defend it, to contextualize it, and even to applaud it.

The Left perhaps never has been worried about government illegal monitoring, surveillance, and disruption after all—only that it had once, prior to the Obama administration, been directed against liberal targets....

It is a desire to sound off about mandated equality, but only as long as one has the resources to be unaffected by the necessary consequences of one’s loud egalitarian advocacy. As a general rule, the more one is insulated from the downside of one’s abstract progressivism, the louder and more vehemently he expresses it.

Move Nancy Pelosi’s palazzo to sit on the border, subject Bill Gates to Bernie Sanders’s wealth tax and his envisioned 70 percent income tax rate, have Dianne Feinstein or Gavin Newsom live in an inner-city neighborhood or make NBA stars follow Chinese rules of collective bargaining and state-mandated compensation, or subject Samantha Power, Bruce Ohr, John Brennan, and Andrew McCabe to federal indictments, and Barack Obama to the sort of impeachment charade we witnessed months ago, and we would not have what is now the progressive party."

On the left only Ron Wyden cared seriously about them to begin with.

******* democrats!

Quote:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing forward with an amendment that would let the FBI collect records on Americans' web-browsing and search histories without a warrant this week.

McConnell proposed the amendment as part of the renewal of the 2001 Patriot Act, The Daily Beast first reported. The Senate is voting on amendments this week.

The McConnell amendment would let Department of Justice officials — overseen by Attorney General Bill Barr — look through anyone's browsing history without the approval of a judge if they deem the browsing history relevant to an investigation. It blocks the FBI from accessing the "content" of people's web-browsing history but would let the FBI access records detailing which sites and search terms people entered.

Mitch McConnell is pushing the Senate to pass a measure that would let the FBI collect Americans' web-browsing history without a warrant

Democrats are not democrats. They are now marxist prog filth.

(05-18-2020 12:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  ******* democrats!

Quote:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing forward with an amendment that would let the FBI collect records on Americans' web-browsing and search histories without a warrant this week.

McConnell proposed the amendment as part of the renewal of the 2001 Patriot Act, The Daily Beast first reported. The Senate is voting on amendments this week.

The McConnell amendment would let Department of Justice officials — overseen by Attorney General Bill Barr — look through anyone's browsing history without the approval of a judge if they deem the browsing history relevant to an investigation. It blocks the FBI from accessing the "content" of people's web-browsing history but would let the FBI access records detailing which sites and search terms people entered.

Mitch McConnell is pushing the Senate to pass a measure that would let the FBI collect Americans' web-browsing history without a warrant

So we can agree there is bipartisan disdain for the 4th Amendment among the political class?

(05-18-2020 12:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  ******* democrats!

Quote:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing forward with an amendment that would let the FBI collect records on Americans' web-browsing and search histories without a warrant this week.

McConnell proposed the amendment as part of the renewal of the 2001 Patriot Act, The Daily Beast first reported. The Senate is voting on amendments this week.

The McConnell amendment would let Department of Justice officials — overseen by Attorney General Bill Barr — look through anyone's browsing history without the approval of a judge if they deem the browsing history relevant to an investigation. It blocks the FBI from accessing the "content" of people's web-browsing history but would let the FBI access records detailing which sites and search terms people entered.

Mitch McConnell is pushing the Senate to pass a measure that would let the FBI collect Americans' web-browsing history without a warrant

FYI for the bernie bros, bernie sat this one out. It would have passed had he voted. It's almost as if they planned it that way.

Look up the Pew Research polling on how immigrants view civil liberties, and you'll realize what's going on. They polled opinions on free speech vs. hate speech (1st amendment), and gun rights vs. gun control (2nd), but you can extrapolate from there. The results are a direct inverse from traditional American values.

The democrats are importing a new electorate, and are going to give them what they want (big gov) at the expense of you and your rights. You can say that republicans are sitting idly by (controlled opposition), because it's cheap labor for their donors.

Notable no votes:
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Johnson (R-WI)
Jones (D-AL)
Kaine (D-VA)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)
Romney (R-UT)
Rubio (R-FL)
Toomey (R-PA)

(05-18-2020 01:18 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Look up the Pew Research polling on how immigrants view civil liberties, and you'll realize what's going on. They polled opinions on free speech vs. hate speech (1st amendment), and gun rights vs. gun control (2nd), but you can extrapolate from there. The results are a direct inverse from traditional American values.

The democrats are importing a new electorate, and are going to give them what they want (big gov) at the expense of you and your rights. You can say that republicans are sitting idly by (controlled opposition), because it's cheap labor for their donors.

Getting in the way of this narrative you're trying to spin is that the Republicans had more than twice as many no votes as the Democrats. How's Papa Trump gonna fix this one for you?

It amazes me that the party that's spent the last 4 years demonizing the FBI for spying on Americans (and rightfully so) pushes to give them legal carte blanche to spy on Americans.

(05-18-2020 12:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  On the left only Ron Wyden cared seriously about them to begin with.

Even then he defends Big Tech's political meddling, so he's not exactly interested in a free and open internet.

(05-18-2020 01:28 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 01:18 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Look up the Pew Research polling on how immigrants view civil liberties, and you'll realize what's going on. They polled opinions on free speech vs. hate speech (1st amendment), and gun rights vs. gun control (2nd), but you can extrapolate from there. The results are a direct inverse from traditional American values.

The democrats are importing a new electorate, and are going to give them what they want (big gov) at the expense of you and your rights. You can say that republicans are sitting idly by (controlled opposition), because it's cheap labor for their donors.

Getting in the way of this narrative you're trying to spin is that the Republicans had more than twice as many no votes as the Democrats. How's Papa Trump gonna fix this one for you?

I guess you missed the controlled opposition part of that.

I'd admit that Trump has wishy-washy (at best) on immigration. He understands the issue, but I guess he's being pulled from too many directions. He's building the wall and stopped immigration for the time being via EO (good), but then at the SOTU he said he wants more immigration than ever (bad), and keeps putting kushner in charge of immigration-related issues (horrific).

As usual, nobody has actually put forth a link demonstrating what McConnell's amendment is proposing, and we merely get obviously biased sources interpretations of it.

It says 'if it is pertinent to their investigation', so obviously there is an investigation going on... and I've certainly seen the left suggest that monitoring the online activity of people who might be 'threats' to be advisable.... like someone searching for 'how to make a bomb' or school schematics or blueprints or 'hate groups'... etc... You'd need to see the actual proposal to really know... and of course that's not been advanced anywhere that I can find.

Bottom line, it MAY be a problem and it may not be. McConnell isn't a Republican in the sense that I am (smaller government)... so the only meaningful difference between him (and many like him) and Democrats is 'what' is on their list of do's and don'ts.

But yeah, Tom... way to deflect once again. It's not as if you're saying you're against these things... you're just protecting 'your team'.

(05-18-2020 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As usual, nobody has actually put forth a link demonstrating what McConnell's amendment is proposing, and we merely get obviously biased sources interpretations of it.

It says 'if it is pertinent to their investigation', so obviously there is an investigation going on... and I've certainly seen the left suggest that monitoring the online activity of people who might be 'threats' to be advisable.... like someone searching for 'how to make a bomb' or school schematics or blueprints or 'hate groups'... etc... You'd need to see the actual proposal to really know... and of course that's not been advanced anywhere that I can find.

Bottom line, it MAY be a problem and it may not be. McConnell isn't a Republican in the sense that I am (smaller government)... so the only meaningful difference between him (and many like him) and Democrats is 'what' is on their list of do's and don'ts.

But yeah, Tom... way to deflect once again. It's not as if you're saying you're against these things... you're just protecting 'your team'.

Come see me when the GOP votes down the Patriot Act.

Never been for the unending authorization of the Patriot Act. Move along.

My "deflection" was because the starter of this thread continually makes statements akin to only the democrats do these things. He's wrong, and we all know it.

(05-18-2020 02:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Come see me when the GOP votes down the Patriot Act.

Never been for the unending authorization of the Patriot Act. Move along.

My "deflection" was because the starter of this thread continually makes statements akin to only the democrats do these things. He's wrong, and we all know it.

Laughable that you 'attack' someone who is (by your own admission) only doing what you do.

The difference is, I suspect he admits he's a Republican.

I don't need to 'come see you'... because unlike you, I don't only 'not support things' when the other side does it.

Simple question, are you for or against the position as articulated? If you're against it, can you show me where your preferred candidate is also against it? If you're for it, case closed.

(05-18-2020 02:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As usual, nobody has actually put forth a link demonstrating what McConnell's amendment is proposing, and we merely get obviously biased sources interpretations of it.

It says 'if it is pertinent to their investigation', so obviously there is an investigation going on... and I've certainly seen the left suggest that monitoring the online activity of people who might be 'threats' to be advisable.... like someone searching for 'how to make a bomb' or school schematics or blueprints or 'hate groups'... etc... You'd need to see the actual proposal to really know... and of course that's not been advanced anywhere that I can find.

Bottom line, it MAY be a problem and it may not be. McConnell isn't a Republican in the sense that I am (smaller government)... so the only meaningful difference between him (and many like him) and Democrats is 'what' is on their list of do's and don'ts.

But yeah, Tom... way to deflect once again. It's not as if you're saying you're against these things... you're just protecting 'your team'.

Come see me when the GOP votes down the Patriot Act.

Never been for the unending authorization of the Patriot Act. Move along.

My "deflection" was because the starter of this thread continually makes statements akin to only the democrats do these things. He's wrong, and we all know it.

No, your deflection is because you want to keep the DNC lies going. You always deflect from bad news. If, for a change, you actually read the article, you would have seen he is a liberal and he doesn't give the Republicans a pass.

But no Republicans have used the FBI to spy on the other party. LBJ did. Obama did. Nixon's CREEP had to use some amateur plumbers and the FBI refused to participate in the coverup.

(05-18-2020 01:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 12:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  ******* democrats!

Quote:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing forward with an amendment that would let the FBI collect records on Americans' web-browsing and search histories without a warrant this week.

McConnell proposed the amendment as part of the renewal of the 2001 Patriot Act, The Daily Beast first reported. The Senate is voting on amendments this week.

The McConnell amendment would let Department of Justice officials — overseen by Attorney General Bill Barr — look through anyone's browsing history without the approval of a judge if they deem the browsing history relevant to an investigation. It blocks the FBI from accessing the "content" of people's web-browsing history but would let the FBI access records detailing which sites and search terms people entered.

Mitch McConnell is pushing the Senate to pass a measure that would let the FBI collect Americans' web-browsing history without a warrant

So we can agree there is bipartisan disdain for the 4th Amendment among the political class?

I'll go one farther. Among politicians on both sides of the aisle, with a few exceptions, there is disdain for the entire Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One GOPer when asked about it, said that the Constitution rarely comes up in discussions or deliberations and most don't even think about it.

(05-18-2020 01:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 12:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  ******* democrats!

Quote:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing forward with an amendment that would let the FBI collect records on Americans' web-browsing and search histories without a warrant this week.

McConnell proposed the amendment as part of the renewal of the 2001 Patriot Act, The Daily Beast first reported. The Senate is voting on amendments this week.

The McConnell amendment would let Department of Justice officials — overseen by Attorney General Bill Barr — look through anyone's browsing history without the approval of a judge if they deem the browsing history relevant to an investigation. It blocks the FBI from accessing the "content" of people's web-browsing history but would let the FBI access records detailing which sites and search terms people entered.

Mitch McConnell is pushing the Senate to pass a measure that would let the FBI collect Americans' web-browsing history without a warrant

So we can agree there is bipartisan disdain for the 4th Amendment among the political class?

So McConnell wants to do something legally that the Left has been doing illegally since Al Gore invented the Internet. Does anyone really believe that the leftist socialists at Google, MSN or FB haven’t already been cataloging your internet activity for a couple of decades.

Google and FB already got caught tracking your online activity when you weren’t signed on to their app.

Heaven forbid law enforcement have the same tools their leftist enemies have.

(05-18-2020 02:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As usual, nobody has actually put forth a link demonstrating what McConnell's amendment is proposing, and we merely get obviously biased sources interpretations of it.

It says 'if it is pertinent to their investigation', so obviously there is an investigation going on... and I've certainly seen the left suggest that monitoring the online activity of people who might be 'threats' to be advisable.... like someone searching for 'how to make a bomb' or school schematics or blueprints or 'hate groups'... etc... You'd need to see the actual proposal to really know... and of course that's not been advanced anywhere that I can find.

Bottom line, it MAY be a problem and it may not be. McConnell isn't a Republican in the sense that I am (smaller government)... so the only meaningful difference between him (and many like him) and Democrats is 'what' is on their list of do's and don'ts.

But yeah, Tom... way to deflect once again. It's not as if you're saying you're against these things... you're just protecting 'your team'.

Come see me when the GOP votes down the Patriot Act.

Never been for the unending authorization of the Patriot Act. Move along.

My "deflection" was because the starter of this thread continually makes statements akin to only the democrats do these things. He's wrong, and we all know it.

No Democrats want to do it and want to make sure no one else has the same ability. Google, FB, Twitter and MSN have been feeding that information to the Left for the last two decades.

What was it we heard about Obama and his cronies using information about voters like no one else ever had during the 08 campaign. Wonder where that info came from.

Unless you are using VPN like vanish IP someone somewhere is tracking and reading your internet activity. This bill is a bunch of BS.