AxBeetle

BST Users
  • Content count

    6,500
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About AxBeetle

  • Rank
    5,000 Post Club!

Converted

  • About Me:
    Not chasing reports.
  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    Running a homeless shelter for injured animals in need of life saving surgeries.
  • What I do for a living:
    Brain Surgeon
  1. Nothing. It was posted today on CNN.com because it will be on a TV show. You don't get a TV show until long after the fact. And gathering intel from off the grid communications about illegal activities by individuals in law enforcement related to national security is much, much easier to collect in connection with foreign espionage-- which is then used in order to get ins into places like the state department. That's all. But it what do I know. For anyone who does--How secure are your communications? Do you think China or Russia would be unable to hack them? Wouldnt it be easier and less likely to raise alarms if the enemy was targeting the low lying fruit?
  2. -------------- its all a big joke. They'd only go for the state department. They'd never waste their time on local law enforcement units that are in place to protect national security. That would be silly. Even though, the people who do that for a living spend most of their time in non protected communications
  3. Is find the network of low level local law enforcement officers and low level members of local law enforcement teams in place for national security purposes, then pay a few small bribes for trivial things to other officials involved in local corruption and then just follow them around collecting their data like little calves that got too far from the herd. And then, because of the damage over time, created by the networks of these people, who regularly communicate electronically--trace everything upstream, further and further, from server to server. If the enemy were to find it had discovered a nationwide network of corruption, the consequences would be devastating. If that were to happen, I'd pray that every person involved in the breach be shipped to Guantanamo Bay.
  4. What if they got our technology through years of espionage on our porous, leaking government using high tech data collection and communications intercepts. And to prove it began their "tests" with a miniature nuclear bomb, which, any weapons expert will tell you, is the most technologically advanced and difficult to produce. And also the easiest to deliver. Then, they went on to routine standard sized early tests. And then at the end, out of the blue, detonated a super massive thermonuclear bomb. Something that no other nation has ever accomplished on the first, second or third attempt. Or its possible, that China and Russia simply gave them this technology so they could use them as a proxy and pretend they cant do anything about it. What if they are now launching American designed ICBM's to show that our government's security has been massively breached over many years and that our lax security has tipped the balance of power for the world. Because if a foreign nation were able to acquire our nuclear and our missile technology, they would presumably also have all kinds of other less obvious and less visibly demonstrable technologies. And those missiles and bombs are China and Russia saying, we got your secrets. And we can do whatever we want with them. What are you going to do about it now?
  5. Just looking to see what everyone's opinion might be on setting gill nets and then creating a massive chum slick so they can pull in the nets and pretend they actually caught those big fish with rod and reel? I have seen this done with my own eyes. I, personally, are against this because those nets wind up killing whales, sturgeons and rare types of sharks. Plus, those fish probably also take tournament prizes and could even take a record.
  6. Pro China. China has been building man made islands in the pacific to use as military bases. One of their justifications for doing so is Guam. When confronted about this by the US, China accused the US of having such a big military presence in the Pacific to go to war with them. They said if the US was not occupying their side of the world with bases like Guam, Japan and Korea they would not need to build these island bases. They also noted not setting up similar bases in the western hemisphere like we have in the eastern hemisphere and indicated the US is the aggressor in the pacific, just like North Korea claims, but in a less blantant and crazy tone. Not long afterwards, North Korea began firing functional, nuclear capable ICBM's.
  7. I'd have a better shot at president
  8. God bless him. After Trump, and his Tweets, there is now an extremely remote possibility, that even with all the posts I have made all over the internet, on sites like this, and those pictures that will definitely get out, that when I'm his age, if the moon and stars and alien overlords align right, that I, too, could run for president.
  9. No. The emoluments clause only applies to those who are in the government. A candidate, private citizen cannot be charged for violating this statute. Donald Trump is not accused of recieving anything of value from a foreign power. Even if this clause were to theorhetically apply to something after he took office, there is a serious conflict with the plain language of the original text of the Constitution. Article II, Section 4 says "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." It is not easy to say what that means for the emoluments clause, but it most likely means that something the President might have done would have to first fit into the category of offenses of treason (not happening), bribery (not happening) or high crimes and misdemeanors (not happening because it still must be similar to treason and bribery). For the President to have commited such a crime, he would need to be convicted of, at least, taking something of value in exchange for some act. To prove this type of quid pro quo against a man like Donald Trump, under our laws, would be nearly impossible, unless someone wore a wire and handed him an envelope full of money in exchange for at least a promise of an official act; or he had a discussion along those lines which was intercepted by law enforcement. It's not going to happen. It is more likely, that, in the end, a hostile force, within our government, loyal to Hillary and Obama, may be charged with treason or similar offenses, for continuing illegal surveillance of Donald Trump or continuing to intentionally leak official information to the press, after he took office and became the President of the United States. The US Government is presently in a hostile mutiny against the democratic process. And that is clearly confirmed by the extreme degree of conflict between the local governments and citizens across the country. The death rate of actual people is about 500% greater than before this hostility began under the last administration. That 500% figure can be confirmed by FBI and Department of Justice statistics.
  10. This clause in not applicable to the period of time in question. If this goes to the US Supreme Court, it is not going to fly. Its a fun story for the internet and television, but it is not going to happen. An activist judge, appointed to frustrate the fair administration of justice, might rule otherwise (like with the travel ban), but the idea is a joke if it weren't for the possibility of an intentional bad ruling, by an activist judge, selected by political hack lawyers, to write a bad decision for media consumption. It is just as silly as pretending Hillary could have been charged with a crime for her completely authorized irresponsibility. She authorized her server and lax security with the President's blessing. By definition, that cannot be a crime. The emoluments clause cannot apply to a candidate.
  11. Believe it or not and because the founding fathers wanted to ensure that no wealthy businessman would ever have to forego serving as President of the United States because of the conflicts of interests created by his business dealings, the conflicts of interest laws do not apply to the President of the United States. Were that not the case, George Washington would not have been eligible to serve as President. The founding fathers' intent, when they exempted the President from the conflicts of interest laws, was specifically for the sake of posterity and to deliberately create the precedent that would ensure that wealthy, well connected and prosperous men would be free to serve as President. And that if they do, that they mey serve without fear of being penalized for their success and many business contacts. This specific precedent is one that has become most buried in the nation's history. When the founding fathers, who fought and died over the rights of individuals, at the hands of imperialists, made it clear, when they carved out the exception to the conflicts of interests laws for the President of the United States, that the government they had just created, would be one which will ensure the freedom and prosperity of the rich and poor alike; and that the United States was designed, to set the example for the world, as the first free, constitutional, democratic CAPITALIST Republic.
  12. What crime? Now I did not agree with any of the "experts" for any news outlets said Hillary broke the law, because the laws they claimed she broke required the act to be "unauthorized." As the head of the State Dept, she was the one who had authority to "authorize." If we elect irresponsible people who authorize dangerous things, thats the price we pay for our collective bad decisions in voting for the wrong people. Now with Trump, please correct me if I just don't know--what laws do you say he broke? I havent heard any specific statute that anyone is saying he broke. And I watch and read the news everyday even though I hate it.
  13. Sadly, Schneiderman is a political hack. He regularly appears on TV to publicize his desire to engage in investigations for partisan political reasons. I have no problem with investigating crime. But openly admitting on news programs that he is engaged in partisan targeting is basically unprecedented, except for Schneiderman. NY is not exactly an example of fair administration of justice. The last 15 years let it denigrate into near third world enforcement status. Schneiderman only does TV appearances to address issues of solely partisan interest. Furthering the deterioration of the state legal system.
  14. Just tellin it exactly how it is. I could never work in the media, because tellin it like it is offends both sides of the aisle.