quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
these devices (stingrays / femtocells) ... I read, recently, that now there are apps that can detect the switch/interception and tell you (the user) that something is afoot

Can you provide any information about these apps?

Maybe don't drift this thread, but start a different one specifically about this? Or, if you prefer to keep it offline, I would appreciate information sent to the email address in my profile.

Sound familiar?:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2...-le-pen-victory.html

Yes.... and it would be good for Europe if she wins:

Le Pen, seen by some as the French Donald Trump, is considered as one of the two candidates who will move onto the second round in France’s presidential elections. She has maintained her popularity despite being the center of investigations along with her anti-immigration National Front party.

Polls suggest Le Pen and centrist independent candidate Emmanuel Macron will come out on top in the first round of voting on April 23. The top two vote-getters go on to compete in the May 7 presidential runoff. However, the polls says she will not win the runoff unless large numbers break with past voting habits and abandon tradition, even life-long, allegiances.

Le Pen’s campaign speaks of a new landscape pitting "patriots" against "globalists" — the Paris political elite she accuses of surrendering France's power and sovereignty to European bureaucrats and opening it to culture-destroying mass immigration.

"We enlist all patriots from the right or left to join us," Le Pen thundered at the congress where she launched her 144-point platform in February. "Elected officials or simple citizens, wherever you come from, whatever commitments you made, you have a place at our side."

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Sound familiar?:

Very. They are running scared too.

Brexit, President Trump, Le Pen

"For a time such as this..."

Several schools of thought, but all are "correct", from a certain point of view...(Star Wars Metaphorically speaking).

1. God, raises or provides a person for a time, a season or a reason.

Now, we cannot pretend to know the basis for such a thing, and often cannot see the end result until after the thing, but we can know that such a thing can occur, and like looking for the signs of spring and recognizing them, we can know that spring is in its coming.

To keep this simple, I will stay with known recent history.

1. George Washington. Was the right man for the job, to both be a great leader in the war against England, and to be the first President. A most formidable leader and had no issue with stepping down when his time and need was done. He was followed and kept company with many of the same cloth.

2. The several of the founding fathers, Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, were all needed and made great contributions to the foundation, and it has borne well. The "additions and renovations" maybe, not so much, but I believe those men were providential in their time and place.

3. Winston Churchill. Well, even Chuck Norris is impressed, and would step back to let Winston pass.

4. FDR. When we needed a person who could face the impossible position of coming from behind in WWII, he was the right person to lift that burden. He was a living metaphor of America. Weakened and frail, but with great resolve, determination and the ability to turn what he had at his disposal to leverage and fashion into the tools required to do what needed be done.

5. Truman. Man had balls enough to use and do what needed to be done, realizing the repercussions, but knew or believed that the future of generations and the world depended upon his decision.

6. Generals and Admirals Patton, Eisenhower, Bradly, MacArthur, Arnold, Nimitz, Halsey.
7. JFK Facing Russia, and the Space program

8. Reagan

9. Trump (more later)

And others not mentioned.

All of them powerful in the moment, and a many of them weak and failures outside of that.


We have great and powerful people that never see the spotlight, and that does not diminish their accomplishments, nor their contributions, only that at specific times, a person is "raised" up, and seen, for it drives the people and moves "mountains" as it were.

There are also negatives to this, also driving people and moving mountains, but while the effects in the long term are both "good for mankind", often, one leads to great misery and lament and the other, less.

Consider, God says: "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."
(and the second, that is likened to the first...)

"A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."


When we do things that are painful, but necessary, the end is less pain for the goodness returned.

Contrary to putting the pain off, or trying to circumvent that whish might be painful, only to incur greater pain and suffering.

And the second; when one purposes to do a thing, but the mind or heart is wicked, the outcome is not goodness, but cruel. Consider welfare. A system that "sounds good on the surface", but it will always end up defeating the purpose it presented to fix. Rather than a hand out, a hand up.

It is seen as "good" to "give" source to those who have not. But history proves this is folly.
Yet, requiring people work or earn, learn or anything to put "skin in the game", is seen as demeaning, or even compered to be on equal with slavery, yet the first actually is enslavement to a system. Hence, the "wicked and cruel".


And while there are many who think/believe there is no God, for the same expression of a person raised for a time, let us consider that mankind, as a "collective organism" recognizes the "need" for such persons at specific times, and "organically" those who are such leaders "bloom", (always there and would have "flowered" in any event, but not to the degree of notoriety and great leadership). And the majority sees need and sees such a person and helps promote them to the leadership position.

I believe in the first, and that often that leads to the second. But in any event, we see such people from time to time, and as said, often do not realize until time has passed, that the leader was such a person for the "time such as this".

I believe Trump is one of those leaders. A man, with talent, vision, resolve and all the good traits, yet a man with the many fallible traits that ruin men and nations.

If I am correct in my observation, DJT is under great threat, as is the nation, for he is not raised up for himself, but for us, and it is within our ability to stand for and defend his purpose, and realize that the "enemy/enemies" will be as vicious and insidious in their attacks and efforts to destroy, because that is the core that drives them.

And now, for my fourth cup of coffee....

Amen Sigmonkey, amen...your CUT is most appropriate

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Sound familiar?:

Very. They are running scared too.

Brexit, President Trump, Le Pen

The problem for Le Pen is that France is a straight popular vote. She'll no doubt win the first round of voting, but she has a tough row to win the second.

It's going to be something if she wins. Most French people that I know despise her and her party. And dang it, I miscalculated. I thought I was going to be in France for the second election. My wife will be, but I don't arrive until the following weekend. Bummer. I was looking forward to a "Trump" repeat.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
"For a time such as this..."
*****

And now, for my fourth cup of coffee....

Well said, sigmonkey!
... and now, another cup of coffee in your honor.... Cheers!

A very excellent post, monkey.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Shugart:
A very excellent post, monkey.

I'll have to agree. And now I'm going to go pour only my second cup of coffee as I work my way to my fourth. Top of the morning to all y'all déplorables.

An excellent post mr. monkey. You have shown that in a time of need an individual comes out and saves the day. Let's pray the President is such a person.

I'm man enough to say that is a PRECIOUS pic with the President and his grandchildren!!!

Text of Trump's revised immigration order

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...migration-order.html

Well said Monkey, here, here..

Sigmonkey, my hat's off to you sir!

You might not agree, but I would include Lincoln among those greats bought up by God at a time of great need for our nation.

Regarding LePen, I understand from very little reading about her that her economic platform is basically Marxist; she may be a different kind of nationalist, and more states, compared with Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and AfD in Germany.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:

Regarding LePen, I understand from very little reading about her that her economic platform is basically Marxist; she may be a different kind of nationalist, and more states, compared with Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and AfD in Germany.

People need to understand that Le Pen is not right-wing despite the media labeling her as such. Her policies in many ways are just as leftist as the socialists running for President of France. She is called right-wing simply because she is a nationalist, and it gives the liberal media the freedom to call her a racist all they want without marring their own ideology.

Yes, There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance

President Trump recently tweeted claiming that former President Obama wiretapped him during his campaign. One can only imagine how nuts the media would have gone if the roles had been reversed: President Trump wiretapping either Obama or the Clintons, though his DOJ could have authority to do just that given the expansive leaks of intelligence information by Obama and Clinton supporters the last few months. Heck, he could wiretap the media at this point, legally and legitimately, as the sources of these unlawful leaks, for which Obama himself set precedent. Do liberals understand what Pandora’s Box Obama opened up by Obama using the powers of the NSA, CIA and FBI to spy on his political opponents? Even Nixon never did that.

If the stories are correct, Obama or his officials might even face prosecution. But, we are still early in all of this and there are a lot of rumors flying around so the key is if the reports are accurate. We just don’t know at this time. The stories currently are three-fold: first, that Obama’s team tried to get a warrant from a regular, Article III federal court on Trump, and was told no by someone along the way (maybe the FBI), as the evidence was that weak or non-existent; second, Obama’s team then tried to circumvent the federal judiciary’s independent role by trying to mislabel the issue one of “foreign agents,” and tried to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “courts”, and were again turned down, when the court saw Trump named (an extremely rare act of FISA court refusal of the government, suggesting the evidence was truly non-existent against Trump); and so, third, Obama circumvented both the regular command of the FBI and the regularly appointed federal courts, by placing the entire case as a FISA case (and apparently under Sally Yates at DOJ) as a “foreign” case, and then omitted Trump’s name from a surveillance warrant submitted to the FISA court, which the FISA court unwittingly granted, which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump. Are these allegations true? We don’t know yet, but if any part of them are then Obama and/or his officials could face serious trouble.

Can a President be charged with a crime? Only once out of office. While in office, impeachment remains the exclusive remedy in order to avoid a single judicial branch trying to overturn an election, such as a grand jury in any part of the country could. Once out of office, a President remains immune from civil liability for his duties while President, under a 1982 decision of the United States Supreme Court. However, as the Nixon pardon attests, nothing forecloses a criminal prosecution of the President after his presidency is complete for crimes against the country. Obama, the Constitutional lawyer, should know that.

What crimes could have been committed? Ironically, for Democrats falsely accusing Attorney General Sessions, perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury, as well as intentional violations of FISA. Rather shockingly, no law currently forbids misusing the power of the presidency to spy on one’s adversaries. What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself. Under section 1809, FISA makes it a crime for anyone to either “engage in” electronic surveillance under “color of law” under FISA without following the law’s restrictions, or “disclose” or “use” information gathered from it in contravention of the statute’s sharp constrictions.

FISA, 50 USC 1801, et seq., is a very limited method of obtaining surveillance authority. The reason for its strict limits is that FISA evades the regular federal court process, by not allowing regularly, Constitutionally appointed federal judges and their magistrates to authorize surveillance the Fourth Amendment would otherwise forbid. Instead, the Chief Justice handpicks the FISA court members, who have shown an exceptional deference to the executive branch. This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or “grave hostile” war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.

One important reminder about electronic surveillance. Occasionally, a law enforcement officer will hear or see or record information not allowed by the warrant, but incidental or accidental to otherwise lawful surveillance. Their job is to immediately stop listening, stop recording, and to delete such information. This is what you occasionally see in films where the agent in the van hears the conversation turn away from something criminal to a personal discussion, and the agent then turns off the listening device and stops the recording. Such films simply recognize long-standing legal practice.

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information.” Now that sounds broad, but is in fact very limited under the law. The only “foreign intelligence information” allowed as a basis for surveillance is information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential “grave” “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror. Second, it can only be used to eavesdrop on conversations where the parties to the conversation are a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. An agent of a foreign power cannot be a United States person unless they are knowingly involved in criminal espionage. No warrant is allowed on that person unless a FISA court finds probable cause the United States person is knowingly engaged in criminal espionage. Even then, if it involves a United States person, special steps must be taken to “minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons.”

This includes procedures that require they never identify the person, or the conversation, being surveilled, to the public where that information is not evidence of a particular crime. Third, the kind of information sought concerns solely information about a pending or actual attack on the country. That is why the law limits itself to sabotage incidents involving war, not any form or kind of “sabotage,” explicitly limiting itself to those acts identified in section 105 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

This bring us to Watergate-on-Steroids, or #ObamaGate. Here are the problematic aspects of the Obama surveillance on Trump’s team, and on Trump himself. First, it is not apparent FISA could ever be invoked. Second, it is possible Obama’s team may have perjured themselves before the FISA court by withholding material information essential to the FISA court’s willingness to permit the government surveillance. Third, it could be that Obama’s team illegally disseminated and disclosed FISA information in direct violation of the statute precisely prohibiting such dissemination and disclosure. FISA prohibits, under criminal penalty, Obama’s team from doing any of the three.

At the outset, the NSA should have never been involved in a domestic US election. Investigating the election, or any hacking of the DNC or the phishing of Podesta’s emails, would not be a FISA matter. It does not fit the definition of war sabotage or a “grave” “hostile” war-like attack on the United States, as constrictively covered by FISA. It is your run-of-the-mill hacking case covered by existing United States laws that require use of the regular departments of the FBI, Department of Justice, and Constitutionally Senate-appointed federal district court judges, and their appointed magistrates, not secretive, deferential FISA courts.

Out of 35,000+ requests for surveillance, the FISA court has only ever rejected a whopping 12. Apparently, according to published reports, you can add one more to that — even the FISA court first rejected Obama’s request to spy on Trump’s team under the guise of an investigation into foreign agents of a pending war attack, intelligence agents apparently returned to the court, where, it is my assumption, that they did not disclose or divulge all material facts to the court when seeking the surveillance the second time around, some of which they would later wrongfully disseminate and distribute to the public. By itself, misuse of FISA procedures to obtain surveillance is itself, a crime.

This raises the second problem: Obama’s team submission of an affidavit to to the FISA court. An application for a warrant of any kind requires an affidavit, and that affidavit may not omit material factors. A fact is “material” if it could have the possible impact of impacting the judicial officer deciding whether to authorize the warrant. Such affidavits are the most carefully drawn up, reviewed, and approved affidavits of law enforcement in our system precisely because they must be fully-disclosing, forthcoming, and include any information a judge must know to decide whether to allow our government to spy on its own. My assumption would be that intelligence officials were trying to investigate hacking of DNC which is not even a FISA covered crime, so therefore serious questions arise about what Obama administration attorneys said to the FISA court to even consider the application. If the claim was “financial ties” to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all.

Since Trump was the obvious target, the alleged failure to disclose his name in the second application could be a serious and severe violation of the obligation to disclose all material facts. Lastly, given the later behavior, it is evident any promise in the affidavit to protect the surveilled information from ever being sourced or disseminated was a false promise, intended to induce the illicit surveillance. This is criminalized both by federal perjury statutes, conspiracy statutes, and the FISA criminal laws themselves.

That raises the third problem: it seems the FISA-compelled protocols for precluding the dissemination of the information were violated, and that Obama’s team issued orders to achieve precisely what the law forbids, if published reports are true about the administration sharing the surveilled information far-and-wide to promote unlawful leaks to the press. This, too, would be its own crime, as it brings back the ghost of Hillary’s emails — by definition, FISA information is strictly confidential or it’s information that never should have been gathered. FISA strictly segregates its surveilled information into two categories: highly confidential information of the most serious of crimes involving foreign acts of war; or, if not that, then information that should never have been gathered, should be immediately deleted, and never sourced nor disseminated. It cannot be both.

Recognizing this information did not fit FISA meant having to delete it and destroy it. According to published reports, Obama’s team did the opposite: order it preserved, ordered the NSA to search it, keep it, and share it; and then Obama’s Attorney General issued an order to allow broader sharing of information and, according to the New York Times, Obama aides acted to label the Trump information at a lower level of classification for massive-level sharing of the information. The problem for Obama is simple — if it could fit a lower level of classification, then it had to be deleted and destroyed, not disseminated and distributed, under crystal clear FISA law. Obama’s team’s admission it could be classified lower, yet taking actions to insure its broadest distribution, could even put Obama smack-middle of the biggest unlawful surveillance and political-opponent-smear campaign since Nixon. Except even Nixon didn’t use the FBI and NSA for his dirty tricks.

Watergate would have never happened if Nixon felt like he could just ask the FBI or NSA to tape the calls. This is Hoover-esque abuses of the kind Bob Woodward pal, former FBI Assistant Director Mark Felt (otherwise known as Deep Throat), routinely engaged in at the FBI until convicted and removed from office. (You didn’t know that Deep Throat was really a corrupt part of Deep State, did you? Guess who ran the famous COINTELPRO? That’s right — Deep Throat. How would the public have reacted if they knew the media had been in bed with the deep state all the way back then? Maybe that was the reason Woodward, Bernstein and Bradley kept Deep Throat’s identity secret all those years?)

Democrats may regret Sessions’ recusal, as his replacement is a mini-Sessions: a long-respected, a-political, highly ethical prosecutor, Dana Boente, whose reputation is well-warranted from his service at the Tax Division, and who won’t be limited by any perceived ties to Trump, given his prior appointment by Obama. Obama himself appeared scared of Boente, as he removed Boente from the successor-to-Sessions position during the lame-duck part of Obama’s presidency, but Trump restored Boente to that role earlier this month. Democrats may get the investigation they wanted, but it may be their own that end up named in the indictment.

Robert Barnes is a California-based trial attorney whose practice focuses on tax defense, civil rights and First Amendment law. You can follow him at @Barnes_Law

LawNewz

I don't know how to embed a video here, but this cracked me up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wWMG3jPHc