Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Again, Clinton's XO says nothing about whether someone is in the executive branch or not.
Tw, even distilling facts down to a single sentence has no effect on you. You're impervious to points that don't agree with your POV. Fix this.
|
UT - why does the XO have to say anything other than authorize the wiretapping of Ames? It does not. An XO order that wiretaps Ames is legal because Ames permits it as part of his employment.
Meanwhile, when George Jr authorizes wiretapping of all in the Cellar only using an XO; that is illegal? Do you say George Jr can wiretap all in the Cellar because Clinton wiretapped an administration employee? Clearly there is no logical thought in that rationalization.
An XO need make no mention anything other than to authorize the wiretap. Clinton's and George Jr's XO could be worded same - a single sentence. And yet Clinton's would be legal because of
who it wiretapped. George Jr's would be illegal because he wanted to wiretap the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate, the Cellar, or a completely innocent lawyer in Oregon who just happened to be Muslim - whose child's Spanish homework was cited as part of a conspiracy to bomb trains in Madrid. Look at how absurdly psychotic this 'we must bug everyone' administration has become. Somehow they have the right to bug anyone - and somehow you agree?
UT, repeating the obvious fallacy in your ridiculous arguments - that question how your heavy breathing is affecting your intelligence - has no effect on you. You see. I too can post useless insults. Stop with the insults and explain why a Clinton XO that only says 'wiretap Ames' is not legal? An XO can authorize wiretapping of Ames, not say why, and be perfectly legal. So what is your point? That the XO must go into specific detail on why it is legal - else it is not legal? What is your point of even mentioning Clinton - a totally irrelevant topic?
Hypothetically: Clinton writes an XO that says one sentence: "Wiretap Ames". Nothing more. That is legal. George Jr writes an XO that says "Wiretap Mr. Joe Citizen". That too is a complete XO text. George Jr's XO would be illegal. Why do you have a problem with this obvious fact?
But then why is Clinton's legal wiretap even mentioned by UT? Clinton is not a president who seeks dictatorship much like Nixon did. The question is George Jr who clearly has no respect for laws - probably because god tells him what is right - or righteous. George Jr has but again violated the law. He authorizes wiretaps without judicial approval when judicial approval is required - by law. Why, UT, do you have a problem with patriots who again expose the president as a crook? He wiretaps because he is president and therefore has the right to wiretap anyone. That is criminal.