Thoughts 28 May 2019
I have been ruminating on a few things which have been going on the past couple of years and I have just reached a point where I must write about them. You know, like the reason the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights is even in the Constitution.
It is there to protect us from the police just coming into our homes, our digital lives, our relationships, and any other private areas of our lives without what is called “probable cause”. Probable cause is the concept, defined in numerous court decisions, where governmental authorities have to have a legitimate investigative purpose before they can delve into all aspects of our lives looking for evidence of a crime. They can't just go looking for something, they have to show a court of law why they legitimately expect to find evidence of a crime before the court will allow the governmental body to have access to our information.
Why can't the same standard be applied to different congressional committees before they ask for a subpoena as a means of checks and balances. It would require an amendment to the Constitution and it may be something we need to look into. The Judiciary committee has not, to my satisfaction, shown any legitimate probable cause to issue a subpoena for President Trump's tax returns other than they just want to go deep diving into his financial history to a point years before his being elected to the Presidency. The only reason I am leery of even pushing for this is because I no longer trust the judicial system.
After the issue of the FISA warrants based on known false information, district judges issuing nationwide injunctions based on political ideology as opposed to legal standards, the Supreme Court legislating instead of issuing legal opinions I am beginning to see mounting objective evidence the whole system has become politicized and that rulings are being based on feelings and political ideology instead of actual objective fact.
What happened with the FISA warrants is just one example. In this instance imagine if a police officer or prosecutor went to their computer and created some documentary evidence against a person of interest to obtain an electronic surveillance warrant from a judge despite there being no evidence of any wrong doing. The officer just didn't like the person and wanted to prevent the person of interest from obtaining something they might actually achieve.
The judge, having had a relationship with the officer for quite a while and a level of trust through those dealings, issues the electronic surveillance warrant without checking the facts of the affidavit on the reasons for the warrant. This is what essentially happened to President Trump during the course of the campaign for the 2016 presidential election. It would be like taking a fingerprint from somewhere other than the crime scene and saying in the affidavit the fingerprint was found at the crime scene.
I have a hard time believing anyone, from any political party, would be supportive of this. Then to have a special counsel spring from this and determine there was no chargeable crime, and yet the police officer or prosecutor is still pushing for the person of interest to be charged. This is what the Democrat's position is currently. It is a complete compromising of our judicial system and it's under girding ethics.
