Rogue, wrong, out of control.
Obama Judges Kill Americans’ Privacy to Help Democratic House Harass Trump
Two Obama appointees just greenlit two of the most invasive Congressional subpoenas for private financial information in American history. Their orders eviscerate and endanger privacy for all Americans.
Gee, imagine my surprise. Note ye well that this balls-out-illegal outrage is for records from a period when Trump A) was NOT President; B) was not RUNNING for President; C) was NOT under suspicion of phony “Russian collusion,” a specious connivance that has now been exposed as such.
Supreme Court precedent “makes it plain that the mere semblance of legislative purpose would not justify an inquiry in the face of the Bill of Rights.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 198 (1957). Congress cannot “unjustifiably encroach upon an individual’s right to privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion or assembly.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 198 (1957). The Supreme Court warned “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200 (1957). The sole and whole goal must be “collecting information for a legislative purpose” which is limited to “obtaining facts upon which the full legislature can act.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200 (1957). This imposes “a jurisdictional concept of pertinency” that constricts inquiries to factual issues needed for legislation. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 206 (1957). This “scope of inquiry” must be “defined with sufficiently unambiguous clarity to safeguard a witness from the hazards of vagueness.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 217(1957).
“There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress…Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. Those are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government. No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to punish those investigated are indefensible.” Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 186 (1957).
Not ONE of which conditions apply here. What this is is yet another completely illegitimate Democrat-Socialist fishing expedition, hoping to unearth something—anything, anything at all—that can then be inflated into a justification for impeachment. It is Constitutionally insupportable; legally without basis; ethically repellent; destructive to whatever tattered shreds remain of national comity; and despicable in every way. It is a low, frankly dangerous abuse of powers the Congress not only does not have, but has been explicitly denied them by the Supreme Court. It is political and personal harrassment, perpetrated by a party running scared and desperate, terrified that all the skeletons lurking in their closet might now rattle into public view. Here’s the telling, and infuriating, part:
The judges’ mutual refusal to stay their judgment pending appeal further reflects the partisan motivation behind their conduct. Anyone think they would have approved Congressional subpoenas into Obama’s still-sealed educational records? Anyone think they would have approved Senatorial subpoenas into Biden’s family finances that concern the large sums of money foreign countries and their agents paid his family during his Vice Presidency under Obama? Anyone think they would have approved wide-scale subpoenas into the activities of the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State?
This judgment presents a risk far beyond the politics and personality of Trump, though it is the premise for the courts’ conduct; these court orders open Pandora’s box for any snooping, stalking, surveilling politician to pry open the most intimate private aspects of any person’s life at any time for any reason as they long as they write a memo to themselves that says: we need this for legislation someday, maybe, kinda.
Does anyone think these peeping Tom politicians will limit their window shopping to Trump Tower?
The legal and political left continues to attack the first freedoms of the Constitutional republic in ways even Orwell thought too implausible to foresee. The failure to protect privacy for those related to Trump is the failure to protect privacy for everyone. Let us hope SCOTUS steps in before 2024 becomes Orwell’s 1984.
Umm, hate to say it, but that ship has already sailed. No matter, though. The Democrat-Socialists are stepping heedlessly onto explosive ground here, still thinking themselves immune to any possible harm. They MUST be stopped, by whatever means necessary to do so, before it’s too late.
Trump needs to resist this indecent assault on his and his family’s privacy, vigorously and uncompromisingly; not only for his own sake, but even more for ours. For our part, we need to support him in that, unambiguously and without reservation. I know, I know, he hasn’t done this, he’s failed at that, he’s only halfheartedly attempted the other. He’s a boob, a blowhard, a deceitful fraud. Doesn’t matter now; he remains our very last chance to stem the Progtard tide politically, without an actual bloody, catastrophic shooting war. I am HIGHLY doubtful that such can be done, even more so with each successive shitlib shitfit. But we gotta try as hard as we can.