daz28

1. I wouldn't be shocked if FBI covered up for FBI. I wouldn't be shocked if military covered up for military. 2. They could have very easily went this route

It's Patriot Act

This is just an example of will the real deep state stand up. We all know the whole government is thick as thieves, that's why I don't buy the deep state talk.

Unchecked power The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse: The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority. The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application. Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written. A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

I'm guessing Horowitz is in on it too.

I already said it didn't apply to FISA warrants, but it makes surveillance a guarantee if you go that route.

That's hardly proof, especially if the lawyers were in on the whole thing. That doesn't make sense. It's the legal equivalent of OJ's lawyer planting the glove that acquitted.

I'm not taking a side, but didn't the Patriot Act pretty much make a judge cooperate no matter what. I'm not saying for a FISA warrant, but they could have taken that route if they wanted to.

Is there documented proof of this? I know it's old stuff, but I really didn't follow it much.

It's not that they're good, they just know how to tie everything up in court for eternity. They know the system better than they know the law.

So Flynn knew he was innocent, but was going to take a bullet for him anyways? I get it's your kid, but I don't know that I'd just say, "fine take me", when I knew they didn't have a case. Either Flynn had crap lawyers, or he was convinced they were going to frame somebody no matter what. I think in that instance, I'd want to fight them more, rather than give in. **** them, and that bs.

Right. We have to be somewhat sensible about this. We're lucky enough to be later in the chain, so we have examples how to move forward.

Why did Flynn decide he didn't want to protect his kid anymore if that's why he took the guilty plea? Won't he now be exposed to whatever Flynn originally feared?

No, specifically which rights do you feel you will permanently lose, because of Covid?

I don't have any fear, but you didn't answer either question.

I agree with all of that, but I think you do have to quarantine people who do have it. I also think we need some measures to remain in place, and open in phases.

I'm not agreeing with the Patriot Act, but there still is global terrorism, and I'm not looking to debate that. The thing is they can at least make that claim. Which rights do you think you permanently lose , and what justification do you think they will use to continue them after the Covid infections subside?

Your mothers friend is basically a miracle. I believe the odds of coming off a vent are around 10%. Knowing that, it had to be a very scary situation for her. That's a stat I'd personally rather not even know. Absolutely! I appreciate you sharing

They tried to make this look like a scientific case study, but it's not. It 99% estimated probability based on models. One interesting stat was they felt the lockdown lowered transmission by 77%, but again totally taken with a grain of salt. However, if that is the case, then it's certainly not an indicator for re-opening with current infection rates.

Does this make much sense? The measures are being done to reduce cases, so how could they be also simultaneously be working to make it perpetual? The only thing that might do that is no testing, no tracing, no social distancing, and open everything up with no measures, which is the opposite of what they are doing.

If you understand it so well, then where's the outrage for roadblocks and drawing your blood? The Patriot Act basically took away a ridiculous amount of your rights over 3k deaths, and the president said if you don't vote for it the next attack is on you. Neither I, nor probably anyone likes this idea, but it may be what's necessary. They also really have no grounds to continue the measures when the threat is over. It doesn't say anything about mandatory testing. It literally says, "Those who test positive will need to isolate for 14 days"

Does the employee WANT to consent, or do they feel compelled to? Here's another way to phrase it: "would you be willing to submit to this for the good of yourself, your family, and your community?" Has a court determined that DWI is of grave enough concern that citizens may be stopped, and inspected at any time for the good of society? Stop trying to make it sound so draconian. Does AG Barr have a better plan to stop the spread of the virus? Also, is that the same Bill Barr that said the Patriot Act which wasn't even debated didn't go far enough? I don't see a terrorist act being much worse than this is.

It depends on what the reasoning for it is. Is it right to send lepers off to an island to live with other lepers to keep everyone else from getting leprosy? People are tracked all the time by their employers, and that's only to ensure they are getting the proper labor for what they are paying the employee. This is literally a matter of life or death. Also, it didn't say what happens if you don't comply. I'm using logic here to assume that starving isn't in any realm of possibility. If you don't comply, then that means you're leaving, and going about your business. No where does it say they will surround your home, and allow no supplies in like it were a castle siege. Comply or starve is simply the term you're using as red meat to rile people up. 100% sensationalism. I suppose worst case scenario is you get fed in jail.

Did you even read it, or watch the video? It's if you test positive. Also, please don't throw numbers around about something you really don't understand.

I watched it, and he didn't say that, but why wouldn't anyone comply?? Could anything be stupider than running around KNOWING your ill, and could infect/harm/possibly kill other people? I mean when I'm drunk I'm not allowed to drive, because I could hurt other people. Why is this different than that? It is also very misleading to leave out that he gave assurances that they will be checked in on daily, and they will receive the groceries and medicine they need if they had no outside sources.