Anonymous ID: 570cfe Dec. 6, 2018, 5:23 a.m. No.4179961   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0036 >>0347

Given that we have all been born and raised under a regime that has the CIA, hardly anyone questions the power of the CIA to assassinate people.

The CIA’s power of assassination has become a deeply established part of American life.

 

Yet, the Constitution, which called the federal government into existence and established its powers, does not authorize the federal government to assassinate people.

 

If the proponents of the Constitution had told the American people that the Constitution was bringing into existence a government that wielded the power to assassinate people, there is no way that Americans would have approved the deal, in which case they would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation.

 

Under the Articles, the powers of the federal government were so weak, it didn’t even have the power to tax, much less the power to assassinate people. That’s because our American ancestors wanted it that way. The last thing they wanted was a federal government with vast powers.

 

In fact, the purpose of the Constitutional Convention was simply to amend the Articles of Confederation. During the 13 years of operating under the Articles, problems had arisen, such as trade wars between the states. The convention was intended to fix those problems with amendments to the Articles.

 

Instead, the delegates came out with an entirely different proposal, one that would call into existence a federal government that had more powers, including the power to tax.

 

Americans were leery. The last thing they wanted was a powerful central government. They had had enough of that type of government as British citizens under the British Empire. They believed that the biggest threat to people’s freedom and well-being lay with their own government. They believed that if they approved a federal government, it would become tyrannical and oppressive, like other governments had done throughout history.

 

They were especially concerned with the power of the government to murder people, including citizens. They knew that state-sponsored murder was the ultimate power in any tyrannical regime. When a government can kill anyone it wants with impunity, all other rights are effectively nullified. And our ancestors were sufficiently well-versed in history to know that tyrannical regimes were notorious for killing their own citizens, especially those people who challenge, criticize, or object to the tyranny.

 

The proponents of the Constitution told Americans that they had nothing to be concerned about. The Constitution wasn’t calling into existence a government with general powers to do anything it wanted. Instead, by the terms of the document that would be calling the federal government into existence, its powers would be limited to the few powers that were enumerated within the document. Thus, if a power wasn’t enumerated, it didn’t exist and, therefore, couldn’t be exercised. Since the Constitution wasn’t giving the federal government the power to murder people, it couldn’t exercise that power.

 

On that basis, our American ancestors approved the deal, but only on the condition that the Constitution would be immediately amended after approval with a Bill of Rights. To make sure that federal officials understood that they didn’t have the power to murder people, the Fifth Amendment was enacted. It prohibited the federal government from killing people without first according them due process of law. It’s worth noting that the protections of the Fifth Amendment are not limited to American citizens. The Amendment prohibits the federal government from murdering anyone, including people who are not U.S. citizens.

 

What is due process of law? It’s a phrase that stretches all the way back to Magna Carta in 1215, when the barons of England forced their king to acknowledge that his powers over them were limited. Magna Carta prohibited the king from killing British citizens in violation of the “law of the land,” a phase that evolved over the centuries into “due process of law.”

 

Essentially, due process means notice and hearing. It says to the government: “You cannot kill anyone unless you first give him formal notice of the particular criminal offense that you are claiming warrants killing him.” Then, after notice, there has to be fair trial in which the accused has the right to be heard. The Sixth Amendment ensured that people would have the right of trial by jury because our ancestors didn’t trust judges or tribunals.

 

And so it was that the American people lived in a society for more than 150 years in which the federal government lacked the power to assassinate people, which is really just a fancy word for murder. A governmental assassination is the state-sponsored killing of a person without notice and trial — that is, without due process of law.

More:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-05/why-can-cia-assassinate-people

Anonymous ID: 570cfe Dec. 6, 2018, 5:46 a.m. No.4180057   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Not sure Mueller will be around then!

 

Democratic lawmakers, set to take control of the House of Representatives in January, are reportedly planning to send special counsel Robert Mueller transcripts of testimony from some of President Trump’s closest aides.

 

Reuters, citing three sources familiar with the matter, reported that Democrats want Mueller to review the testimony for evidence and possible falsehoods.

 

The news service notes that the House Intelligence Committee has heard testimony from Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, son Donald Trump Jr, former advisers Roger Stone and Corey Lewandowski, personal aide Rhona Graff and former personal aides Hope Hicks and Keith Schiller.

 

All of those interviews will reportedly be sent to Mueller, who has been investigating Russian election interference in the 2016 election.

 

Two sources told Reuters that they expect Mueller to review testimony from Stone, Kushner and Trump Jr. for potential falsehoods.

 

A spokesperson for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who will chair the committee in December, told Reuters that sending Mueller transcripts would not mean the panel believes criminal charges should be brought.

 

“We do not foreclose the possibility of making a referral, but all we have decided is to provide the Special Counsel with the transcripts so that his team can evaluate them for evidence as well as potential perjury,” Patrick Boland, Schiff’s spokesperson, said.

 

The report from Reuters comes about a week after Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty last week to one count of making false statements to Congress while talking about his correspondence with Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign.

 

Cohen has agreed to cooperate with Mueller's investigation as part of his plea.

 

In September, Republicans rejected a proposal from Democrats to send Mueller transcripts of testimony from its own investigation into Russian election interference. GOP lawmakers did however vote to send 53 transcripts to the Director of National Intelligence for declassification, according to Reuters.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/419997-house-dems-planning-to-send-trump-associates-testimony-to-mueller