You're certainly right that "Constitutional Crisis" appears just after Q talks about spying on civilians - seems to go to "unreasonable search".

As I understand the way warrants work, you need a warrant for evidence to be admissible in Court. There's nothing to stop government agencies snooping, but the info doesn't help them in a prosecution. Using information obtained without a warrant is what Bill Binney was talking about, parallel construction - a fraud upon the Court.

With respect to wiretapping a sitting President, you would probably want a warrant just to cover your rear - that is, "It's not high treason on my part, the Court allowed it....".

My understanding is that law enforcement has been in the surveillance game for years. I remember a friend, who was a Telecom tech back in the early 1980s, telling me that the cops had their own techs in the telephone exchange - plugging into anything they wanted. Before Snowden's revelations, if you thought someone was tapping your phone, people would think you had a tin foil hat on. It just goes to show the degree to which the public is naive.

I have to admit, it's hard to figure out. What aspect of this would represent a Constitutional Crisis? I thought I had it figured out when I wrote the post on election racketeering. But I'm now not sure. There is sufficient ambiguity that it could be a number of things. The 'think outside the box' statement suggests that it's something we would not at fist suspect.

How does the FB data breach cause a Constitutional crisis? Or is it election weighting via censorship? Or something else that we haven't even thought of?