Here's How It Differs From Watergate

Yes, Donald Trump's phones and computers were investigated by remote. He was, in fact, "wiretapped". A server at Trump Tower had a lot of communication with Alfa Bank, in Russia, and with Vladimir Putin during the summer and fall of 2016. Since nothing we do online is anonymous, the FBI noticed, and got a warrant to investigate. It was that simple. If Donald Trump thinks that any president would say no to such an investigation, he is delusional.

This differs from Watergate primarily because it was an actual investigation, complete with a warrant issued by the court for a wiretap. Watergate was spying and invasion of privacy. Nixon and et els were attempting to manipulate the success of a campaign and the outcome of a future election by criminal means. That's not what happened at Trump Tower. Due process was followed in the wiretapping of Trump Tower. No court gave Nixon permission to eavesdrop on the Democrats, but the court gave the FBI permission to investigate Donald Trump.

Another difference is that the investigation of the server at Trump Tower involves a foreign power. Had a Russian bank, with which Trump claimed he has no commerce, not been flagged, again and again, on his server, nothing would have seemed suspect. As it happens, Alfa Bank is also connected to Vladimir Putin. It would be negligent for the FBI to ignore such communiques. Nothing about this investigation compares to Watergate.

The United States Wants Edward Snowden Arrested Immediately

This past week, Edward Snowden was invited to Norway to receive the Bjornson Prize, by the Bjornstjern Bjornson Acadamy for freedom of expression. In their own words, the award is being presented for "work protecting privacy and shining a critical light on U.S. surveillance of its citizens and others." Snowden did not appear in person. Why? Because the United States sent them a memo, demanding the immediate arrest of Snowden and confiscation of his computers, cell phones, and any other electronic trappings found on his person or in his luggage.

Since a Norwegian institution has offered an award to Snowden for the very act for which the United States has issued an arrest warrant, it seems unlikely that anyone in Norway will request any of Snowden's time for anything besides getting an autograph from him. In fact, Norway's Department of Justice reassures us all that, "What Norway has done is to inform the American authorities how the Norwegian justice system works. If they request an extradition, the prosecuting authorities will decide if the case should be brought before the courts. And the court will decide if the terms for extradition are fulfilled." Imagine that! The United States does not get its own way when hounding a citizen in the civilized world! The CIA and the FBI have also pressured other countries to arrest Snowden on sight. America has even threatened to alter diplomatic relations with other countries over imminent refusals to bully and falsely arrest Snowden. He is not their problem; he is America's problem, and many people in America are not particularly troubled by Snowden.

Why hasn't the Department of Justice, here in the United States, looked a little harder at Booz, Allen, Hamilton because of the security leak involving Edward Snowden? They are, after all, the company that was responsible for the "government data" that was revealed to the public. Wasn't it their responsibility to conduct a background check and insure that everyone they trusted with the government's "private" information was worthy of a security clearance? Booz/Allen/Hamilton are really the ones who should answer for Snowden's actions. The government does, indeed, have a civil claim against them, but as other countries see it, not so much against Snowden. If Snowden were wanted for kidnapping, human trafficking, or murder; or even for nonpayment of child support, Norwegian officials might be more sympathetic. At this point, it is a surprise that the United States government even thought that asking for the arrest of Edward Snowden was worth the time it would take to make the request.

Speaking of human trafficking, the government of Guatemala has, since 2012, been demanding the return of a kidnapping victim by the name of Anyeli Hernandez Rodriguez, who was bought by Dr. Timothy Monahan and and his wife, Jennifer, from a kidnapping ring in 2008. Because the Monahans feel that the trafficked child became their personal property upon receipt of payment, they refuse to give her back to her parents and her siblings. In 2012, the State Department announced that it would not require the distinguished customers of human traffickers in Missouri to give the little girl back. "So sorry, Guatemala, we know she was trafficked; it's just that you had not yet signed the Hague Convention, so why should we care about a crime that was committed against one of your citizens?" Or something like that. The point is, if the United States government wants the respect of other governments, human trafficking victims should not be held hostage with the blessing of the State Department.

 

Anyeli Hernandez Rodgriguez, aka Karen Monahan

I'm Getting Nothing For Christmas

There will be no Christmas for me this year
That is the unvarnished truth

Above is a stray "wahwah" from a flock of "wahwahs" left over from Christmas, 2013. It got lost in Facebook, on the page of a homeless person who has been offered help many times over the past twenty years, but turns it down every time because she does not want the employment situation which would accompany a permanent address. The wahwah girl is someone who has an income, of sorts, and refuses to use it for food and shelter. Instead, she uses it for computers, and other electronics, and for accessories for them. She stays in shelters that are meant for people experiencing true emergencies. She also eats three times as much as she needs, caring very little about any children for whom the food is meant.

Santa Claus isn't real. This is important to remember when celebrating Christmas. Santa Claus isn't real, and Christmas is best celebrated by giving, not taking from those who cannot afford to buy into the commercial ideal that has perverted Winter Solstice.



The Wahwah girl who didn't have a Christmas this year needs to grow up. That is the unvarnished truth.

 

Facebook Felony

Luckily for all of us, Senators Al Franken, (D-MN) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have introduced introduced legislation to narrow the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or the CFAA, which was enacted primarily to prosecute malicious hacking, such as identity theft and bank larceny done via computers. Lately, there has been discussion by lawmakers about all sorts of things that are done online every day by innocent computer users, such as using an online moniker that is not one's actual name on a social networking website or checking one's email at work on an employer's computer. Even more shocking is the idea that using a nickname on Facebook can even be construed as a felony! A couple of cases wherein defendants have been charged and prosecuted have involved violations of the Terms Of Service agreements for various networks......but while it is understandable that a network can reserve the right to delete the account of an errant user, how is this defined, by law, as a crime, particularly a felony? The other widely committed act that is done by many, many people is the act of using a workplace computer for unauthorized purposes, such as checking one's email or surfing social media sites. It seems like a boss should have the option to reserve the right to terminate an employee who sits on Facebook or Google Plus all day, but should the employee go to jail, after being prosecuted under CFAA, and have a felony record over using an online moniker other than a legal name?

 

 

Another Message For An Obsessed Visitor

Hello again, 68.234.126.187. I cited your information here, once before. I know exactly who you are, and I know exactly where you get online. I also know which computers you or others connected to you use, alternatively. I don't know why you bother with clumsy attempts to mask you presence, though. You see, it won't be very long before everyone who googles you name will see all of the things that I can see about you. I promise you, an internet search about your name will bring up information about everything from the way you contributed to the deliquency of a minor, filed false reports to law enforcement, committed ethics violations within your chosen field, committed fraud, violated the constitutional rights of others and sat on your big fat ass all day, on a computer belonging to your employer, while you should have been working.

I have a question for you, 68.234.126.187; do you think the schools and other government agencies which deal with matters pedogogical will want to listen to you anymore after they hear that you encouraged a teenager to drive an uninsured vehicle with stolen tags in Marshall County, Kansas?

 

Oh; by the way, if you and your goons on the police force continue to encourage local teenagers to drink and drive, and continue to encourage underage drinking despite the fact that drunk driving and underage drinking are both unlawful, I will make more noise about it than you ever thought possible. I promise.

 

 

Charges Against Bishop Robert Finn Should Be Dropped?

This is amazing! And also disturbing........we actually have fellow "citizens" in this country who approve of human trafficking, as long as it is done by clergy in the Catholic Church! According to Frank Kessler, who teaches government at Missouri State, the fact that Bishop Robert Finn has apologized should be enough, and the State of Missouri should just drop the charges, so that Catholics all over the Kansas City area can get back to Catholicism as usual, with no interruption to their child abuse or sexual perversion practices. Here's what he said, in the Kansas City Star on Oct. 18, 2011:

"Bishop Finn already apologized a number of times for his poor administrative judgment involving the supervision of one of his priests, Father Shawn Ratigan."

Does this mean that a simple, but heartfelt apology should be accepted by the state from all sex offenders and human trafficking scum? I hope that's not what Kessler means, because if it is, and if Missouri listens to him, then sex offenders all over the state will have a legal precedent to "just apologize" and expect to spend no time in jail or sit for a photo to be published in the sex offender registries. What I really think Kessler means is that it should be okay with me if a Christian or a priest abuses my child. And that is not okay with me.

Here's another statement from the same article from Kessler:

Finn is being prosecuted for lapses in judgment and missing what went on below him. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is being investigated for lapses leading to deaths involving Operation Fast and Furious. Should he be prosecuted? I would say no unless there is evidence that he lied or willfully disobeyed the law. He deserves the benefit of the doubt as does Finn.

Let me just point out that Finn is not being prosecuted for "lapses in judgement" or for "missing" what went on "below him". I doubt if the Missouri code even lists "lapse in judgement" as a crime. Finn has been charged with sex crimes and accessory to sex crimes. If there was no evidence that he lied, or willfully disobeyed the law, there would not have even been probable cause for an arrest warrent. At best, Finn was COVERING for some very nasty criminals. At worst, Finn was also part of it. And these crimes are federal, which means that Kessler feels that the entire country, not just Missouri, owes Finn more latitude just because he is a Christian pastor, than we would give anyone else involved in a kiddie porn ring. As part of the rest of the country, let me just say that I do not agree with Kessler, that his kiddie-porn friend deserves the charges dropped because of his association with Jesus, and an opportunity to continue to victimize children. And when any other kiddie porn ring is busted, federal agents and local cops stock up on hand sanitizer and protective gloves,(trust me.....no one actually wants physical contact with a kiddie porn thug) supoena any and all computers involved, and investigate anyone involved. It may take time, but this is what needs to happen. Even when representatives of Jesus think they can traffic our children. The idea that a criminal who belongs to the Christian Holier Than Other Criminals Club should be granted some type of special favor is simply offensive. As for Finn deserving the benefit of any doubt, I say no. I think it is enough of an offense to the rest of the population that he is not rotting in jail waiting for his court date, but using church funds for four attorneys.

Oh....speaking of computers, instead of handing over his priest's computer to the police, as ordered, Finn gave the computer in question to someone in the family of the priest in question. In everyone else's world, this is called tampering with evidence, and; of course, possession of child pornography and refusal to cooperate with law enforcement. If this is what Jesus would have done, or if this is what Jesus would have been involved in, or what Jesus DID do via Finn, perhaps one can see why I think the whole Christian thingamajigger, religion, creation theory, sex offenders going straight to heaven, and all, is total bullshit. Perhaps one can also see why I think Bishop Robert Finn is not going to stop whatever it is he is doing. And if he were not a bishop, I think authorities would have already thrown him in jail with the rest of the arraigned and fingerprinted population, instead of allowing him to continue to preach and take pictures.