Americans Stepped Into A Quagmire Of Deceit In The Patriot Act

by Pamela Williams
As we search for answers as to why President Trump and his Transition Team were surveilled in November and December of 2016, and January 2017, we actually can go back to the Patriot Act.  After 9-11 Americans were taken advantage of due to their fears of another 9-11 terrorist attack.  The lawmakers had us right where they wanted us; thus, the Patriot Act was passed.  Little did we know that we would have no privacy ever again.  Remember FBI Director James Comey said the other day, “no one has any privacy.”
The surveillance of Trump Team  is a serious violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. This surveillance is one reason many Congressmen opposed the Patriot Act–they feared the kind of political abuse of the law that the Obama Administration was evidently guilty of.
The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001.[1] With its ten-letter abbreviation (USA PATRIOT) expanded, the full title is “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001”.[2]
On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act:[3] roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of “lone wolves”—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.[4]
Following a lack of Congressional approval, parts of the Patriot Act expired on June 1, 2015.[5] With the passage of the USA Freedom Act on June 2, 2015, the expired parts were restored and renewed through 2019.[6] However, Section 215 of the law was amended to stop the National Security Agency (NSA) from continuing its mass phone data collection program.[6] Instead, phone companies will retain the data and the NSA can obtain information about targeted individuals with permission from a federal court.[6]
From broad concern felt among Americans from both the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, Congress rushed to pass legislation to strengthen security controls. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month.[7] The next day, the Act passed the House 357 to 66,[8] with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The three Republicans voting ‘no’ were Robert Ney of Ohio, Butch Otter of Idaho and Ron Paul of Texas. On October 25, the Act passed the Senate by 98 to 1.[9]
God love Ron Paul, for as we look back and even now, he has warned us time and again of government abuses, and he has always been correct.  I am listing a video in which he is discussing the wiretaps of President Trump and his Team.

He and his guest speak about the Patriot Act leading to NSA/CIA surveillance of Americans, which became obtrusive and in violation of their Fourth Amendment Rights.
Fourth Amendment


The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions.  Private intrusions not acting in the color of governmental authority are exempted from the Fourth Amendment.
To have standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment, one must first demonstrate an expectation of privacy, which is not merely a subjective expectation in mind but an expectation that society is prepared to recognized as reasonable under the circumstances.  For instance, warrantless searches of private premises are mostly prohibited unless there are justifiable exceptions; on the other hand, a warrantless seizure of abandoned property usually does not violate the Fourth Amendment.  Moreover, the Fourth Amendment protection does not expand to governmental intrusion and information collection conducted upon open fields.  An Expectation of privacy in an open field is not considered reasonable.  However, there are some exceptions where state authorities granted protection to open fields.
A bivens action can be filed against federal law enforcement officials for damages resulting from an unlawful search and seizure.  States can always establish higher standards for searches and seizures than the Fourth Amendment requires, but states cannot allow conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.
The protection under the Fourth Amendment can be waived if one voluntarily consents to or does not object to evidence collected during a warrantless search or seizure.
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress and the President enacted legislation to strengthen the intelligence gathering community’s ability to combat domestic terrorism.  Entitled the USA Patriot Act, the legislation’s provisions aimed to increase the ability of law enforcement to search email and telephonic communications in addition to medical, financial, and library records. 
One provision permits law enforcement to obtain access to stored voicemails by obtaining a basic search warrant rather than a surveillance warrant.  Obtaining a basic search warrant requires a much lower evidentiary showing.  A highly controversial provision of the Act includes permission for law enforcement to use sneak-and-peak warrants.  A sneak-and-peak warrant is a warrant in which law enforcement can delay notifying the property owner about the warrant’s issuance.  In an Oregon federal district court case that drew national attention, Judge Ann Aiken struck down the use of sneak-and-peak warrants as unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.  See 504 F.Supp.2d 1023 (D. Or. 2007).  
The Patriot Act also expanded the practice of using National Security Letters (NSL).  An NSL is an administrative subpoena that requires certain persons, groups, organizations, or companies to provide documents about certain persons.  These documents typically involve telephone, email, and financial records.  NSLs also carry a gag order, meaning the person or persons responsible for complying cannot mention the existence of the NSL.  Under the Patriot Act provisions, law enforcement can use NSLs when investigating U.S. citizens, even when law enforcement does not think the individual under investigation has committed a crime.  The Department of Homeland Security has used NSLs frequently since its inception.  By using an NSL, an agency has no responsibility to first obtain a warrant or court order before conducting its search of records. 
We all know how professional and trustworthy Judge Andrew Napolitano is.  The below is a transcript of a conversation between a government official and a reporter, which lends credibility to the theory that Judge Andrew Napolitano referred to in the surveillance of the Trump Team.   
The American Thinker posted a transcript today of an interview of Larry Johnson by CNN’s Brian Stelter.
This is the transcript:
STELTER: “Let me ask you about this thing.”
JOHNSON: “Sure.”
STELTER: “So my sense is that on Monday, Napolitano says this on TV, he says he has Intel sources who believe this is true. You’re saying you were one of those sources, but you didn’t know Napolitano was going to use you like that?”
JOHNSON: “What happened was I communicated, when Donald Trump tweeted what he did Saturday two weeks ago, the next day I was interviewed on Russia today. I had known about the fact that the British, through ghcq were information back channel, this was not at the behest of Barack Obama, let’s be clear about that. But it was done with the full knowledge of people like John Brennan and Jake clapper. Two people I flow within the intelligence community in January, they were very concerned about this because they saw it as an unfair meddling in the politics, but it was a way to get around the issue of American intelligence agencies not collecting.”
STELTER: “To be clear, you have this secondhand? So you didn’t get this information directly, you’re hearing from others.
JOHNSON: “I’m hearing it from people who are in a position to know, that’s correct.”
Obviously, there will be more information on this story in the coming days. The question is, “Who ordered the surveillance?”
OK, will the above be the BINGO MOMENT that we all are afraid of.  Remember Judge Napolitano said if the above was true, there will be no evidence.
Does this mean Comey did not lie when he said there was no evidence?  My comment about that is:  Please, God, no.
So what if the evidence thing does not stick?  We go onto the next aspect of the scenario:  the unmasking of the names of US citizens and the wide dissemination of those names.  In other words, you could compare it to a group of teen girls gossiping saying: “ Someone who is a friend of someone, but I can’t say who it is, is planning to steal Mary’s boyfriend away from her at the dance tonight.” Says girl number 1.
“I know who it is!” says girl number 2.  She goes on to say, “Judy told me that Lori, her friend, is coming to the dance to steal Tom away from Mary.”
Then all the girls present during the conversation start to spread all the names and information among all the other girls in the neighborhood.  But all the while, Mary, has no idea of the plot to steal Tom from her at the dance.
That is what has occurred when Intelligence obtained the conversations of the Trump Team through “incidental” means or through “intentional” monitoring.  In some way, that could have been legal, but to “unmask” and “widely disseminate” those names and information throughout the network, and even leaking it to newspapers is a felony, carrying with it 10 years in prison.
In conclusion, I would like to quote a summary from The Gateway Pundit that explains so well what is behind the Establishment’s war with President Trump:
President Trump represents the idea of shrinking government and going back to the form of government originally envisioned by our Founding Fathers–a weak federal government and strong state governments. That idea is a serious threat to the entrenched bureaucracy and the globalists who want to undermine American sovereignty. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people working in Washington who are feeling very threatened by President Trump’s policies because they have gotten fat and happy as members of the Washington establishment. These are the people behind the leaks, behind the fake news, and doing everything they can to block what President Trump is trying to do. Remember as you read all the stories that say the wiretapping claims are false that The New York Times posted a story on January 20th saying that there were wiretaps. As far as I know, that story has never been recanted. The claim of Russian involvement in our elections is simply a shiny object to distract us from the excessive leaking which is going on and the attempts by the Washington establishment to undermine President Trump. If the media and Democrats are successful in taking down President Trump, I can guarantee that we will lose the protections on our citizens found in the U.S. Constitution. Be alert, and don’t fall for the spin.
The above is a brilliant summary of the entire horrid scheme of the government to take Trump down.  Knowledge is power, and at least we will be prepared for whatever the outcome may be.  But that will not make it any easier for our hearts, and I don’t know about you, but my heart is very weary at this point.  Yet the understanding of this betrayal will make it less stressful on the brain.  We must keep the brain alive with awareness and understanding of this war we are fighting as decent and moral citizens against those in the Establishment, who seek to do us harm.  Stay frosty, everyone.

READ  Americans Have SPOKEN: This New Poll Spells TROUBLE for Kamala Harris
READ  Biden EO strips Americans of rights if they "directly or indirectly" aid Russia

1 thought on “Americans Stepped Into A Quagmire Of Deceit In The Patriot Act

  1. True,it reminds me of the deceit of the federal reserve act which was the farthest thing from being federal by calling it the snooping patriot act on everyone in the US.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.