Is the Trump/Russia investigation unconstitutional?

I'm sorry this is a long post, but I tried to tie many things together related to the Trump/Russia investigations, the WikiLeaks, the Seth Rich murder, and the apparent corruption that ties all of it into one bundle. Anyway, please correct me where I'm wrong.

Suppose you were driving down the street. Your car was in perfect working order and you did not break any traffic laws, but a policeman still pulls you over. You ask why he pulled you over. He doesn't answer. Instead he asks you to get out of the car and to open your trunk. After that, he begins searching your vehicle.

"Why did you pull me over? What are you looking for?" you ask. To your surprise, he explains to you exactly what he is doing. He explains that he doesn't know if you have broken any laws and he also doesn't know what he's looking for or even if there is anything to find. You find this puzzling and probably unconstitutional. The officer goes on to say that he is sorry but that he has been instructed to try to find "something" to charge you with and that he is supposed to keep investigating until he finds something that is actionable.

Does this sound familiar? Of course it does. This is what Donald Trump has been putting up with for over a year. There is no evidence of a crime. No one even knows what the crime is. "We have to investigate him in order to find out what the crime was."

Don't we have civil rights protections against that sort of government tyranny? This has been going on since last June (2016) and there is no evidence of a crime. If there is no evidence of a crime, the investigation against Trump is unconstitutional. It is the same reason that a stop on frisk without reasonable cause would be unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, we know for certain that while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she received one hundred and fifty million dollars from Russian investors at the same time that these investors were seeking approval from the State Department for the Uranium One deal in which Russian gained control of 20% of the U.S. uranium supply.

We also know that, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she received somewhere about one hundred million dollars from foreign governments at the same time that the State Department approved $165 billion weapons sales to those same countries (Algeria Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, and Kuwait). It is illegal for a government officer to receive monies from foreign governments and entities.

One could argue that the money was given directly to Hillary Clinton but was given to the Clinton Foundation. However, emails from Clinton's private server show that there definitely was pay for play going on in these transactions. People that contributed to the Clinton Foundation received special treatment and connections within the State Department. Those emails were not the WikiLeaks emails. They were emails from Hillary Clinton's illegal personal server which were released by the FBI through FOIA requests.

Speaking of Clinton's private server, we also know for a fact that Hillary Clinton unlawfully stored classified information in an insecure way. She allowed classified information to be received by unauthorized persons. She destroyed classified information, failed to return classified information and failed to declare possession of classified information. Each one of these actions which Hillary Clinton has incontrovertibly performed is a felony. None of this has anything to do with the so-called Russian hacking or Russian influence.

With regard to the Russians and the unconstitutional investigation of a possible connection between Donald Trump and the Russians is all based upon an unsupported assertion by the DNC that the Russians hacked the DNC servers.

This claim was made by the DNC when it became clear that WikiLeaks had come into possession of DNC emails showing that the DNC had rigged their own primaries against Bernie Sanders. In order to deflect attention from the content of the emails, the DNC (with the help of the MSM) made claims that the emails were hacked by the Russians in order to help the Trump campaign.

However, the DNC refused to give the FBI access to the DNC servers and told the FBI that they would just have to take their word for it that the Russians had hacked the servers. It is that unsupported assertion and ONLY that assertion that is the root of all the accusations of collusion between the Trump administration and the Russians. But there is absolutely no evidence for it.

Furthermore, there is strong evidence that the Russians were NOT the source which supplied the emails to WikiLeaks. Instead, the evidence strongly suggests that the source was someone within the DNC. For example, Julian Assange (founder of WikiLeaks) said that the emails were received from a 27 year old white American male. Several months before WikiLeaks released the emails (they take considerable time to prepare for release) Kim Dotcom claimed that Julian Assange's WikiLeaks would be releasing information very damaging to the DNC. He said he got this information for and Internet colleague who went by the pseudonym of Panda. It was eventually revealed that Panda was actually Seth Rich - a 27 year old white American male who worked for the DNC as their Voter Expansion Data Director and developing a computer application to help voters find their locations to vote. Seth Rich was also a Bernie Sanders supporter and the the leaked emails revealed how the DNC had been rigging their primary elections against Sanders.

On the morning of July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice (or three times) in the back and killed. Although WikiLeaks NEVER reveals their sources, WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the killers of Seth Rich. This is something WikiLeaks has never done before.

Although there was no evidence to suggest that Seth Rich was robbed, the police very quickly ruled that his murder was the result of a robbery. However, there is evidence and reason to believe that Seth Rich's murder was political.

First of all, Seth Rich was political. He lived in Washington D.C. and was a director for the Democratic National Committee in Washington D.C. The murder took place in an upscale neighborhood of Washington D.C. during a presidential election campaign for which Seth Rich was involved.

Seth Rich was, likely, the source of the DNC email leak. He had motive, opportunity, matches the physical description (given by Julian Assange) and was the person (Panda) who had informed Kim Dotcom of the leaks (and that he was the source) months before they became public. Also, Kim Dotcom is willing to testify under oath and deliver proof that Seth Rich was the leaker. So, even if it eventually turns out that Seth Rich was not the source, he is and has been the number one suspect as the source of the DNC emails that were provided to WikiLeaks.

A private detective who was previously a homicide detective for the Washington D.C. Police, named Rod Wheeler claims that his sources inside the D.C. Police Department were told to `stand down' on the Seth Rich investigation. A stand down order would require fairly high-ranking political influence. Additionally, even though the officers who arrived at the scene after Seth Rich was shot each had body-cams running which would have recorder Seth Rich still alive and talking, the police department claims that all of the body-cam footage has mysteriously become lost. I don't have statistics on this, but how often does body-cam footage involving an homicide simply disappear?

In one of the leaked emails, John Podesta writes, "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." This email clearly shows that the DNC suspected a leaker and was willing to apply severe punishment (making an example of) on the leaker, even if they weren't sure of the leaker's identity. Round up the suspects and shoot them, basically.

It was also revealed that Seth Rich was going to meet with the FBI later in the morning on the day he was killed, to discuss the email leaks. That suggests that Seth Rich was, officially, a person of interest in relation to the DNC email leaks.

Political influence in this case is very strongly evident by the fact that a Crisis PR Consultant (damage control), who ONLY works for Democrats, named Brad Bauman was "assigned" to the Rich family by the DNC. So, instead of trying to help find who killed their son, instead of offering a reward (as others have) for information leading to the identity of the killers, instead of any effort to get to the truth of what happened to Seth Rich, the DNC assigns a damage-control expert to represent the Rich family and to protect the reputation of the DNC. The immediate actions by this damage control expert, hired by the DNC, were to attempt to halt the private investigation and try to suppress all discussion of the Seth Rich murder.

If it turns out that Seth Rich was in any way involved in the process by which the DNC emails were provided to WikiLeaks, then the entire fiction of a Trump/Russia collusion which the Democrats and the main stream media have been promoting for over a year comes crumbling down. The entire scenario is based on the unsupported assertion by the DNC that the emails were hacked by the Russians and given to WikiLeaks by the Russians in order to hurt the Clinton campaign and help the Trump campaign. However, if the emails were not hacked and leaked by the Russians, but instead, leaked by someone within the DNC itself, then the whole Trump/Russia allegation is based on a lie. Perhaps this is why the DNC refused to allow the FBI to examine their server for evidence of Russian hacking and perhaps the cold-blooded murder of Seth Rich was the suspected leaker whom John Podesta was "definitely for making an example of."

In the mean time, a tremendous amount of resources have and are being spent on what appears to be an unconstitutional witch-hunt/conspiracy theory against Donald Trump, when there isn't any evidence that a crime has even been committed. Meanwhile, the murder of a DNC Director has indisputably occured and all efforts (by the DNC and the MSM) have been to resist any investigation into that murder.

Why do we allow an investigation into Trump and his associates to continue when there isn't even any evidence that a crime has been committed?

RE:”Isn’t it illegal to investigate a person for an unspecified crime, especially if there is no evidence that a crime has even been committed? “

Comey just said that Trump is not and was never under investigation.

The media has been spreading fake news all along.

The investigation about Flynn is for a minor offense that had nothing to do with Trump or the presidential campaign.

It depends on the nature of the crime and the investigation.

If a prosecutor convenes a grand jury and serves subpoenas on witnesses for a case involving the murder of John Q. Smith -- despite having irrefutable evidence that John Q. Smith is alive and well -- then there's a strong case to be made that this is a malicious prosecution. The prosecutor would likely be disbarred and maybe even face criminal charges himself in this case.

Unless it's that cut-and-dried, it's hard to make a case that an investigation is "illegal."

He explains that he doesn't know if you have broken any laws and he also doesn't know what he's looking for or even if there is anything to find.

Under the Constitution to arrest you the police need probable cause that you committed a crime or at least reasonable suspicion to briefly detain you from going on your way. And they need a constitutional basis under the Fourth Amendment to search your car.

As to Trump, yeah this is a fishing expedition. They used a fake dossier to justify FISA warrant and other authority to surveil Trump people and when they discovered there were contacts between Russians and Trump people, they used that to launch a counterintelligence investigation of 'links' between Trump people and the Russians.

They even appointed a Special Counsel to investigate 'link' between Trump and Russia, even though that is not a crime.

If it’s not illegal, then why is it that police can’t stop you and search your car unless they first pull you over for some observed infraction?

Don’t we have constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizures?

So the Trump people should not have allowed this fishing expedition to continue, right from the start. It is not illegal to have Russian contacts. I, personally, have helped to bring several Russians to the U.S. I had hired people from Russia and even had a Russian (who eventually became an American citizen) as a business partner. There is absolutely nothing illegal about have Russian associates unless your association was for illegal purposes, and then, it’s the illegal purpose, not the Russian that is the problem.

Why do we allow an investigation into Trump and his associates to continue when there isn't even any evidence that a crime has been committed?

Let them investigate.

They more they investigate - the more damage they do themselves. Like today for instance. Americans should be dancing in the streets over the Comey hearing. It did no harm whatsoever to Donald Trump, yet instead Comey stated under oath the Loretta Lynch in as much obstructed justice.

If this was a normal country; subpoenas and indictments would be issued today against Lynch. With more to follow for Bill, Hillary, Comey himself, and of course Obama.

But we do not live in a normal country.

“It depends on the nature of the crime and the investigation.”

But in this case, they haven’t even said what the crime is. So it is indisputable that the crime of which they are investigating didn’t occur because it doesn’t even exist.

From Europe that investigation looks stunning !
Completly made up, endless, partial only on one side and, above all , against the president just after his election.

Firstable below all that story emphazised by MSM who campained
shamelessly for Clinton, there is the question of RUSSIA !
Is RUSSIA today the first and main ennemy of USA and the so-called “free-world” ?
Obviously NO !
But MSM along with the democrats. ......want to imply that RUSSIA is the worst ennemy !
It means that Islamic deadly terrorism is NOT , for the DNC alongside with the partisan MSM , the first and MAIN ennemy TODAY.
BTW in that point of view it could be very interesting to know more about the relations between, for instance, CNN and QATAR and DNC and QATAR.....And other islamic countries who are suspected to support and FUND ISLAMO-TERRORISM !

So we could call all that Russian Stuff an HOAX made up by the DNC/MSM/globalists.

So it’s about time to FIGHT BACK and not only stay on defense.
Take the lead and change the direction of accusation

Trump called it for what it is, a “witch hunt”. It is the entire definition of one. This is a mob, this is how a mob behaves. I was just reading comments on some HuffPo article, these people are DERANGED. They’re living in an echo chamber and are incapable of seeing anything for what it is, which is just hateful bigotry by the left. To say they’re guilty of projection would be the understatement of the decade. Evidence by damned, they just “believe” that Trump must have done something so heinous deserving impeachment (or worse). They literally can’t wrap their heads around the fact that there’s nothing there, they still don’t realize they’re being lied to.

I’ve never seen a better example of mob group-think. Seriously, if you’ve not read some of their comments in a while you may want to consider it - it’s really educational, if not disturbing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.