In April of 2017, the FISA Court released a startling report, one that was full of technical jargon and a blizzard of facts — and dense verbage — that never-the-less detailed something very scary.

The Court had been informed, that a significant 702 problem existed (702’s are American citizens), that a 702 review and freeze had occurred — that significant problems were found — and that the intelligence community was addressing them.

We now know, courtesy of the memo, what the complete cycle of events was.

And unfortunately, this particular sequence of events, has left the US with a constitutional crisis that will need to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

Let me explain.

Clinton, acting through her lawyers, her direct reports and the DNC; purposely conspired to fund, author, plant, leak, and fraudulently convey, through the mail and other methods, a document used to obtain a FISA warrant against a 702, or American citizen.

This list stretches across multiple felony counts, but is not a constitutional problem yet.

Committing perjury and instigating perjury, while creating false evidence to insinuate someone is a foreign agent — are also high crimes — which the Clinton gang certainly committed against Mr. Page. But why? That is the key constitutional question, because if it was to use a law enforcement agency as part of a plot to mislead the FISA Court– to then obtain wiretaps — which would potentially reveal information designed to be used to weaken or overthrow a duly elected president; this is more than sedition — it is FBI assisted sedition, which must be constitutionally addressed.

The Clinton gang needed Mr. Page to be a spy — so they could get a different kind of FISA warrant — one that permitted them to look at the messaging and phone calls for every one in his circle. Which if he had been a stockbroker, would have been a laundry list of crimes, so no really huge deal, but of course, he wasn’t a stockbroker, he was an aide to the president-elect.

Now we’re into constitutional problem territory. The domestic police authority granted the federal government in the constitution is vague, because the framers rightly saw police powers as local and state purview — and for that reason, since it’s founding, many law enforcement and legal scholars have criticized the size, scope, and ever-widening authority of the FBI.

Now it’s in our face.

The Clinton’s have taught us, up close and personal, how to subvert the constitution of the United States.

The circle of people she needed to do all this was relatively small BUT all perfectly placed.

This of course will be the constitutional challenge following the FBI one.

Because the person who personally put in place, and controlled — every single asset Hillary needed to do all this — was the then outgoing President Obama.