Congressman Nadler has chosen to deny the CNET story I linked to last night. From ZDNet:
Update at 2:50 p.m. ET on June 16: We’re pulling the plug on this story — (for clarification: ZDNet’s story, not CNET’s) — following Rep. Nadler’s latest comments casting doubt on CNET’s story. In a statement to our sister site, Nadler said: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.” We’ve left the amended article (after the update below) intact for transparency, but corrected the headline.
Update at 10:20 p.m. ET on June 16: The U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released a statement, debunking the claims. “The statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect and was not briefed to Congress,” the statement read.
Update at 11:55 p.m. ET on June 15: There appears to be some conflicting reports over the exact wording of Nadler’s remarks. There is also a video on C-SPAN (the exchange begins around the 46:00 mark) but it remains unclear if this is the exchange CNET first referenced. CNET specifically said, at the time of writing, that Nadler was told “during a secret briefing to members of Congress” this week. We’ve updated the story in a couple of places, and amended the headline, but much of the article remains the same…
*********
Also, Putin’s spokeman has officially denied that Robert Kraft’s Superbowl ring was stolen. Per NYMag:
… Word of Kraft’s displeasure has reached Russia, and on Sunday, Putin spokesman Peskov is denying the claim. “What Mr. Kraft is saying now is weird,” he said. “I was standing 20 centimeters away from him and Mr. Putin and saw and heard how Mr. Kraft gave this ring as a gift.” The jewelry has been stored in the Kremlin library, “where all official state gifts are kept,” and it seems that is where it will remain. Sorry, Robert Kraft.
Word on the late local news was that “it’s only coming up now because Bob [Kraft] thought it was a funny story”, and that “the Russians have promised Mr. Kraft a different ring.”
What’s the proper Cyrillic for “Fck you, candy-arse capitalist pig”?
Ruckus
I think he probably would just say it in engilsh.
Something like…
Fuck you asshole.
Todd
пошел на хуй, тебе конфеты задницу капиталистической свиньей
trollhattan
I think the closest translation is, “Corporations are people, my friend.”
Also, too, go Spurs!
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
That’s OK. The DK post I put up about ZDNet and ODNI drew comments along the lines of “you’re actually posting a statement from a government thinking it will discredit the article?”
I’m generally a junky for this stuff, which is why I keep reading there, but the I’ll accept the story I believe and will not look at anything contradictory really is maddening.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
After working on it for almost ten months I think I now understand what the overarching theme of my short story collection is.
Soonergrunt
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): some people have a pathological need to be oppressed, rather than correct.
Anne Laurie– good on you for the thorough correction/clarification.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
Go Spurs!
LT
Nadler’s statement is such an obvious kick in the teeth. It’s brevity alone is one sign. The other:
“I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.”
“I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that…
He may as well have twisted Mueller’s and Clapper’s nipples.
BTW: It says aboslutely nothing about what he says he heard in the secret briefing.
Suffern ACE
Argh. Also, the NSA director was talking about NSA procedures and the FBI director was talking about FBI procedures and they probably have different procedures, which probably confused a lot of people. How they determine that they are 51% certain that a call is foreign, I don’t know.
LT
@AnneLaurie:
That statement does not “deny the CNET story.” ZDNet was wrong to say it “debunks” it. It simply doesn’t.
“I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that…
does not say ANYTHING about the *secret* briefing.
Mark S.
This seems like pretty big fucking news:
GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians’ communications at G20 summits
And speaking of Putin:
• Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow.
This may prove a tad embarrassing for us and the Brits.
MattR
The statement from Nadler’s spox doesn’t do much to clarify what led to Nadler’s confusion. My guess is that the initial briefing was covering foreigners while the questions to Mueller during the hearing were about Americans.
srv
Not only did they get to Nadler, now they’ve gotten to Anne Laurie and John Cole!
You Obamabots, just wait until it’s time for your mustard.
Hal
Valid national discussions on this issue aren’t going to be possible if the Media is stepping on it’s own tail in an attempt to be the next breaking news.
Also, for those in the know, I have a question about the ethics of journalism and the legalities of whistle blowing/leaking/whatever you want to call it in this case. Greenwald says he was working with Snowden as of Feb, but Snowden apparently went to work for Boos in March. If his intent was to take a job to access information and expose it, is that journalistically ethical to work a source pre-acquisition? Is there a difference between something being dropped in your lap vs working with someone whose sole intent is to access and expose that material, whatever in the end that material reveals?
I still think if the material is valid, then we should be having a discussion on how far we want the security state to go etc, but I’m curios what others think the delineating line is between being a reporter and journalist who is brought or discovers a story and investigates VS a reporter who is working with someone who is going to bring said material to them after the collaboration begins.
Oh, and I’m really not ragging on GG, who is admittedly not a personal favorite of mine; but with all the comparisons to Watergate, or the Pentagon Papers, Manning etc, and the talk of better shield laws for journalism, this aspect of the story sparked my interest, and made me wonder about the application of these types of laws in future stories under this or any other President.
Suffern ACE
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Anything the government says about it’s activities that makes it look good is clearly propaganda of the Soviet-Nazi type. The only acceptable communications are those that make the government look bad, because those are the only believable statements.
NickT
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000212539/article/patriots-super-bowl-ring-in-russia-a-story-kraft-tells-for-laughs-team-says
David Koch
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Even the liberal daily kos….
Not surprising really. For all their proclamations about being reality based, they love conspiracy theories. When the tabloids published photos of Edwards with his mistress, they insisted they were photoshopped. Sadly, they repeated the same line of defense during Weinergate. Recently they all fell for the random unsourced piece saying Anonymous hacked into Rove’s computers to save Ohio. I even remember the old days when Markos had to ban reams of commentators who said Mossad was behind the london subway bombings.
Mnemosyne
@LT:
It says he misunderstood what he was told in the secret briefing. But I know you’ve already formed your little conspiracy theory around it, so any clarification or correction is just more proof of the conspiracy.
LT
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Hey – I was one of those people on DKos!
Putting up a DNI statement as *evidence* of DNI innocence should get you banned fronm the entire internet. It is the stupidest fucking thing ever done on the internet.
Police officer: The guy accused of rape just put out a statement saying he didn’t do it.
You: Innocent!
Shoot me. I’m serious. Just shoot me. Arthritis is wrecking me anyway, just fuck it.
LT
@Mnemosyne: How does saying “I am pleased to hear the admin reiterate…” speak to the *secret briefing*. Al it does is refer to the gov’s statement. The gov statement does not have to say what was said in the secret briefing. There is no logic in what your’e saying.
MattR
@Suffern ACE:
This is what has me the most concerned. Even if they are using brilliant methods to try and determine the probability of foreign-ness, 51% is such a low bar that it guarantees Americans will be included (and they get to technically say that such inclusion was not intentional)
Narcissus
I wonder if there’s a point where technology outstrips democratic government.
I mean, if neither the briefer nor the briefed really understand what’s being discussed, no wonder nobody can even tell if they’re talking about the same thing.
Xenos
@LT: The whole point of Nadlergate was the CNET headline that the DNI “admitted” to something. A statement from the DNI, affirmed by Nadler himself, that the DNI indeed did not admit to something is, indeed, refutation of the story.
Using your example, it is as if the alleged rapist was reported as admitting to committing rape, then the alleged rapist and the witnesses to the statement all clarify that no admission was made. As a matter of acceptable evidence this would be a rather big fucking deal.
ETA minor edit
Suffern ACE
@MattR: Yep. But it’s one of those things where 100% is too high and 75% is too low because the measures might all be subjective and arbitrary anyway. 51% might as well be 33 or 86.4444 for all we know.
PsiFighter37
I hope you all realize that this is going to become a pissing match in the weeds, seeing whose urine can fertilize the plants of irrelevance faster.
I hope a lot of folks, starting with Green fucking Greenwald, love to learn the taste of nothingburgers – none of the leanness of turkey, none of the tastiness of beef, and none of the redeeming attributes of tofu,
i hope he burns like a Bluths’ hand on a Cornballer(TM)
PF37 +10 at least, probably more because I’m excited the Heat lost
ruemara
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): Nice work! Are you self publishing or are you one of those people who have broken into the biz?
@Hal: I think you ask a fair set of questions, but I think that every discussion becomes wholesale polarized so we can’t ask anything. It’s either 100% agree/100% disagree.
I’m hitting the haystack early. Very excited about this interview. It’s in my field and highly possible, so I broke out the dress heels. I should know better to than to get my hopes up and feel excited, but I’m incorrigible that way.
Narcissus
@PsiFighter37: I’m concerned for your liver. I’d like to get it a helmet.
Higgs Boson's Mate
One of the things that’s bothersome about the information gathering is that there don’t seem to be any technically savvy people in Congress. I doubt that they fully understand the briefings and they don’t know what kind of questions to ask. There doesn’t seem to be any easy remedy for this situation and as long as it persists the NSA can run rings around them.
MattR
@Xenos:
Especially since Nadler said during the hearing that he was shocked by what he heard in the briefing because it contradicted everything he previously believed about the requirements for Americans. It seems quite likely that he misheard or misinterpreted something in that briefing. If we are going to trust Nadler’s characterization of the briefing, it seems like was also have to trust his characterization of the DNI’s clarification.
LT
@Xenos:
You have clearly not read the statement.
Here it is:
Where in that little piece of artwork is “A statement … that the DNI indeed did not admit to something”? It’s simply not there. “CNET got the story wrong,” would have said that. “My words were misinterpreted” would have done that.
Picture it this way: Say you KNEW that he heard in the secret briefing exactly what CNET said he did. Does Nadler’s statement straight up deny it?
Mnemosyne
@LT:
If Nadler is not referring to what he thought he heard at the secret briefing in his statement, what do you think he’s referring to?
Frankly, this isn’t the first time a congressperson has misheard or misunderstood something s/he was told in a classified briefing, and it probably won’t be the last. FFS, Rand Paul staged a 13-hour filibuster because he misunderstood a statement by Eric Holder.
David Koch
@MattR: I was watching the NSA senate hearing, and you could see the senators were having trouble following the discussion.
mk3872
Next time, try actually looking into the veracity of supposed “stories”, especially those by Paulite Libertarian gasbags like this one from CNET.
Really, there is no excuse for you & Cole helping to spread this completely bogus story around social media last night, none at all.
LT
@Xenos: No, using my example, the person IS ALREADY accused of the rape. Before any CNET story came out.
That’s important. No amount of common sense allows a stateemtn from the DNI to count as any kind of evidence here. Pls tell me you accept that.
Suffern ACE
@Narcissus: A few years ago, we had this huge financial meltdown where it because kind of apparent that some of the largest financial entities in the world did not understand financial risk and where buying or selling, and were modeling markets based on a history that extended back to 1995 because they didn’t have easily avaialble data in electronic formats before that point. I think the problem may be endemic. We might not be smart enough for this world.
spacewalrus
@LT: Yes, a briefing SO SECRET…everyone is talking about it. Also, ain’t it a hoot how the NSA was basically the source for the original, now discredited CNET story? You know, the NSA that can’t be trusted. Unless it’s through a secondhand source. Then it’s true. If the source issues a clarifying statement undermining the original, sloppy reporting, obviously he’s been compromised by the NSA. Nadler, Franken, Josh Marshall, Charles Johnson, Bob Cesca, Lawrence O’Donnell. Who’s next??? Anyway, our oppressive government’s heavy-handed surveillance is evident in how they’re cracking down on this debate, eh? It’s like you can say whatever the hell you want. Wait, that can’t be right. Well, I’m sure they don’t suffer such restrictions in a place like China. Why, that Eddie Snowden sure knows what the fuck he’s talking about, doesn’t he? A champion against surveillance and authoritarian government–with a sense for travel hot spots. Who could ask for anything more?
Forum Transmitted Disease
@Hal: Feature, not bug.
I conduct myself online, on the phone and in real life as though everyone knows everything I’m doing. If they can’t know it all now, within a few years they certainly can and will.
This world will let you have everything but your secrets.
I don’t think this is done from malice, for whatever my thoughts are worth. I just think there are too many of us, packed in too close together, doing what humans do (which is talk our bloody heads off) to keep anything secret. Wiretaps and network taps are pretty irrelevant under such conditions.
PsiFighter37
@Narcissus: Your xconcern is duly noted and dismissed outright.
BTW, who loved te Heeat getting their asses handdewd to them? If no one outide of th Big 3 has a decent shotting gamr, that team is like a fucking bluefin tuna in Japanesefishing waters,
Mnemosyne
@LT:
You left out the part where the only witness to the rape (ie Nadler) steps forward after the purported rapist puts out his statement and says, “Sorry, I misidentified the guy and he’s not the rapist.”
But the DA should still pursue the case because you know in your heart that the guy is guilty no matter what he or the eyewitness say?
Mnemosyne
@Suffern ACE:
Did you ever see Margin Call? It’s fiction, but what happens is that a company discovers that one of their equations is wrong and they’re about to lose a few hundred million dollars because only a couple of guys understand how the equations work, and they just fired one of them.
Surprisingly entertaining and suspenseful movie for one that consists of a bunch of people in rooms jabbering at each other.
MattR
@spacewalrus: @Mnemosyne: The inconsistency really is pretty remarkable.
Nadler in Congressional hearing – The NSA told us they are allowed to wiretap Americans without a warrant.
Reaction – Clearly what Nadler was told by the NSA is accurate.
Nadler’s spokesman today – The NSA told us they are not allowed to wiretap Americans without a warrant, reaffirming what we had initially believed.
Reaction – Why should we believe what Nadler is being told by the NSA?
LT
@Mnemosyne: Snowden made the accusation that started all this. (And it’s very far from the frist time such an accusation has been made.)
Suffern ACE
@Hal: We’re not certain when he obtained all of the information. It could have been in his previous job, in which case, bad on the CIA for letting him walk out the door with it. Or he could have done it at Booz, in which case bad on Booz for not scrutinizing the activities of newly hired employees. Or he could have done it while working at booz using access from his old job that hadn’t been turned off yet.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@ruemara: I certainly haven’t broken into the biz yet. I’m hoping to have both a collection of short stories and a novel (unfortunately in completely different genres) finished by the end of the year. At that point I’ll probably make an attempt to get into traditional publishing and if that doesn’t work I’ll self-publish.
David Koch
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
Remember how Ted Stevens tried to explain the internet as a “series of tubes”. McCain was no better reviling in 2008 he had never used email and had only seen the internet a handful of times.
That’s who is in charge: septuagenarians and octogenarians who can’t set a digital clock.
PsiFighter37
WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeee
I’m chugging cicnuyt water as fast as it will alllow me so I can ebe sober tomrorow morining,.
John F Cole has neverb een this drunk on a Sunday night, even if his Steelers were pl;ayimng fucking Dennis Dixon at QB.
Don’t ask me for the + because its hightr thasnyou
Mnemosyne
@LT:
Snowden still hasn’t been able to back up his claims that US citizens are having their information routinely collected. Interestingly, he does seem to have the documents showing that the US government and its allies spy on foreign governments, but he just can’t seem to produce the documents proving his initial claim. Funny, that.
And where there’s smoke, there’s fire? Bill Clinton must have been guilty of something in the Whitewater deal because so many people accused him of it?
Xenos
@LT:
But that is not what Nadlergate is about. Nadlergate (sorry for the term, don’t know what else to call it) is about an alleged admission of wrongdoing. Now we are left with Snowdengate, whatever else it means.
You are shifting from one frame of reference to another here (and I agree that the collapse of Nadlergate does not disprove Snowdengate – just that that is not the point). People hate lawyers, but the critical thing a legal education can give someone is the mental habit and discipline to always keep track of what is being argued in each context. If a lawyer gets drawn into the weeds like you just did he will be publicly humiliated.
LT
People are actually trying to get us to shrug of this, from a rep on the Intel Cmte.:
“We heard precisely that you could get specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant.”
They’re saying “Oh, he didn’t mean content!” (even though it came right after a comment about content) or “He’s just stupid!” and a whole lot else.
Actual journalists are trying to shrug that sentence off. that alone – no matter what you believe about this story – is just crazy.
“We heard precisely that you could get specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant.”
LT
@Xenos: Well, but What Snowden said counts so heavily, though, that it is hard for me to understand you saying it shouldnt’ be included here. I’ll listen to more…
Suffern ACE
@Mark S.: Good. I agree that for a good part of recent history, the behavior of the Brits and Americans has been a bit embarassing and hopefully when they go to the G8 summit requesting help for their little Syrian fuckup, the rest of the world bails us out by talking about this and giving our leaders a big fuck you. Maybe in public, since they’ll be recording the private ones anyway.
I know, I know, that’s bad for the country for our leader to be treated like a paraiah. But it honestly couldn’t come at a better time.
? Martin
@srv:
The mustard is a lie.
PsiFighter37
@LT: Fuck Snowden and his stripper GF. I dont’ have time for a goddamn hipster Williamsberg couple to ddecifde that JUST NOW is the right time for them to start playing Cpatin Defender of the Eartgh.
They can b oth go puund sand as far as I am cpncerned. Oh, and that fuckhead Green Glreenwald too.
Mnemosyne
@LT:
Emphasis mine. Doesn’t your sentence suggest that there’s already an existing warrant since they won’t need a new one to continue the investigation?
NickT
@? Martin:
Soon those filthy arugulaist pigs will pay for their crimes, comrade!
PsiFighter37
@Mnemosyne: you’re too fucking sobret to be up at this time of night and be boldin and higling shit. Roofie yurself and get thee to a bed
PsiFighter37
@NickT: I think you mwean managlaista, at last agordirnig to last night; Iron Chef
NickT
Incidentally, I believe I have discovered the reason for Robert Kraft’s sudden passion for The Tebow:
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/17/how_kraft_salad_dressing_is_profiting_off_the_female_gaze/
The prophet Nostradumbass
@PsiFighter37: It’s only 10:15 out here in California, dude.
LT
@Mnemosyne: Well, it could be existing *policy*. Or hugely broad warrant. In any cse it’s very clear what he means: can an analyst make the decision to view alone.
Just in case you want it – the context: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/jerrold-nadler-does-not-thinks-nsa-can-listen-us-phone-calls/66278/
MattR
@Xenos:
I feel the same way about the logical background needed for software development.
@LT: I will agree with you that the DNI’s statement does not necessarily resolve Snowden’s central argument. But if Nadler’s statements to Mueller were being used to bolster that argument, then Nadler’s acceptance of the DNI’s statement has to undo that bolstering. (EDIT: We don’t actually know if Nadler is basing his statement solely on that DNI statement or if he received further clarification from someone else)
@LT: How about the part after that for context?
Today Nadler’s spox reacted to that clairification/reiteration of what Nadler previously believed.
Mnemosyne
@PsiFighter37:
It’s barely 10 o’clock here. Don’t make me feel any older than I already do.
Xenos
@The prophet Nostradumbass: For some of us it is 7:15 am.
Mnemosyne
@LT:
And it’s very clear from your own link that Nadler misunderstood what he was told in the classified (not public) briefing and has backed down from his earlier claim.
I know you rilly rilly want all of Snowden’s claims to be true and you’re grasping at any straw that seems to corroborate them, but these are not the droids you’re looking for.
LT
@Xenos: It’s 3:19 pm for me.
Suffern ACE
@LT: Or the NSA gets to operate with very broad orders and warrants because it is supposed to be working in areas outside the territory of the US where the fourth amendment doesn’t apply.
David Koch
meanwhile, Congress voted Friday to stop obummer from closing GITMO and from allowing him to release anyone to Yemen.
but I’m sure it’s obummer’s fault.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Xenos: Yes, but, he was telling that to Mnemosyne, who is, like me, in California.
LT
@MattR: Nadler spox put out that statement – we don’t really know exactly why, but we can assume it was meant to throw at least some cold water on CNET story. (Possibly because Nadler went out of bounds re classified material. I actually hope he did.)
PsiFighter37
@The prophet Nostradumbass: @Mnemosyne: @Xenos: @The prophet Nostradumbass: yeah no.
Suffern ACE
@David Koch: He needs to just ship those people to Yemen who need to get to Yemen and then sign the bill forbidding him to do that.
Actually, I hope he vetoes the NDAA because of it and makes our Senators and Congressman vote on it twice.
LT
@Mnemosyne: Our dear litle Mnemosyne knows more about what happened in secret briefing that person in briefing. You’re so cute.
PsiFighter37
dsfoafniadsndshigoiobdgsibdasdg
PsiFighter37
Im reallymmad that my commetnt is in modeation,. Beaus4 some jerghface username is modfetate.
Fujckeras
The prophet Nostradumbass
The one thing that has become clear to me about this whole thing is that the people who act like they’re the most outraged by it are the ones who most desperately want it to be true, and won’t be deterred from that belief by anything.
ETA: fixed a typo.
David Koch
@LT:
Nadler isn’t on the House Intelligence committee.
So there’s that.
gwangung
@LT: You know…this statement isn’t helping your argument.
LT
@David Koch: Arg. The secret briefing led me to assume that – but it was for a wider audience, yes. Sorry.
gwangung
@LT: Bad logic here. You can do better. You don’t have to wish your case to be true so badly that you skip elementary steps of logic.
LT
@gwangung: Which?
Alison
@PsiFighter37: Jesus fuck, dude. Get the fuck off the internet and sober up.
max
@Xenos: But that is not what Nadlergate is about. Nadlergate (sorry for the term, don’t know what else to call it) is about an alleged admission of wrongdoing. Now we are left with Snowdengate, whatever else it means.
Nadler says he wasn’t told that they could target anyone they wanted to without a warrant; Nadler says he was told he was told they could only target someone if they had a warrant.
Nadler is a sideshow.
NSA was running warrantless wiretapping (inside the US) under STELLARWIND, under Bush. We know this. They told us this. Eventually. After they denied the shit out of it. That means they had they capability to do so at the time. Congress passed a revised PATRIOT Act (and whatnot) to retroactively legalize (and figleaf) this stuff, but required them to get a warrant in the future. Woo. Did they suddenly lose the capability to wiretap without a warrant *after* 2007 because… uh… their computers are powered by powdered statutes? No, they did not, unless you are perhaps a moron.
So, do they get a warrant to wiretap? Sure (unless they don’t). Can they get a warrantless wiretap? Sure! Can you tell the one from the other? Noooooooooooo. Is there any record or other way of telling one from the other? Not that you (or a congressman) is going to see. 845,000 contractors are apparently all in on this though, which is nice work if you can get it, I suppose.
And here’s Bill Keller explaining it all to you:
Shorter Keller column: we are totally not doing anything hinky or unconstitutional and I know this because no one told me, but even so to keep our civil liberties we have to kill them dead. USA! USA! USA! Now let’s bomb Iran and invade Syria, thank you, goodnight. [The last bit is gratuitous, I think, but basically Keller’s position at the last mention, if I’m keeping track of the shifting from foot to foot correctly. Bomb/invade Syria/Iran is *next* week’s column.]
max
[‘I’m pretty we had this flamewar back in 2005. And also 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 and so on.’]
** ‘panicky public’ refers to Bill Keller, Thomas L. Friedman, and the other usual suspects. Normal people are not that panicky. Upper crusties have got panic *down*, baby.
Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound
@PsiFighter37: listen, skippy. I think you need to mosey on down to San Loco for some tacos and call it a night. You’ll regret that a lot in the morning, but that’s a problem you can deal with then.
gwangung
@LT: You need to keep track of which statements refer to which set of claims. Because you keep hopping from one claim to another, confusing both yourself and other people. It kinda matters you know.
LT
@gwangung: I’m going to assume you mean my comments about Nadler’s stmt.
People are, among other things, acting like ppl in politics don’t regularly, and as a matter of course, use carefully worded non-denial-denials. I find that weird.
Joey Maloney
@Mnemosyne:
Pinkamena Panic
LT, suck my fat one, you condescending piefucker.
LT
@gwangung: When you make a comment about one of my comments is very fucking easy to say which one you mean. Don’t blame me.
SatanicPanic
Psi is more drunk than usual, I am envious
The prophet Nostradumbass
@SatanicPanic: I sure am not envious of that.
MattR
@LT: Now this is a non denial, denial. A NE Patriots spox on the Putin Super Bowl ring story
“It’s a humorous, anecdotal story that Robert re-tells for laughs. He loves that his ring is at the Kremlin and, as he stated back in 2005, he continues to have great respect for Russia and the leadership of President Putin. In particular, he credits President Putin for modernizing the Russian economy. An added benefit from the attention this story gathered eight years ago was the creation of some Patriots fan clubs in Russia”.
Yatsuno
@SatanicPanic: Psi is totally verschnickered. I’m just grateful he’s home. I think anyway.
Mnemosyne
@LT:
So you’re not in the US. That leaves two possibilities:
(1) You’re a US citizen living outside of the US. If that’s the case, then the article you yourself linked me to says that the government has to obtain a warrant to read/listen to any of your communications, just like they would if you were living in the US.
(2) You’re a non-US citizen living in a foreign country. In which case, yes, the US government can spy on you to their heart’s content, because US laws only apply to US citizens and/or people living within the borders of the US. Your only recourse is to complain to your local government. If it’s any consolation, China and Russia are spying on US citizens’ communications all the damn time, so it’s not like the US is doing something to foreign citizens that isn’t being done to their citizens.
I find it fascinating that you’re discounting what the person who actually was in the briefing is now saying because he’s not saying what you want to hear. I’m just repeating his statements back to you. If you don’t believe the person who was actually there, then I can’t help you. The paranoia has already gone to your brain once you decide that the witness you were counting on must be lying if he changes his story.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Mnemosyne: He’s an ex-pat who lives in Australia. He’s flailing away, without effect, at Josh Marshall on Twitter at the same time.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@The prophet Nostradumbass:
The secrecy that surrounds the NSA enables all sorts of speculation. Disproving it can be difficult because you’re trying to prove a negative. We know that the government is running a large scale information gathering program. We don’t have a firm idea of its capabilities. The fact that historically government programs only grow larger doesn’t help.
LT
@Mnemosyne: Oy weh. You claimed that Nadler was confused about what he heard in the secret briefing!
I’m #1.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Higgs Boson’s Mate: Of course. I have no problem with any of that.
Mnemosyne
@max:
Here’s the thing though — if they wiretap you without a warrant, they can’t use that evidence against you in court. If I understand the law correctly (and IANAL), if they use information they obtained without a warrant to get a later warrant and try to convict you on that evidence, that new evidence becomes fruit of the poisonous tree and they can’t prosecute you using it.
That’s why the Bushies were so desperate to set up their “enemy combatant” shadow system that wouldn’t have to follow all of those pesky rules — they knew that evidence obtained by torture is automatically thrown out, and any evidence you uncover based on information obtained by torture is also automatically thrown out in a US criminal court, so they had to figure out another rationale.
LT
@The prophet Nostradumbass: Josh Marshall, the statist journalist for our times, is flailing on this whole story very embarrassingly.
Mnemosyne
@LT:
That’s how I interpret Nadler’s statement — it’s basically, “Sorry, my bad.” I’m not sure how you’re interpreting it, except that you seem convinced that Nadler is now lying about … something.
ETA: Nadler says he was told in the secret briefing that the NSA can spy on any US citizen with the push of a button, and that shocked him because it wasn’t what he was told before. ZDNet breathlessly reported what Nadler said. Nadler now says “the NSA cannot listen to the content of American citizens’ phone calls without a specific warrant.” So, what, Nadler was telling the truth when he said something you desperately wanted to hear, but he’s lying when he retracts that statement?
? Martin
@The prophet Nostradumbass:
LTs Twitter profile:
Unfortunately, indeed.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@LT:
Revealing choice of a word there. Thanks for cluing me in that you’re not worth paying attention to.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@? Martin: Would you please not alter my words without mentioning it? Thanks.
LT
@Mnemosyne: Can we agree to disagree on the intertpretation? We ain’t going nowhere.
Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound
@Mnemosyne: it is possible Nadler was confused and that he heard correctly. And that both Mueller and Clapper were stating the correct procedures for their departments but were incorrect about the procedures for a department they didn’t run.
piratedan
Breaking News from Glen Greenwald: SOLYENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!, SOLYENT GREEN IS MADE FROM PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SatanicPanic
@Yatsuno: I hope!
@The prophet Nostradumbass: OK, I’m not envious of him being wasted, but I was going to have beer and a chili dog this afternoon but I had an upset stomach.
Mnemosyne
@Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound:
I’m guessing that Nadler heard the NSA testimony and became confused about whether it applied to US citizens or only to non-US citizens in foreign countries.
@LT:
You’re married to your interpretation and won’t hear any evidence to the contrary — even when that contrary evidence comes from the guy who made the original statement — so I guess we’ll have to leave it there.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@SatanicPanic: Fair enough :-).
Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)
@The prophet Nostradumbass: I didn’t see that as altering your words. It was a response to your post, but the quote was clearly marked as being from LT.
LT
@The prophet Nostradumbass: Oh, did i use a naughty word for you? Poor baby.
You didn’t see Marshall’s comments that led to that?
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10067
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/like_the_oj_simpson_trial.php
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN): You are correct, I misread it. Sorry about that.
LT
Just to note: I have to go.
It’s been riveting, as always.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@LT: If you need to provide scads of background for a one-word insult, well, you’ve lost the plot.
@LT: Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out.
askew
Wow, the PUMA is certainly unhappy that the CNET story was bullshit. Watching your root for Obama’s failure is amusing.
Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound
@Mnemosyne: I’m going to go with “US Citizens abroad” As being the sticking point.
piratedan
@The prophet Nostradumbass: seems like an awful lot of effort to defend the guy who walked back his own statements with the admission that he was confused about who said what about which program, but hey LGF has been battling The BradBlog and CNET folks all weekend about this stuff and the wave of folks that refuse to believe that maybe/perhaps this isn’t (the entire NSA buffet of spying) eactly what they think it is.
David Koch
@The prophet Nostradumbass:
it’s the left-obummer-critic version of Bengahhzzzeee!
it less to do with the actual event, and more to do with desperately seeking vindication and validation for their long standing criticisms.
MattR
@Suffern ACE is a Basset Hound: I constantly get confused about which groups get exactly which protections. Are US Citizens abroad, US Citizens in the US and foreign citizens in the US all treated the same? (EDIT: And are any differences constitutional or statutory?)
@piratedan: Personally I think there is just too much ambiguity in the reporting to have any sort of clarity or certainty about what is truly going on.
The prophet Nostradumbass
Funny thing about this post: Anne Laurie even outsources her corrections to other sites.
piratedan
@MattR: all I know is that ZDNET (CNET’s partner publication) has issued a retraction/clarification indicating that they don’t stand by the story and that the title of the article is misleading at best. Now CNET hasn’t pulled it or issued a correction or clarification. Like just about everything else with this NSA saga, the people doing the exposing are either proving themselves to be inaccurate or agenda driven. Doesn’t mean that the NSA couldn’t have been doing some illegal stuff but so far, i’ve not seen/read anything that makes me think that they’ve operated outside the established guidelines of the Patriot Act (which I am not wholly in favor of, but if it’s the law and there is oversight in place and that is being observed….). The source of the story is currently residing in the cozy comforts of the PRC (and yes, I do think that matters) and they don’t appear to be in any hurry to return him. Bottom line? I think Snowden punked GG and is selling stuff to the PRC and used GG to muddy the waters and introduce him as a Libertarian hero standing against the tyranny of the US.
Is Snowden this smart? I dunno, I don’t count his lack of upper education as a some sort of disqualifier, just because you don’t do well in school doesn’t mean that you can’t learn or are stupid. If Snowden is an intelligence asset, I sure couldn’t think of a slicker way to embarrass the country, skip with data, leave a bunch of questions about the surveillance state, profit
Anne Laurie
@The prophet Nostradumbass: Well, you’d hardly have believed my interpretation, would you?
JGabriel
@Todd:
Google Translation: went to the dick, you candy ass capitalist pig
Okay, is the Russian translation of “Fuck you” actually “Wen to the dick”? I mean, really?
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Anne Laurie: I’d rather read something you actually wrote, versus 90% someone else’s writing.
David Koch
@piratedan:
This is a guy who says he joined the Army to help liberate Iraq. There has to be something seriously wrong with you to view the destruction of Fallujah as a liberation operation.
Cacti
@piratedan:
Ding ding ding ding ding!
GG’s vanity made him an easy mark.
MattR
@piratedan: I don’t think the administration is openly flouting the existing laws, but I am sure they are pushing them to their limits. I am not so comfortable with the level of oversight, both in the sense that the FISA court is overly secretive (and even more stacked in the government’s favor than a grand jury) and that lawmakers are forbidden from discussing much of what they learn in classified briefings. At the beginning of his questioning of Mueller, Nadler commented that he was not so confident that the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1979 with regards to a pen register of phone calls would automatically be extended to all the similar forms of communication used today because the sum effect on our privacy is vastly different. But we don’t know exactly that they are collecting so it is hard to state definitively if it has gone too far. At the same time while I would love to have an intelligent conversation about how to interpret a 200+ year old document to deal with technologies that were unthinkable in that time, I do recognize that the country is incapable of doing that without it degrading into attempts to score political points.
(EDIT: Shorter MattR – We’re fucked.
On that note, good night all. But I will check back in tmrw morning to read any responses)
Villago Delenda Est
WTF is wrong with this Kraft doofus? Does he expect people will believe his story instead of Putin’s?
Not that Putin is a wonderful human being, no matter what Steven Seagal says about him, but Kraft must have known that his “he took my ring!” story would get back to Putin and Putin wouldn’t just ignore it.
Cripes. Concocting a story like that is going to bite you in the ass, eventually.
piratedan
@Cacti: one of these days, this has all of the earmarks of being a Coen Brothers classic…
as I sit back and try and take all of this in, I reflect on what these last five and a half years have been like and while the first two years of the Obama Presidency were no cakewalk, a lot of work got done and a lot of steps were taken to try and get this country back on track despite the best efforts of the Right to sabotage everything that was on the agenda, they willingly stated that they would not assist in the unfucking of the country. The Media was complicit, because it’s easier to generate outrage clicks than do any actual reporting… although perhaps that’s too unkind, I should state that it’s the people that decide what gets presented as news who are the ones who are completely indifferent if the whole carnival comes down around their ears, as long as there are pictures.
Still, despite the endless efforts to tarnish, bash, misrepresent what this administration is doing and has done, they’ve not been able to find a single thing that sticks. This means that either Obama is incredibly smart and honest and forthright (a possibility) or perhaps, naive in thinking that all he has to do is try and represent the best interests of the people. The converse is that he’s incredibly smart and evil and the R’s are simply too stupid to know where to be looking to find his fatal flaw. Maybe he’s both, I just marvel that he hasn’t gone ballistic on some of the idiocy that he has to deal with on a daily basis.
I do wonder if his enemies have simply over-thought themselves and their tactics, I wonder if they had simply allowed him to serve his terms and let him run the government and implement his agenda if he wouldn’t have made some miscalculation or some misstep in policy. Instead, he’s not done much of anything the last three and a half years because the R’s have essentially put the running of the government in Amber. Yes he’s been in front of things that the public cares about, getting the wars wound down, handling of gay rights issues, gun safety reform but he’s stood with the people on each one and allowed the R’s to define themselves as the radicals without compassion, beholden to their own special interests.While he’s not perfect, the vast majority of the shit that has gone wrong is completely out of his hands, as Congress refuses to install his appointees, fund the government, close Gitmo, and allow debate.
piratedan
@MattR: I’m a tad more optimistic than you are Matt because what little oversight that exists has been put in place by this administration and he’s flat out said that I will use the power that you’ve allocated to me, are you sure that you don’t want some of it back. Doesn’t sound like a guy with a megalomaniacal complex, but that’s THIS guy, no guarantees that the next guy will be bound by the same ethical restraints. That’s the part that worries me is the abdication of the Congress to put the power solely in the hands of the President and whoever he picks to run this part of the data gathering apparatus.
Kathleen
@ruemara: Best of luck with your interview!
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@LT: So you’re one of the people who made Josh Marshall’s daddy proud.
Davis X. Machina
@MattR: Remember high school chemistry? The best lab reports come when you draw your curves first, and then plot your data.
Patricia Kayden
@piratedan: Extremely well put. Must be so disheartening for Repubs that none of the “scandals” are sticking. They need to try harder since President Obama’s not going to have an affair with an intern anytime soon.
gogol's wife
@Todd:
Your first three words are correct, but the rest is nonsense! It says something like, “you should be given candies in the rear by a capitalist pig.” I LOLed.
gogol's wife
@Yatsuno:
I’m reading this thread in the morning, and in the cold light of day it looks to me as if he’s trolling. I’d be happy to be right about this.
gogol's wife
@JGabriel:
The sense of that past tense verb in this context is actually an urgent imperative, so it’s more like “Go soonest to the dick,” except the last word is more offensive.
PsiFighter37
@gogol’s wife: Nope, I was fucking hammered last night. Hung over on a Monday morning…great way to start the week
Soonergrunt
@gogol’s wife: I transliterated it as “go suck a dick.”. Is that the approximate meaning?
gogol's wife
@Soonergrunt:
That’s a good question. I think that would be a good loose translation, although “sucking” is not explicitly implied. The word translated as “dick” is used in all kinds of mystifying ways that don’t make logical grammatical sense.
Dostoevsky wrote that he followed a group of workmen down the street, and they had an entire complicated yet completely intelligible conversation using only that one three-letter word.
gogol's wife
@gogol’s wife:
p.s. and they were in the same condition as PsiFighter was last night.
MomSense
@NickT:
First they came for the mustard. Then they came for the arugula.
different-church-lady
Ooops.
different-church-lady
I find it very interesting that certain people will find a new organization completely credible when it reports something that fits their point of view, and then completely dismiss same news organization when they retract the original reporting.
We can parse Nadler’s statement all we want, but the fact of the matter is that ZDNet no longer stands behind the original reporting. If we here at BJ are somehow being gullible for believing a “non-denial” (or whatever) then so is ZDNet.
LT
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism: That’s where I got the idea for using the word. Not the kind of word I would ever use naturally.