HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Nadler vs. Mueller
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:10 AM

Nadler vs. Mueller

Nadler is a smart, decent and reliable Democratic congressman.

Mueller is a Bush appointee.

Hmmm... Which one's claims do I believe... So tough to decide...

17 replies, 1122 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:13 AM

1. So what exactly did the smart and decent Nadler hear in that NSA briefing?

Because he forgot to tell us in the FBI hearing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:20 AM

5. Where a very perceptive DUer says the needle hasn't moved?

Looks like he's asking the same question I am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:15 AM

2. Author of the CNET article also reported that Al Gore invented the internet. Gonna believe that nut?


And in the CNET article it said that Nadler was unavailable to CNET for a comment.

Sounds to me like the CNET article is NOT backed up by any reliable source.

Would be a good idea to wait and see what Nadler has to say in the upcoming hours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:16 AM

4. So Nadler didn't say what people heard him say?

Yikes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:51 AM

14. The head in the sand people are looking for an excuse, any excuse for the spying

on Americans under Obama.

I've asked many times and have not received an answer from them with this question: what business is it of the government who I call, when I call and for how long? No answer has been forthcoming..........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:22 AM

6. Well, we should trust the NSA, those well known guardians of privacy and civil liberties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:23 AM

7. Yeah. That's how I pick and choose what to believe.

Fuck the transcript.



Mueller: As we all know, these particular records are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that to be the case. And secondly, the determination as to the legality and that standard has been addressed by the FISA Court, in the affirmative, to support this particular program.



Nadler: Let me ask you the following. Under section 215, and I’d also like to associate myself with the remarks that a dragnet subpoena for every telephone record, etc — every e-mail record, though I know they don’t do that anymore, though they could again tomorrow, and they did do it — certainly makes a mockery of the relevance standard in section 215. If everything in the world is relevant then there’s no meaning to that word. Some of us offered amendments to narrow that several years ago and in retrospect maybe we should have adopted those amendments. But that’s no excuse for a misinterpretation of relevance to the point that there is no such meaning to the word.

Now secondly, under section 215 if you’ve gotten information from metadata, and you as a result of that thing that, “gee, this phone number, 873-whatever, looks suspicious and we aught to actually get the contents of that phone. Do you need a new specific warrant?

Mueller: You need at least a national security letter. All you have is a telephone number. You do not have subscriber information, so if you need the subscriber information you would need to probably get a National Security Letter to get that subscriber information. And then if you wanted to do more —

Nadler: If you wanted to listen to the phone —

Mueller: Then you would have to get a special, a particularized order from the FISA Court directed at that particular phone and that particular individual.

Nadler: Now is the answer you just gave me classified?

Mueller: Is what?

Nadler: Is the answer you just gave me classified in any way?

Mueller: I don’t think so.

Nadler: OK, then I can say the following. We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that and you didn’t need a new warrant. In other-words what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict.

Mueller: I’m not sure it’s the answer to the same question. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt.

Nadler: Well I asked the question both times and I think it’s the same question, so maybe you better go back and check, because someone was incorrect.

Mueller: I will do that. That is my understanding of the process.

Nadler: OK, I don’t question your understanding. It was always my understanding. And I was rather startled the other day and I wanted to take this opportunity to —

Mueller: I’d be happy to clarify it.

Nadler: Thank you.


Courtesy and a H/T to LGF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:28 AM

8. So what's your point?

Forgive me for being dense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:36 AM

9. Two points actually.

No... make that three.

1) It remains unclear whether Nadler was talking about content or subscriber info.

2) It's abundantly clear that he didn't say "if the NSA wants 'to listen to the phone,' an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required", as the CNET article claims.

3) One can believe or disbelieve anyone, regardless of party affiliation.

Damn. Make it four.

4) Better to disbelieve anything ratfucking "journalists" say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 02:12 AM

17. Looks like CNET screwed up their article. Muller and Nadler were talking about 'meta-data'


-snip-

There’s no mention of it in McCullagh’s article, but this entire discussion was about metadata. They explicitly say this several times, using the word “metadata.” And metadata is not “listening to phone calls,” it’s the equivalent of looking at a telephone bill. That’s why Mueller begins (in the clip above) by saying that the Supreme Court has ruled that this kind of data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The bottom line: this CNET article and headline are extremely misleading. There is no evidence here to support the hyperbolic claims made by their article.

-snip-

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42138_CNET_Says_NSA_Admits_Listening_to_US_Phone_Calls_-_but_Thats_Not_What_the_Video_Shows




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:38 AM

10. The only reasonable conclusion is that the NSA is effing out of control

Meuller is FBI. His answer is what any reasonable person would expect. And obviously the NSA has been operating under its own rules that have no connection to the Constitution or even the Patriot or FISA acts.

This all seems to corroborate the Snowden claim that so many people here poo-poohed as outlandish that any old pole-dancer-romancer, high-school dropout can indeed wiretap without any court order.

Outlandish? Yes, indeed. But unfortunately, completely true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:50 AM

13. Here is the package

Mueller is FBI, he won't speak for the NSA, just the FBI.

NSA is secret. Nadler heard, in secret, that the NSA does tap any phone an analyst deems desirable to tap. In secret, without a warrant.

Nadler can't come right out and say so, because he has pledged to keep secrets. But what he did was find a way to say so without spilling a secret by conversing with Mueller.

Mueller, speaking for FBI says they go by the law. Nadler, speaking round about, says that what Mueller is saying is not the case when it comes to the NSA.

Which now Mueller, if he really is a public servant, will discover and bust the secret NSA spying. If.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:39 AM

11. Here, let me help you

Alex Jones calls Snowden a CIA plant/false flag patsy so I guess we must all go with Mueller to prove what good, pragmatic Democrats we are.

And the Washington Post says he's a martyr without a cause for whom no cathedral will be erected.

There. That should simplify things for you.

Edward Snowden, the impulsive ‘martyr’


By Anne Applebaum, Published: June 14

....

And his methods are curious. There is a tradition of whistleblowing in the United States, even among people who work with classified information — and there are long-established ways to do it. Snowden might have approached a member of Congress, perhaps one of those with intelligence oversight. He might have written to his organization’s lawyers, to clarify the legality of his work. He might have argued his case from within. Jack Goldsmith, a legal expert then working in the Justice Department, fought against the use of torture by the Bush administration. Eventually he resigned and wrote about it. There were setbacks, but ultimately, Goldsmith was successful: The policy was reversed.

Snowden chose a different path. He stole a hoard of documents and fled to Hong Kong. Thus did he place his fate in the hands of a government that exerts total control over its nation’s Internet and spares no expense in its attempts to penetrate ours. His decision to speak from there, in public, is also noteworthy: It means his interest in publicity trumps his stated fear of arrest.

Nothing about the context, in other words, tells us that Snowden is interested in anything other than martyrdom and a perverse sort of fame. Nothing tells us that his primary interest is the welfare of his fellow Americans. Nothing about his actions, so far, seems likely to help him achieve his stated goals. There may be further investigations. Congressional oversight might be increased. Unless we learn something new, the NSA’s data-mining will not come to a halt because of Snowden’s personal sacrifice — and, at the moment, it doesn’t seem likely that anyone will build a cathedral in his honor.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/anne-applebaum-snowden-the-impulsive-martyr/2013/06/14/5c059462-d511-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:48 AM

12. That was nice of you.

Here's some more help. Declan McCullagh, author of the CNET story is an Alex Jones regular and a Paulite so we must all go with him, blindly accepting his fabricated quotes to prove what good, holier-than-thou libertarian-cum-emo-leftists we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 01:56 AM

15. Bizarre...

These posts look much like the libertarian garbage one finds here:

http://www.infowars.com/

Check out the front page, looks identical to the horseshit they're shoveling here. Daily.

Helloooooo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 02:08 AM

16. Eh?

How about this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3020965

Al Gore: NSA Surveillance Violates The Constitution Updated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread