Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJustice Department contradicts Attorney General Loretta Lynch's claims about Patriot Act
http://boingboing.net/2015/05/21/justice-department-report-cont.htmlIn the midst of the last-minute Congressional debate about whether to re-authorize Patriot Act Section 215, the Justice Department Inspector General (IG) released a long awaited report today on how the FBI has used (and abused) Section 215 for the past few years. Unfortunately, the report is heavily redacted so the law's use remains largely shrouded in secrecy, but one passage in the IG report is particularly revealing: It directly contradicts what Attorney General Loretta Lynch said just today about Section 215s supposed importance.
As ACLU's Jameel Jaffer pointed out, one of the IG report's main conclusions is that FBI did not identify any major case developments that resulted from use of the records obtained in response to Section 215 orders.
Meanwhile, today Attorney General Loretta Lynch weighed in on the debate in Congress, claiming the exact opposite. She was quoted by CBS News as saying that if Patriot Act Section 215 expires: [W]e lose important tools. I think that we lose the ability to intercept these communications, which have proven very important in cases that we have built in the past. (emphasis mine)
So to sum up: the Justice Departments own Inspector General said information collected under Section 215 did not lead to "any major case developments, but the Attorney General said that Section 215 has proven very important in cases that we have built. Both statements cannot be true...
As ACLU's Jameel Jaffer pointed out, one of the IG report's main conclusions is that FBI did not identify any major case developments that resulted from use of the records obtained in response to Section 215 orders.
Meanwhile, today Attorney General Loretta Lynch weighed in on the debate in Congress, claiming the exact opposite. She was quoted by CBS News as saying that if Patriot Act Section 215 expires: [W]e lose important tools. I think that we lose the ability to intercept these communications, which have proven very important in cases that we have built in the past. (emphasis mine)
So to sum up: the Justice Departments own Inspector General said information collected under Section 215 did not lead to "any major case developments, but the Attorney General said that Section 215 has proven very important in cases that we have built. Both statements cannot be true...
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 1061 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (12)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Justice Department contradicts Attorney General Loretta Lynch's claims about Patriot Act (Original Post)
friendly_iconoclast
May 2015
OP
She is against legalizing marijuana and is very on board with civil forfeiture. So, yeah.
djean111
May 2015
#3
Yet she had so much support here on DU while the GOPers were stonewalling her confirmation.
Nuclear Unicorn
May 2015
#4
Yeah, I would mention her stance on pot and civil forfeiture many many times, but
djean111
May 2015
#5
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)1. Well, well, well.
Seems like Lynch is a Holder clone.
nikto
(3,284 posts)2. Sounds like she is trying hard to be a tool
Gotta' please those insiders, Y'Know?
But I could be wrong.
djean111
(14,255 posts)3. She is against legalizing marijuana and is very on board with civil forfeiture. So, yeah.
Not much difference. Plus, as usual, Wall Street will enjoy immunity from jail.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)4. Yet she had so much support here on DU while the GOPers were stonewalling her confirmation.
Did somebody leave out the rule book on how to play 11th-dimensional chess where the GOP could find it?
djean111
(14,255 posts)5. Yeah, I would mention her stance on pot and civil forfeiture many many times, but
evidently the ONLY thing about her that was relevant was Obama. I doubt the GOP cared, either, really, they just block everything. But I was mystified that she was a candidate that so many people were enthusiastic about.
Reminds me of the TPP support.
nikto
(3,284 posts)7. Great punchline!
Nobody gets rolled these days like certain pathetic Dems who just need so much
to be fair, balanced and "moderate".
reddread
(6,896 posts)6. meanwhiles