HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Nadler vs. Mueller » Reply #7
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
In the discussion thread: Nadler vs. Mueller [View all]

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 Iíd also like to associate myself with the remarks that a dragnet subpoena for every telephone record, etc ó every e-mail record, though I know they donít do that anymore, though they could again tomorrow, and they did do it ó certainly makes a mockery of the relevance standard in section 215. If everything in the world is relevant then thereís 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 thatís 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 youíve gotten information from metadata, and you as a result of that thing that, ďgee, 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 ó

Nadler: If you wanted to listen to the phone ó

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 donít 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 didnít need a new warrant. In other-words what you just said is incorrect. So thereís a conflict.

Mueller: Iím not sure itís the answer to the same question. Iím sorry, I didnít mean to interrupt.

Nadler: Well I asked the question both times and I think itís 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 donít question your understanding. It was always my understanding. And I was rather startled the other day and I wanted to take this opportunity to ó

Mueller: Iíd be happy to clarify it.

Nadler: Thank you.


Courtesy and a H/T to LGF.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 OP
ucrdem Jun 2013 #1
MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #3
ucrdem Jun 2013 #5
Tx4obama Jun 2013 #2
MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #4
neverforget Jun 2013 #14
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #6
LineReply Yeah. That's how I pick and choose what to believe.
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #7
MannyGoldstein Jun 2013 #8
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #9
Tx4obama Jun 2013 #17
BlueStreak Jun 2013 #10
RobertEarl Jun 2013 #13
Catherina Jun 2013 #11
OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #12
Bobbie Jo Jun 2013 #15
RobertEarl Jun 2013 #16
Please login to view edit histories.