DOJ Headed By William Barr Asked To Explain Warrantless Bulk Data Collection William Barr Authorized 27 Years Ago When He Was The Head Of The DOJ
from the DOJ's-timeline-has-become-a-flat-circle dept
More than a quarter-century ago, then-Attorney General William Barr gave the DEA something it shouldn't have had and something it certainly hadn't earned. The War on Drugs was a forever war and it demanded an expansion of the government's powers. AG Barr OK'ed it: the warrantless bulk collection of multiple third party records, including call records, banking information, and the tracking of purchases.
Twenty-seven years after the fact, the DOJ's Inspector General released its review of these programs, finding they had been crafted and deployed with no underlying legal basis. Some of these programs are defunct. Others have been codified into quasi-legitimacy by War on Terror-related government power expansions.
Twenty-seven years later, William Barr is Attorney General once again. And he's likely just as interested in expanding law enforcement surveillance programs (without worrying too much about how legal they are) as he was three decades ago. He has shown no love for the public nor their rights since he took office, making it crystal clear that neither the administration he works for nor the law enforcement agencies he oversees should be questioned by other branches of the government, much less the public they're supposed to be serving.
More questions are on the way, though. Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Pat Leahy want some answers from the DOJ about Barr's past legal misadventures and what he's doing now to address the findings of the long-delayed Inspector General's report.
“Mr. Barr’s authorization of this sweeping surveillance program without requiring, at minimum, an appropriate legal analysis, was not consistent with his oath to support and defend the Constitution and it likely amounted to professional misconduct,” Wyden and Leahy wrote. “Attorney General Barr knew, or should have known, that neither statutory law nor federal case law permitted the DEA to sweep up, in bulk, billions of records of Americans’ telephone communications. We write to ask that you open an investigation into the authorization of this recently-disclosed illegal, bulk surveillance program that collected billions of records of Americans’ telephone calls without conducting any legal analysis of the program.”
The program Barr authorized ran for more than 20 years, finally being mothballed in 2013 following the Snowden leak exposing the NSA's bulk phone records collection. The collection continued past that point, but was modified significantly, at least according to the DOJ's public statements. The Senators want specifics. Their letter [PDF] asks for details about the long-running program Barr summoned into existence for President Bush the First.
1. During the two decades in which the DEA operated Program A, did any telecommunications companies ever raise questions about its legality, refuse to comply with a DEA subpoena for bulk data, or seek judicial review?
2. According to the OIG report, the DEA transitioned in 2013 from collecting bulk records under Program A to requesting records about specific targets. What legal analysis, if any, did DOJ and DEA engage in before beginning this reconfigured surveillance program? If no legal analysis was conducted, why not?
3. Under target-specific data collection operations, DEA officials must now provide "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the target is involved in drug activity.
a. What safeguards are in place to ensure the target is actually involved in drug activity?
b. What constitutes involvement in drug activity?
c. If someone is targeted under this program, and it is later revealed there was no nexus to drug activity, what happens to the data that the DEA collected, and is the person ever notified that data about them was obtained by the government?
d. What actions will be taken to ensure this program will not be abused in a similar manner to the programs discussed in the OIG report?
The Senators also want to know what the DOJ is doing to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. They're also asking the DOJ if it's following through with the recommended overhaul of its parallel construction practices as well as the internal legal process authorizing new bulk records collection programs.
Considering Barr's running the place again, it seems unlikely answers are forthcoming, and -- if and when answers do eventually arrive -- they will be forthcoming. The new AG has made it clear the administration doesn't need to answer to anyone, not even other branches of the government that are supposed to ensure one branch doesn't grab too much power for itself.
The DOJ doesn't like talking about its screw-ups or its secrets or its ridiculous belief that Drug Wars are good and easy to win. AG Barr's position at the head of the department only buttresses these positions. I wish Wyden and Leahy all the luck in the world, but something tells me the clock will run out on this administration before the DOJ's willing to talk about a twenty-seven-year-old, potentially illegal surveillance program.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, bulk data collection, dea, doj, surveillance, warrantless surveillance, william barr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Isn't nobody can tell me what to do the hallmark of an anarchist? Isn't being an anarchist incompatible with maintaining the rule of law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anarchists ARE maintaining the rule of law. You better check your cereal for some foreign substance!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anarchists (anti-government) people are running the US now. The rule of law is being undermined by a constant stream of lies, actual law-breaking going unpunished when the President does it (Emoluments Clause) and now we have unqualified judges running the courts.
Anarchists are emphatically NOT maintaining the rule of law because gubmint is teh ebil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Those who have put themselves above the law ARE maintaining the rule of law. If that ain't anarchy baby, there is no such thing then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those above the law maintain rule of law
That's not anarchy. That's stratified rule. Like feudalism or theocracy.
So long as we've had selective enforcement we've never truly had rule of law. And that puts us back to the ratification of the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Potentially illegal surveillance program?
Do you mean like illegally spying on a presidential candidate with the FBI by using forged documents? That happened much more recently. We should probably deal with the FBI's illegal harassment of an American citizen for political reasons before we hop in a time machine to attack someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let’s do that right after we get finished putting that same citizen on trial in the Senate for abusing his power as president (via soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election for personal political gain) and obstructing Congress’s investigation of said abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We did that. Yay. Unfortunately, it sent his approval rating up, and now fewer people support impeachment now then before it started. The clueless morons are getting him reelected with their fake nonsense. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fake huh.
He admitted it on national television.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
The DOJ IG would disagree with you about a ton of characterizations you just made, particularly the "illegally" and "spying" and "presidential Candidate" and "Forged" and "political reasons".
The fact is, these programs Barr instituted are the predicates of the surveillance programs Barr is calling espionage, and were much more expansive and lacked any whiff of legal authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
What a difference a day makes eh? Sorry I was right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where have you been the last seven years?
Zof are you meaning to imply you don't remember the whole Snowden affair and why he lives in Moscow now? Or were you one of the ones who insisted that Snowden was a traitor to American for reporting on a potentially illegal surveillance program? We've been on top of that whole affair since it before Snowden's first revelations in the Guardian.
And curiously, much of the US didn't understand it enough to care.
Or do potentially illegal surveillance programs only matter when they are turned on your Hierophant?
You're late to this party. And sadly the people who condoned mass surveillance as necessary include the countless officials who took offense when it was revealed they too were being monitored. Not that it stopped them from defunding the projects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bleh. Double negatives.
Not that it stopped them from renewing funding for the projects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where have you been the last seven years?
You are projecting. You are under some illusion I like trump. I won't even capitalize his name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
"We should probably deal with the FBI's illegal harassment of an American citizen for political reasons before we ..."
Can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
You tell me. The FBI's major activity for two years has been firing idiots that pretended a fake dossier was real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
I was asking you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brain optional
Do you at any time even reflect on what you read which you later repeat like a parrot?
You do realize that if any of the things you parroted where true, no one from Trumps campaign would have gone to jail. Which some did.
And I regularly see befuddled idiots hop in a time machine to attack someone for "political reasons" - you know the type, those who thinks a valid defense for what Trump and the GOP does now is to blame some imaginary thing Hillary or Obama did years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brain optional
Hillary and Obama.. some imaginary things? Rocky, if you can imagine it, they did it!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brain optional
"Hillary and Obama.. some imaginary things? Rocky, if you can imagine it, they did it!!"
Not quite. I don't think any oval office resident is innocent of grand malfeasance of some sort...and that certainly includes Both Clintons and Obama. What you CAN say is that for most presidents the possibly criminal acts they ordered or allowed will have been unintentional - and in that I include not only Obama but also GWB (mainly since it was pretty clear he was gullible, naíve to the point of maliciousness, and often simply sock puppeted by Cheney and the other neoconservatives).
If you consider that the average law-abiding american citizen violates multiple laws daily because there are too damn many of them, many of which don't make sense in this century or have no valid bearing outside of existing federal investigations then imagine the legal maze a politician with power must navigate.
The issue is with intentional malfeasance. And today the greatest examples we have of that remain Nixon and Trump.
Should Obama and Hillary have been censured for their war on whistleblowers and use of private servers to avoid paper trails? Yes, no questions asked. Among other things.
Trump, otoh, comes into a level of "shady" which republicans themselves tried to use to impeach Bill Clinton. Except that Trump does the same Bill did. Every day, a dozen times over.
If you want to play the whataboutism game then at least make sure you aren't comparing molehills to mountains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Trump is less corrupt than most of the other President's during my lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
"Trump is less corrupt than most of the other President's during my lifetime."
Upon what do you base your conclusion?
How many presidents have served during your lifetime?
Are there any ulterior motives for your post?
Is your post sarcastic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Those 3-year olds are getting scary good with tech!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
I don't remember either Obama or Clinton using hotels they owned for official business. Nope, not at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
"I don't remember either Obama or Clinton using hotels they owned for official business. Nope, not at all."
Which, unbelievably, is both the most blatantly obvious and the most embarrassingly petty example of corruption in trump's administration.
Far less sanguine would be the half-dozen or so press spokesmen in the white house who have stood up and flat-out lied straight into the face of the american public. And every time one of them gets in too much hot water over that they get fired and another one appointed to keep the farce running.
I mean, when Bill Clinton fibbed about whether he had sex with his intern the republicans called for his scalp and balls on a silver platter, claiming it was a subject of impeachment when a president lied to his people.
Trump can't tell the truth to save his life and demonstrably lies - straight out - half a dozen times a day and the same republicans calling for Clinton's impeachment are silent as the grave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Trump can't tell the truth to save his life and demonstrably lies - straight out - half a dozen times a day and the same republicans calling for Clinton's impeachment are silent as the grave.
When they're not busting a gut to defend him. Lindsey Graham has a thick coat of boot polish on his tongue these days. Ugh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Twelve presidents. All but three were known to be corrupt as hell by many accounts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
More so than trump ... interesting take on the present situation. Care to share the evidence backed data you had read?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
You’re rather precocious for a three year old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
"Trump is less corrupt than most of the other President's during my lifetime."
Lolwhut?
Even Bill Clinton doesn't come close. Hell, Nixon is probably less corrupt than Trump. Under GWB every government department drowned in nepotistic and self-serving opportunists but you can blame most of that on cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, GWB himself being too dumb to notice that his good friends were abusing the system for everything they could.
Count, on one hand, how many other presidents have had close presidential relatives given important high-paid white house jobs without fulfilling a single competency criteria?
Count, on that same hand, how many other presidents have gone through similar loopholes to retain full authority over an extensive business empire?
Count, again on the same hand, how many presidents have tried to have important international conferences exclusively held within the facilities of said business empire?
Trump is shady as fuck and dictionary-definition corrupt - he isn't even TRYING to hide the fact that he's abusing his office for personal wealth. What he is not is a proven criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Even if he was proven in court to be a criminal, his loopy base would continue to support him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
"Even if he was proven in court to be a criminal, his loopy base would continue to support him."
He could give a full confession on camera and his fan base would still believe it was a conspiracy made by the baby-eating democrats.
Hell, he's on tape advocating the use of women's genitals as a convenient handle and they still believe he's a great guy. Or perhaps his voter base think he's swell because of that statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Have you ever been with a woman?
advocating the use of women's genitals as a convenient handle
Sometimes, thats the ony way to get the Gspot. And the goodgals will even guide you to it.
Aaaaaw....never mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
"Have you ever been with a woman?"
Hmm...If by that you mean "grabbed her by the Pxxsy without consent" then no. If by "concensual sex, then yes".
"Sometimes, thats the ony way to get the Gspot. And the goodgals will even guide you to it."
...thank you for that somehoiw naíve assumption that Trump would be grabbing women by the genitals with their consent.
Without which it would be, you know, pretty fucking much NOT OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Consent was purchased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Guys! When a rich powerful man can do whatever he wants, then pay to make it go away, none of that is okay.
Those women who accept the payments do so in order to be able to move on with their lives knowing that the rich and powerful can make their lives a misery if they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Yes, it was not implied to be ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Consent was purchased"
The power imbalances between women often in peonage or wage slavery versus filthy rich Ayn-Randian heros aside, most of Trump's groping was without consent or reparations.
† My brain goes to The Court Jester (1955, Danny Kaye) Ahhh...wenches...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
"Consent was purchased."
Oh, stop. A woman's right to govern her own body starts by her having the right to determine, beforehand, who gets to lay hands on said body.
Not by some fat rich middle-aged crudely groping that body and then afterwards trying to determine whether or not the advance was welcome - or whether the intimidation factor of power and wealth is big enough to shut the victim up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Yup
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
you're an idiot. go educate yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Molehill isn't selling OUR COUNTRY'S Uranium to our enemies. Fuck. People have short memories. I nearly choked when I read Vince Foster's death according to wiki was a scandal.. It was an unsolved vicious killing. Saudi Arabia put Obama thru college. He lied to America saying keep your own doctors with his new clusterfuck healthcare nightmare. His birth certificate was a hoax, his own brother testifies he was born in Keyna. None of us are near perfect, but wtf? Those few facts are in no way shadowed by our present scapegoat for everything that is wrong with the US government.. Pleaase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Hillary didn't sell uranium. Vince Foster's death was a suicide which Republicans exploited for their own gain. Obama's birth certificate was not fake; a very stable genius told you that Obama was born in the US. Period. He also told you Hillary was a great woman and that you should be nice to her. How dare you go against the word of the God-Emperor, heretic? Don't you know he's fixed the ACA?
Inferring from how truthful you've been, you cheered when you read his death was a scandal, you grave-robbing shitlord.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
You believe what you make up! LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
That make you the king of batshit insane conspiracy theories bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Just don't blame everyone for your ignorance on the real world. I didn't say willful ignorance, but take a look in the mirror and see for yourself. Maybe you would rather jot a few accusations down on techdirt than to actually do any real research. If you can't do that then you are putting out disinformation to protect a horrible bunch who do not have the slightest concern for your life or not even their own, but are hellbent on our distruction. Whose side are you on, bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Real research is not done by consulting conspiracy theorists for information. Actual research means going through official records and legal documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Actually sis, if you have real hard facts on government documents you could share today, that would be great, but WATCH OUT, you won't have them tomorrow.. in fact I'll bet you won't have anything at all. That is how they are getting away with everything they are getting away with. They have a brotherhood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"They have a brotherhood"
Not a very good one.
In fact, the whole doing-fuck-all-about-global-warming thing kinda dispels the notion of any competent hidden ministry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Vince Foster was murdered and the records removed from his office that inplicated her in the Whitewater scandal. That was the scandal. Not murder. Murder is way worse than scandal. But they love to down play everything to make it seem like a nonissue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Prove it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
He's not going to. The brotherhood has hidden the proof, you see, so it's not his fault, or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
He lied to America saying keep your own doctors with his new clusterfuck healthcare nightmare.
And the republican solution for this clusterfuck was to largely leave it as-is. Why is that, given how strongly you people feel about it? You had total control of congress for two years, along with a moron in the white house who'd rubber stamp any piece of shit you forwarded to him. You didn't fix health care, you didn't give him any money for the wall Mexico was going to pay for, and you didn't even try to lock her up.
Such impotence.
His birth certificate was a hoax, his own brother testifies he was born in Keyna.
And of course, given he was three-years old at the time, I'm sure we can rely on his testimony. Of course they met for the 1st time in 1985, but that doesn't fit your narrative so I'm sure we can dismiss it.
Those few facts are in no way shadowed by our present scapegoat for everything that is wrong with the US government..
I know, right? It's amazing how such a strong man can be the victim so many times. Tots and pears for him, for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
You are under the delusion that one side is pitted against the other. Don't insult my intelligence. You think they are actually divided? Thats a fucking joke you missed decades ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Don't insult my intelligence.
You'll need to exhibit some first before I can attempt to insult it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Ok you got me with that one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
The GOP healthcare plan for every but themselves else is:
Just Hurry Up And Die Already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullshit-meter broke
Please, indeed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bullshit-meter broke
After he committed suicide he moved his own body to the park where there was no blood. That is really rich. They cease all investigation further. What a fucking government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
There where 5 different investigations spread over a period of 4 years and they all came to the same conclusion - suicide.
That some asshats (mainly Richard Mellon Scaife) used Fosters death to promulgate some conspiracy-theories in an effort to go after Bill Clinton apparently found fertile soil among a bunch of useful idiots it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
I don't know where you dug that up. At the time around his death, it was reported that there was no blood at the scene and that his body had been placed there. You do not know the long long list of people that have first hand knowledge of these people end up dead from apparent suicides or unexplainable mishaps? Why do you try to protect them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
Because you have provided no links to support your assertions. We all know why: they'd be from Infowars or Breitbart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
This happened before most of you people were old enough to wipe the snot off your noses!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
Well - that proves your theory for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
I never have watched those guys. I'm not sure they haven't been placed there just to make those they call conspiracy theorists look even nuttier than some of us are!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
BINGO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
It's a matter of public record and it's quite easy to find:
1993 - Investigation done by the United States Park Police with assistance from the FBI
1994 - Independent report by coroner & Robert B. Fiske. See ref: Gerald S. Greenberg, Historical Encyclopedia of U.S. Independent Counsel Investigations, Greenwood Press, 2000. ISBN 0-313-30735-0. pp 133–134.
1994 - Investigation by US Congress rep William F. Clinger Jr. (R). See ref: Gerald S. Greenberg, Historical Encyclopedia of U.S. Independent Counsel Investigations, Greenwood Press, 2000. ISBN 0-313-30735-0. pp 133–134.
1995 - Investigation by Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. See ref: Gerald S. Greenberg, Historical Encyclopedia of U.S. Independent Counsel Investigations, Greenwood Press, 2000. ISBN 0-313-30735-0. pp 133–134.
1994-1995 - Investigation by independent counsel Ken Starr.
My sources are actual public records, your sources seems to be... non-existent. Unless you read some of the made up shit Richard Mellon Scaife published.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bullshit-meter broke
They can't go after an ex-pres first lady like they can't put the Queen of England in jail. She sold 20% of our uranium to Russia. It was news around the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
If you can't be bothered to learn how CFIUS works you will be stuck in your ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
I was reading this as it happened. Half the people commenting here were in grade school at the time. I doubt they gave two shits. The government now has had plenty of time and motivation to rewrite the stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
So you now agree it was the government that sold the uranium!
Gee, that was kind of the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
Was it the government or was it Hillary?
Does Hillary control the government like Obama controls the weather?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
"She sold 20% of our uranium to Russia."
As if Russia didn't have more uranium than they actually know what to do with?
What did she do next, sell oil to the Saudis? Or desert sand?
If you HAVE to fall for a conspiracy theory at least go for one which isn't up there with the fat man flying through the air dragged by nine reindeer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
She sold 20% of our yellowcake to Russia. Where in the fuck were you when this was ALLOVER WORLD NEWS???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
Perhaps you can then provide links to news-articles stating that Hillary sold the stuff to the Russians...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
Geez, why don't you pay attention to these things AS THEY HAPPEN, then you won't be asking me for FREE services to provide you with all the evidence. (the door opened... and you got in!?! wtf..)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
I am beside myself in utter awe that you did not hear of this just before Pres Trump won election this had been going on during obama's unfortunate reign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
I do pay attention to things, I don't get my "facts" from misleading headlines that's there to bamboozle the less intelligent for clicks.
Now, go and learn how the sale really happened. You can start by reading up on CFIUS and how they work in regards of sales for these kind of resources to foreign companies and how the DOJ is in the loop to vet the sales.
Or perhaps you are one of those that knows what he knows, damn the facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullshit-meter broke
"She sold 20% of our yellowcake to Russia. Where in the fuck were you when this was ALLOVER WORLD NEWS???"
Reading about it and finding that aside from Breitbart and Fox no credible news agency decided to put it quite that way.
The Uranium One deal had about as much to do with Clinton as a hamster has to do with floorwax. CFIUS and the NRC did.
If anything it was the other way around. Clinton approved what was advised by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The US currently has over 6000 nuclear warheads in inventory. Enough to eradicate all life on the planet a few dozen times over. Russia has about the same. There is, to put it mildly, absolutely no reason for either nation to amass MORE weaponsgrade material, given that the existing stockpile already costs more in maintenance than it's really worth.
Even IF the Breitbart hysterical headline had been true it would have been a non-issue to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
How are those chemtrails this morning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
You have completely made a moronic but well-meaning mistake! Just because you don't no shit about anything, just keep commenting like this. You will probably get a job on the wh staff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
“Just because you don't no shit about anything, just keep commenting like this.”
Such lovely projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Such denial!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
"Just because you don't no shit "
I know the difference between the word 'no' and the word 'know', do you?
I am not looking for a job, and would not accept one at the present wh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
"Saudi Arabia put Obama thru college. He lied to America saying keep your own doctors with his new clusterfuck healthcare nightmare. His birth certificate was a hoax, his own brother testifies he was born in Keyna."
Nope, nope and then again, nope.
There is, in the US, not a single person in the position to know any of the above who actually agrees with you.
Trump invented the birther movement and all we need to know to understand WHY he did that is to listen to his own statements prior to his presidency on how he'd never trust a black man.
You're basically parroting the long-debunked conspiracy theories invented freeform by a not-so-closet racist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Because they appeal to right-wingers. The "research" he bids us do would lead us to the dodgiest conspiracy sites in order to confirm his nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
"The "research" he bids us do would lead us to the dodgiest conspiracy sites in order to confirm his nonsense."
Of course it would. It's pretty simple. He already knows what he wants to see so that's what he'll end up seeing. Any evidence to the contrary he can easily dismiss as "propaganda".
It's not restricted to right-wingers but I admit you have to go all the way to radical marxist terrorists from 1970's europe before you hit the same type of willfull denial of reality as what we currently see in the american right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Eh, I'm seeing it in the radical Marxist Twitterati today. They're currently pretending that Hong Kong is a non-issue being stoked by the evil Western powers and that all the stories we're hearing about the mistreatment of the Uighurs is anti-Chinese propaganda. They're also pretending the Chinese regime is communist when it abandoned actual communism years ago on account of it being a dangerous nonsense when put into practice.
This is why I can't abide extremists. They lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
"They're currently pretending that Hong Kong is a non-issue being stoked by the evil Western powers..."
Hong Kong's democracy died 1997 and anyone staying behind should have known better than to rely on a "two system" promise not worth the paper it was written on. In a way those marxist twitterati are right - Hong kong IS a non-issue since irrespective of any action short of world war 3 China won't sit and wait until 2040 before it fully reintegrates its wayward province into the hegemony of Qin.
"...and that all the stories we're hearing about the mistreatment of the Uighurs is anti-Chinese propaganda."
Which, looking back at the conflict between China and the western territories, is so much smoke and mirrors meant to disguise the fact that what China conquered back two millennia ago they aren't letting go of. The conflict is usually at a low burn until, intermittently, someone raises the flag of East Turkestan independence in Xinjiang at which point China reacts to quash the uprising, in traditional imperial heavy-handed fashion.
It doesn't help that most fervent foreign supporters of the turkestan secessionists happen to be organizations such as Al-Quaeda and similar extremist groups while the majority of the middle eastern community keeps studiously silent.
This, of course, leaves most western states stumped. The US is too embarrassed to question China about the way they handle terrorism after Iraq and Abu ghraib.
Currently what is happening is simple - China has decided that the Uighurs won't stay away from rebellion until they stop being Uighur. Which is why what is happening today is nothing less than an attempt by China to eradicate the Uighurs as a culture, with the intent that a few generations down the line an ethnic uighur will just be as good a chinese citizen as any Han or Hui.
Ethnic cleansing in its purest form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Wrong, those sites were very much center stage, But if you people want someone to lead you down that rabbit hole I would be taking payment for doing your research for you. Dispute me all you want, but I am the person and many like myself the government wants to stop from being free to say what I know And mark my words they will stop you too. Just because I don't have links available at the drop of your hats, don't stop being open minded. Dig deep and find out for yourselves. There is shit brewing that seems impossible to even imagine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Center stage fell off the earth
It's funny that when people call out your bullshit you can't back it up with one shred of evidence.
Also, if you don't have links "at the drop of a hat" those sites that you refer to as "very much center stage" isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Center stage fell off the earth
I don't care if none of you (believe) me because you were mot paying attention to these events WHEN THEY HAPPENED. lol you can be as ignorant as everyone else if you are too fucking lazy to verify it for your self. Im not your mother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Center stage fell off the earth
You make the assertion, you prove it. If you can't you are just full of bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Center stage fell off the earth
I don't have to prove anything. You prove it otherwise or don't dispute it. This is America. I am innocent until proven guilty!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innocent until proven guilty
The 100.00% indictment rate and 90% conviction rate in the US demonstrates that is a myth. In the meantime, your assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Feel free to cite sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Center stage fell off the earth
Most people that shit post agree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Center stage fell off the earth
"I don't care if none of you (believe) me because you were mot paying attention to these events WHEN THEY HAPPENED..."
Except that those events really didn't happen. Except for Breitbart and Fox news.
The rest simply wondered - briefly - why the CFIU and the NRC would allow the Uranium One deal until they realized that from either US or russian perspective it had nothing to do with national security if a nation with 6000+ nuclear warheads sold material which a nation with also 6000+ nuclear warheads might potentially use to make...warheads.
It's about as much of a security spectacle as if Colt had decided to sell Armalite a winchester carbine and a packet of ammo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain optional
Shiny side goes on the inside!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brain optional
Fun Fact: Because the FBI forged documents, almost all of those convictions will get overturned now. Only Manafort's might stick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
Bro you’d do better back at the kids table at wnd.com until you can learn how to behave like an adult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
Brobro.
Bro
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
Zof, I wish you would answer Uriel-238s question about Snowden, so I can make up my mind about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
I don't matter that much. I'm flattered though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
ok then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
Well we know you’re a racist misogynist conspiracy minded cunt so you two should get on like a cum dumpster on fire bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
Hey, Zof, can you help me flag this broken record AC just above here always imagining massagingvaginy and dumpster diving cum dumpsters?
I could use some Zof 2.0, if you have any to spare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
☞IKNOWYOUAREBUTWHATAMI!©☜
@AC, whoeveryouare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Potentially illegal surveillance program?
We should probably deal with the FBI's illegal harassment of an American citizen for political reasons before we hop in a time machine to attack someone.
And in terms of "we" he means the republicans who had full control of both houses of congress for 4 years and chose to do nothing. Along with having control of the executive branch as well for two years during that period and doing just as little.
Protip for you, Hairdo: when you're in charge and do nothing, you don't get to whine like a bitch about nothing being done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want someone with authority in the government to answer this question; "Why does the government hate the people of America so dispicably that it uses all of its power and its time to write bad laws inflicting every possible bad faith act against the people?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Fuck you, that’s why.” — everyone in the American government, probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yet, we are the embodiment of everyone in our country from whom the government has drawn upon to fight every war and for what, a government who fucking hates us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I want someone with authority in the government to answer this question; "Why does the government hate the people of America so dispicably that it uses all of its power and its time to write bad laws inflicting every possible bad faith act against the people?""
That one's pretty simple. EVERY government will try to curtail the people's power and ability to gain or disseminate knowledge because in the end the people are who elect the government.
It's in the interest of every administration to thus screw the people as hard as they can in order to further their own agenda and blame the opposition for the toxic fallout.
Or, to summarize the above; The government does all that you claim because politicians know by now that you, the people, will always let them get away with it.
That's why every election boils down to both candidates desperately trying to mudsling the other.
The voters who voted dem/rep in generations past will vote the same today and tomorrow no matter what, so the only ones they really need to convince are the small percentage of swing voters in a sufficiently gerrymandered district needed to give decisive advantage in the electoral college.
Since politicians know all of this they could care less what 95% of you think - you either don't count for much in the next election or you'll vote for whatever party your grandfather voted for anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That one's pretty simple.. in the end it is the people who elect government.,
First of all you lack the authority to answer my question. Second, it is not the people who elect the government. Do you think these people who have agendas for the world would leave it up to chance who is in control of the government. I have watched the way these people (and I use that term loosely) have usurped our government. The first time was live on tv for me to witness their horrific crimes against America. I have watched with a scrutinizing eye on them ever since. I was tortured by three branches of the military at a very young age. It is so nasty and sick that we can't trust our own government. But if you think you know them and trust them, who am I to piss all over your picnic? Good luck with whatever you're doing in life. Don't say I didn't warn you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What sort of question answering authority are we talking about here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What sort of question answering authority are we talking about here?"
I suspect the answer he's looking for is "The authority provided by someone sharing my views".
And also takes a dim view of anyone not sharing his argument that the "government" is a cohesive and coordinated entity of active malice rather than, as is more likely by far, a scattered coalition of warring tribes whose individual tribesmen consistently stab one another in the back at even the slightest promise of profit.
You simply can't build a conspiracy around short-sighted dimwitted egocentric sheeple without any common cause other than trying to deny responsibility for all the bad shit which happens as a result of ineptitude and greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Drug activity"
That's a more important question than it might appear at first, if that's how the rule is really worded. Note that there's no requirement it relate to illegal drug activity. That would let them track something as innocent as how much tylenol you use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Drug activity"
So what is this news? You tracking us joe? Spit it out man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Drug activity"
Yeah.. I use a lot of tolulene. Spit it out man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]